Fulham related - remember that crypto chat in here...

[jayffc]

I think there may be a long term future for government regulated digital currencies, but not for the existing generation of cryptocurrencies as a mechanism for buying and selling goods and services.  Tt is noteworthy that cryptocurrencies still don't have any intrinsic value - their worth is still measured and expressed in fiat currency terms (i.e. "I have got x bitcoins which are worth y pounds", never "I have got x pounds which are worth y bitcoins").  As things stand, cryptocurrencies are tradeable assets, measured in terms of their fiat currency value; they have not become replacements for money as intended.

I fear for a world in which cryptocurrencies become the dominant force behind economic activity.  I think that they would badly damage the lives of billions of people, unless taken over as digital currencies and regulated by government. It would take an essay or even a book to set out all the reasons, but I'll summarise just three, the first two as mentioned by Tim Harford, a respected economist, statistician and thinker:

(1) Your bank can send a replacement internet banking login if you forget yours or lose it. Lose the passcode to your Bitcoin wallet, and you can kiss all your money goodbye. (A problem for inheritance too if someone dies without passing on their passcode)

(2) Banks and other intermediaries who hold/control fiat currencies can also resolve disputes. How best to do that with blockchain "smart contracts" is most kindly described as an evolving conversation.

(3) Cryptocurrency safety - there is none. Fiat currency is guaranteed by government. If you hold money in a bank, there is a high degree of protection against you losing money from criminal activity or the bank going bust; but cryptocurrency isn't backed by anything. Wallets are insecure , and if you get hacked, you don't have a way to get your money back. It's gone. I find that frightening.

Digital currencies will only become accepted once those fundamental problems have been addressed, and I can't see anything other than governments taking on this role.

All valid points

Atm, a this stage sadly the answer would likely be some sort of KYC custodians (centralised exchanges like coinbase/binance being the likely candidates)

For what its worth in order for crypto to be accepted into the mainstream it seems to be taken as a given by many in that community that there will inevitably be some degree of regulation around the basics(for a start I think the first thing to go will be privacy tokens) but that it will still be a far step away from the systems we currently have in place. As they stand they will need to adapt to some degree around some basic regulation- Something Cardano lead dev charles hoskinson has spoken about at length.

As for the inheritance point
there is work being done to solve this issue like ideas to develop multi-signature wallets. call them trusts or treasuries. if one person dies out of 3, then the other 2 can release the funds....

We are still very early in the process mind you, this is all still being formed, its coming but what it will look like in 5-10 -20 years is well up for debate and solutions to various problems being explored as they arise.

I agree that much of crypto is currently deemed appreciating assets as opposed to currency at this point though I am aware of many people now recieving wages or taking payment in crypto and spending in stable coins and talking in terms or sats rather than fiat etc  but its extremely early days so hard to know how far this will shift with time and more adoption, or whether it is indeed likely we will always needs some point of pegged reference.

as more and more business' become tokenised running on these blockchain it will be intruegeing to see just how extensive the interoperability of it all will be and how much we even notice it happening.

Fascinating to get the head around. Whatever happens it looks set to shift quite some way from the systems we currently have in place imo. But early days.

[Statto]

I think there may be a long term future for government regulated digital currencies, but not for the existing generation of cryptocurrencies as a mechanism for buying and selling goods and services.  Tt is noteworthy that cryptocurrencies still don't have any intrinsic value - their worth is still measured and expressed in fiat currency terms (i.e. "I have got x bitcoins which are worth y pounds", never "I have got x pounds which are worth y bitcoins").  As things stand, cryptocurrencies are tradeable assets, measured in terms of their fiat currency value; they have not become replacements for money as intended.

