Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Bubbly Bitcoin Thread -- Merged Threads


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, fatspanner said:

Ive been quite lucky. I'm buying a house and the mortgage company wanted to see the deposit funds so took my original capital out at 59,200. I've then DCA'd that back in from 42 down to 36k. So I have a small amount with a low time preference. 

The other will ride highs and lows until after the next halving. 

 

nice! well done worked out better. Lowered your cost per BTC at the very least which is always good. Congratulations on the house. Feels great having your own place, and feels even better being mortgage free, work feel so much more manageable when it doesn't stretch out until i'm 68 anymore.

Bitcoin changes lives!  

Edited by jiltedjen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fatspanner said:

Ive been quite lucky. I'm buying a house and the mortgage company wanted to see the deposit funds so took my original capital out at 59,200. I've then DCA'd that back in from 42 down to 36k. So I have a small amount with a low time preference. 

The other will ride highs and lows until after the next halving. 

 

Another person successfully using Bitcoin to stick it to the man. Well done. 👏 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, goldbug9999 said:

The only additional interesting feature of a blockchain over a database is BFT, and private/corporate blockchains do not exhibit BFT.

Your opinion, quite unique. I think you will miss out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Obviously not immaterial to the El Salvadorians. But it's great that you have such an interest in how they should run their lives.

Bitcoin was a micropayment system, missed the boat on that. Third world skipped banks and used phones for banking.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_payments_in_India

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Bitcoin was a micropayment system, missed the boat on that. Third world skipped banks and used phones for banking.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_payments_in_India

 

Noob comment is noob:

"Customers wishing to avail themselves of this service will have to register with banks which provide this service. "

 

You still don't get it do you!!! Apart from salty fiat lovers, the people don't want nor need banks. 🤣🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Noob comment is noob:

"Customers wishing to avail themselves of this service will have to register with banks which provide this service. "

 

You still don't get it do you!!! Apart from salty fiat lovers, the people don't want nor need banks. 🤣🤣

Read the second article, two billion mobile phone payment customers.

The billion phone banking customers in India have bank accounts on their phones.

That's half the world population who have mobile banking services.

No need for Bitcoin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, goldbug9999 said:

Casa have a good rep but I havnt looked in detail at their offering, I might do in the not too distant future though.

Thank you @goldbug9999 I'm considering both, as a way to minimise any counterparty risk.  They both have different strengths.  I have time before I reach this point.  Not paying $5k p.a for the inheritance plan that's for sure!  That's probably for people like you, MMC, MH and JJ etc

3 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

I can't view it but I know Plan B will be mightily relieved.  His entire reputation is staked on his model and as you know, he recently packed in his institutional job. @MonsieurCopperCrutch

2 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

Read the second article, two billion mobile phone payment customers.

The billion phone banking customers in India have bank accounts on their phones.

That's half the world population who have mobile banking services.

No need for Bitcoin.

Less need for banks and some are aware of this hence the institutional interest in harnessing the value of BTC where they can.  Strike is built on the layer 2 of the BTC protocol, invented in the main by a 25 year old.  You need to consider the Bitcoin Beach Project to have a more informed view, imho. @Peter Hun

Edited by Buffer Bear
Added posters names!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

Read the second article, two billion mobile phone payment customers.

The billion phone banking customers in India have bank accounts on their phones.

That's half the world population who have mobile banking services.

No need for Bitcoin.

You need to watch Bitcoin Beach.

No need for Banks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

You need to watch Bitcoin Beach.

No need for Banks.

Billions of people already don’t use banks for banking services. 

Bitcoin will have no effect on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buffer Bear said:

Thank you @goldbug9999 I'm considering both, as a way to minimise any counterparty risk.  They both have different strengths.  I have time before I reach this point.  Not paying $5k p.a for the inheritance plan that's for sure!  That's probably for people like you, MMC, MH and JJ etc

There was some discussion of inheritance issues and some apparently simple solutions on here around 7-8 months ago

What's the problem you are trying to solve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

There was some discussion of inheritance issues and some apparently simple solutions on here around 7-8 months ago

What's the problem you are trying to solve. 

Thank you @Confusion of VIs

I'm considering how best to ensure that in the worse case scenario, and in the future, my family are unable able to access my BTC without an overcomplicated method as this may increase the risk of it being lost.

Edited by Buffer Bear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Choice is coming, whether you like it or not.

But keep on doing the bidding of the bankster cartels. They love malleable sheeple.

Why do you continue to post crap like this? I'm far more involved with changing the status pro than you will ever be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Buffer Bear said:

Thank you @Confusion of VIs

I'm considering how best to ensure that in the worse case scenario, and in the future, my family are unable able to access my BTC without an overcomplicated method as this may increase the risk of it being lost.

I believe that the scripting changes associated with taproot (coming November) will allow you to squirrel funds in an address (actually, script) with conditions like multisig required, unless the funds don't move for a specified period, in which case it decays to single key. You would keep two private keys yourself, enabling you access at any time, but give one to a solicitor/trusted family member, which they could use after X years if you died. Don't know if that was the kind of thing you were thinking of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

Why do you continue to post crap like this? I'm far more involved with changing the status pro than you will ever be.