I fear for a world in which cryptocurrencies become the dominant force behind economic activity.  I think that they would badly damage the lives of billions of people, unless taken over as digital currencies and regulated by government. It would take an essay or even a book to set out all the reasons, but I'll summarise just three, the first two as mentioned by Tim Harford, a respected economist, statistician and thinker:

(1) Your bank can send a replacement internet banking login if you forget yours or lose it. Lose the passcode to your Bitcoin wallet, and you can kiss all your money goodbye. (A problem for inheritance too if someone dies without passing on their passcode)

(2) Banks and other intermediaries who hold/control fiat currencies can also resolve disputes. How best to do that with blockchain "smart contracts" is most kindly described as an evolving conversation.

(3) Cryptocurrency safety - there is none. Fiat currency is guaranteed by government. If you hold money in a bank, there is a high degree of protection against you losing money from criminal activity or the bank going bust; but cryptocurrency isn't backed by anything. Wallets are insecure , and if you get hacked, you don't have a way to get your money back. It's gone. I find that frightening.

Digital currencies will only become accepted once those fundamental problems have been addressed, and I can't see anything other than governments taking on this role.

Good points.

Would you also add the environmental issue - e.g. needing to find a more efficient way of mining and trading digital which doesn't take up so much energy. My very basic understanding is that, the calculations become more complex, the more you mine coin, which requires more and more electricity to run the servers.

A couple of sensible posts at last. FWIW I do think there's a place for government regulated digital currencies, ie CBDC. But for the avoidance of doubt what that means is digital GBP, EUR or USD, not a new currency.

[jayffc]

I think there may be a long term future for government regulated digital currencies, but not for the existing generation of cryptocurrencies as a mechanism for buying and selling goods and services.  Tt is noteworthy that cryptocurrencies still don't have any intrinsic value - their worth is still measured and expressed in fiat currency terms (i.e. "I have got x bitcoins which are worth y pounds", never "I have got x pounds which are worth y bitcoins").  As things stand, cryptocurrencies are tradeable assets, measured in terms of their fiat currency value; they have not become replacements for money as intended.

I fear for a world in which cryptocurrencies become the dominant force behind economic activity.  I think that they would badly damage the lives of billions of people, unless taken over as digital currencies and regulated by government. It would take an essay or even a book to set out all the reasons, but I'll summarise just three, the first two as mentioned by Tim Harford, a respected economist, statistician and thinker:

(1) Your bank can send a replacement internet banking login if you forget yours or lose it. Lose the passcode to your Bitcoin wallet, and you can kiss all your money goodbye. (A problem for inheritance too if someone dies without passing on their passcode)

(2) Banks and other intermediaries who hold/control fiat currencies can also resolve disputes. How best to do that with blockchain "smart contracts" is most kindly described as an evolving conversation.

(3) Cryptocurrency safety - there is none. Fiat currency is guaranteed by government. If you hold money in a bank, there is a high degree of protection against you losing money from criminal activity or the bank going bust; but cryptocurrency isn't backed by anything. Wallets are insecure , and if you get hacked, you don't have a way to get your money back. It's gone. I find that frightening.

Digital currencies will only become accepted once those fundamental problems have been addressed, and I can't see anything other than governments taking on this role.

Good points.

Would you also add the environmental issue - e.g. needing to find a more efficient way of mining and trading digital which doesn't take up so much energy. My very basic understanding is that, the calculations become more complex, the more you mine coin, which requires more and more electricity to run the servers.

Recommend looking into proof of stake as opposed to proof of work (ala bitcoin) of which cardano is currently the most popular in terms of market cap.
Infinitely more efficient from an environmental perspective than bitcoin  (albeit that there is a massive move to run mining on renewable energy well undereay)... POS though certainly much more energy efficient than the current fiat system

[jayffc]

I think there may be a long term future for government regulated digital currencies, but not for the existing generation of cryptocurrencies as a mechanism for buying and selling goods and services.  Tt is noteworthy that cryptocurrencies still don't have any intrinsic value - their worth is still measured and expressed in fiat currency terms (i.e. "I have got x bitcoins which are worth y pounds", never "I have got x pounds which are worth y bitcoins").  As things stand, cryptocurrencies are tradeable assets, measured in terms of their fiat currency value; they have not become replacements for money as intended.

I fear for a world in which cryptocurrencies become the dominant force behind economic activity.  I think that they would badly damage the lives of billions of people, unless taken over as digital currencies and regulated by government. It would take an essay or even a book to set out all the reasons, but I'll summarise just three, the first two as mentioned by Tim Harford, a respected economist, statistician and thinker:

(1) Your bank can send a replacement internet banking login if you forget yours or lose it. Lose the passcode to your Bitcoin wallet, and you can kiss all your money goodbye. (A problem for inheritance too if someone dies without passing on their passcode)

(2) Banks and other intermediaries who hold/control fiat currencies can also resolve disputes. How best to do that with blockchain "smart contracts" is most kindly described as an evolving conversation.

(3) Cryptocurrency safety - there is none. Fiat currency is guaranteed by government. If you hold money in a bank, there is a high degree of protection against you losing money from criminal activity or the bank going bust; but cryptocurrency isn't backed by anything. Wallets are insecure , and if you get hacked, you don't have a way to get your money back. It's gone. I find that frightening.

Digital currencies will only become accepted once those fundamental problems have been addressed, and I can't see anything other than governments taking on this role.

Good points.

Would you also add the environmental issue - e.g. needing to find a more efficient way of mining and trading digital which doesn't take up so much energy. My very basic understanding is that, the calculations become more complex, the more you mine coin, which requires more and more electricity to run the servers.

A couple of sensible posts at last. FWIW I do think there's a place for government regulated digital currencies, ie CBDC. But for the avoidance of doubt what that means is digital GBP, EUR or USD, not a new currency.

i.e. Posts that confirm your bias.

This is an evolving space...issues will arise ,workarounds or answers continue to be worked on (just as with the multi signature wallets and other proposals arising) some degree of regulation does appear likely...CBDC does not seem to be the only likely survivors from what I'm seeing

But each to their own

[jayffc]

As for point 2:

Dispute resolution - This can be done in nearly any method you like, but the most basic is through on-chain escrow. or the multisig requires both parties to finalize the trade -for things that are already agreed on and submitted to the chain? no you can't go back. but you can start another transaction and offer remedy that way. this would rely on social pressures or some sort of on chain governance. complicated, but doable.

Also in regards to crypto security:

Cold wallets/ledgers for the majority of holdings (where I keep my holdings) damn near impossible to hack
The rest that could be deemed "more vulnerable" than that but that is never my main holdings...is behind various layers of 2fa and passwords.

That said , yes, the current only insurance as far as I'm aware does come from the central exchanges (binance for one)


Useful starting resource for anyone interested https://youtu.be/5auv_xrvoJk?t=470

This guy has since gone on to now be the head if the SEC

[Plodder]

Another interesting discussion point is how cryptocurrencies, which are either finite or very limited in supply, cope with what we currently call economic growth (e.g. increasing numbers of people producing more and doing more).  One of the arguments in favour of cryptocurrencies is that decentralisation stops governments "manipulating" economies via quantitative easing and other methods of increasing the money supply, and finite currencies prevent inflation and its associated dangers.  Yet it is the very ability to increase the money supply to reflect increased activity which enables societies to function in a relatively orderly and stable manner.  Suppose our currency consisted of a finite 60 million coins, and the average annual wage is 1 coin. An increase in population, jobs and economic activity could only be paid for by the built in deflation in finite currencies, which is extremely unstabilising and difficult to deal with. So cryptocurrencies solve the genuine danger in fiat currencies of hyper-inflation, but only by replacing it with the mirror opposite danger of hyper-deflation. Is that any better? I also started to wonder how you would or could measure GDP - or indeed if there would be a need to measure GDP.

All quite intriguing as a theoretical exercise, and well above my ability to understand, but I hope it remains theoretical.  I don't want to have to cope with the major overhaul of society's financial structure which would be required, when it seems to me that the risks to billions of people far outweigh the benefits.  It will be interesting to see how the El Salvador experiment goes - unless it is all pie in the sky - but I would not want to be part of it.