Nope. I am living the future why you shuffle around excuses and apologise for those that have financially enslaved you. There is always a need for useful fools. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sackot said:

I believe that the scripting changes associated with taproot (coming November) will allow you to squirrel funds in an address (actually, script) with conditions like multisig required, unless the funds don't move for a specified period, in which case it decays to single key. You would keep two private keys yourself, enabling you access at any time, but give one to a solicitor/trusted family member, which they could use after X years if you died. Don't know if that was the kind of thing you were thinking of.

IIRC it was something like that, a time condition that needed to be reset once a year otherwise the funds would move to an address your OH/Children had control over. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crypto Lode of $100 Billion Stirs U.S. Worry Over Hidden Danger

 

Regulators are worried about hidden risks to investors and even the financial system stemming from a fast-growing corner of the crypto market meant to be immune from volatility.

Their focus is on so-called stablecoins, a form of cryptocurrency that has a fixed price, typically one dollar, and is backed by real-money reserves.

 

At the end of May, the total market capitalization of stablecoins, which include ones offered by crypto firms Tether and Centre, broke $100 billion.

But in recent weeks, lawmakers and officials from the Federal Reserve and the administration have expressed alarm both in public and private that some consumers won’t actually be protected should one of the firms not have the backing they purport to have. They also say the growing size of stablecoins has created a situation where huge amounts of U.S. dollar-equivalent coins are being exchanged without touching the U.S. banking system, potentially blinding regulators to illicit finance.

“They’re dangerous to both their users and, as they grow, to the broader financial system,” said Lev Menand, an academic fellow at Columbia Law School, in testimony to a Senate Banking subcommittee last week.

Administration officials have expressed concern to representatives of stablecoin issuers in recent weeks that consumers don’t understand that money held in a stablecoin isn’t protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and that, in some cases, they could potentially lose money on a stablecoin, according to a person familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to describe confidential discussions. The person said officials are also worried that criminals could use stablecoins to transfer money without having to touch a bank, meaning that they could avoid protections meant to catch money laundering and other illicit activity.

Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren compared stablecoins to “wildcat notes” issued by poorly capitalized banks in the 19th century that later stuck many of their holders with large losses, speaking at a Senate Banking subcommittee hearing last week. Warren said that if the Federal Reserve were to issue its own digital currency, consumers could get the benefits of a stablecoin without that kind of risk.

The U.S. and other nations are already considering launching their own digital currencies. Those coins, known as central bank digital currencies, would be direct competitors to stablecoins. Later this year, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston plans to publish research and open-source code showing technology that could underpin a digital dollar. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has said lawmakers will likely need to weigh in for the project to advance and that the process could take years.

Last month, in a statement on the Fed’s progress in researching a CBDC, Powell said that stablecoins could pose risks to the financial system. “As stablecoins’ use increases, so must our attention to the appropriate regulatory and oversight framework,” Powell said.

Days after Powell’s statement, Fed Governor Lael Brainard in a speech gave her own warning, saying that widening use of stablecoins could fragment the financial system, potentially raising costs for U.S. households and businesses.

Brainard and other Fed officials have warned that if privately-issued stablecoins become widely used, but consumers then lose confidence in them, it could result in the kind of “run on the bank” panic that threatens financial stability.

As cryptocurrency trading has exploded, so has the use of stablecoins. Right now, investors primarily use stablecoins as a place to park money on cryptocurrency exchanges without having to transfer cash back to their bank accounts. The largest by far, with a market capitalization of $62.6 billion, is Tether, which is incorporated in Hong Kong. U.S. Dollar Coin, or USDC, has a market value of $23.8 billion and was created by the Centre Consortium, a partnership between crypto payments firm Circle Internet Financial Inc. and U.S. crypto exchange Coinbase Global Inc.

Early stablecoin controversies circled around Tether International Ltd., which originally said its coins were completely backed by cash. In February, New York’s attorney general said the company for years didn’t actually have the cash it said it did and banned Tether from trading with New York residents. Now the company says Tether’s coin is backed not just by cash, but by assets including commercial paper, corporate bonds and precious metals. The Centre Consortium says each U.S. Dollar Coin is backed by a dollar held in a bank account.

“Tether embraces transparency and regulation,” said Tether General Counsel Stuart Hoegner, in a statement, noting that the company is registered as a money-services business with the Treasury Department. Hoegner said Tether doesn’t currently accept U.S. customers and is pursuing audits for past years of Tether’s reserves. “We continue to look for avenues of regulation globally and are pursuing regimes in several countries,” he said.

Centre didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Other than continuing work on a potential central bank digital currency and increasing what stablecoin firms have to disclose to consumers, it’s unclear what regulators can do to slow stablecoins’ rapid growth. Timothy Massad, former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in a May op-ed said the Securities and Exchange Commission could regulate stablecoins in a similar way to money-market funds, which aren’t FDIC-insured and faced stress during the 2008 financial crisis.

One bill introduced in Congress last year would require stablecoin issuers to have a banking charter and get approval from the Fed, among other agencies, though the bill is unlikely to become law.

The most immediate way that some stablecoins might come under attack is from enforcers, such as what happened with the New York attorney general, who could pursue issuers for lying to consumers, said Josh Lipsky, director of the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center. Lipsky said stablecoin issuers could eventually work in tandem with international governments’ projects to issue their own digital currencies but that the U.S. and others will have to develop regulations to ensure consumers aren’t hurt.

“The way it’s marketed is that you’re getting a dollar, but stablecoins are not always that stable,” Lipsky said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.