[Craven Mad]

Why would it be harder to calculate GDP? If anything, it seems easier.

Deflationary economies come with all sorts of issues, so I can't see how any fixed money supply system can work at all.

[Zoppa77]

Crypto, Bitcoin, CBDC
I'll admit all above my pay packet. Best to seek advice from the professionals.
My biggest concern is with the statement:
"I don't gotta convince you guys"

[Peabody]

Can someone tell me what the hell you are talking about, or is this another version of Mornington Crescent? Also, should I, as an eighty something be worried?

[Plodder]

Mornington Crescent  - I more or less gave up on I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue after Humphrey Lyttleton died.  I think they should have stopped it then.

I am a little younger (late fifties), but I don't think my generation needs to worry excessively about digital currencies or cryptocurrencies. These will not have much of an impact on the average person's everyday life or financial affairs for a good many years yet, although in the longer term, adoption of them could involve substantial changes to the detriment (in my opinion) of societies and individuals around the world. At the moment, they are not replacement currencies, they are speculative investments which the average person would do well to steer clear of (again, in my opinion).

If you think the discussion above is obscure, try this account of of how one (allegedly not untypical) trader had made his money:

"I began by buying and selling Crypto¬Kitties, which are virtual cats traded in Ethereum, then moved to CryptoPunks before finally trading NBA Top Shot," he said. The value of these assets has soared this year; a bundle of nine CryptoPunks, small pixel-art portraits, sold for $16.9m (£12m) earlier this month. The record for an NBA Top Shot, a video of a basketball shot, is $387,000.

I could not have made it up if I had tried – but someone did make it up and now it is for real. It's the Emperor's New Clothes, but some credulous people are enticed into this world by promises of getting rich quick, so as usual, many foolish investors lose money just to create undeserving millionaires. It is even weirder than things like the 17th century tulip mania.  Who decides to trade "virtual cats in Ethereum"?

[blingo]

Take it you're not a fan Mr Plodder lol.

[Logicalman]

Can someone tell me what the hell you are talking about, or is this another version of Mornington Crescent? Also, should I, as an eighty something be worried?

Peabody, in a nutshell, this is a currency or currencies that, unlike the pound note or coin you have in your pocket, exist solely in electronic form.
An analogy would be a letter compared to an email, one physical and the other virtual, but both viable.

[Statto]

Can someone tell me what the hell you are talking about, or is this another version of Mornington Crescent? Also, should I, as an eighty something be worried?

Peabody, in a nutshell, this is a currency or currencies that, unlike the pound note or coin you have in your pocket, exist solely in electronic form.
An analogy would be a letter compared to an email, one physical and the other virtual, but both viable.

I would suggest that is one half of it. The anodyne half on which we can probably all agree.

The controversial half is much of this chat relates to currencies which, unlike British Pound or US Dollar, isn't issued, backed or controlled by a state or any other body.

It just so happens that those decentralised currencies also happen to be electronic.

[Peabody]

Can someone tell me what the hell you are talking about, or is this another version of Mornington Crescent? Also, should I, as an eighty something be worried?

Peabody, in a nutshell, this is a currency or currencies that, unlike the pound note or coin you have in your pocket, exist solely in electronic form.
An analogy would be a letter compared to an email, one physical and the other virtual, but both viable.

Thank you for that. Am I right in thinking that this would not be good for us really old ins?

[blingo]

Can someone tell me what the hell you are talking about, or is this another version of Mornington Crescent? Also, should I, as an eighty something be worried?

Peabody, in a nutshell, this is a currency or currencies that, unlike the pound note or coin you have in your pocket, exist solely in electronic form.
An analogy would be a letter compared to an email, one physical and the other virtual, but both viable.

Thank you for that. Am I right in thinking that this would not be good for us really old ins?

Far far from it Mr P, it depends on your investment outlook. some on here will say it's a here today gone tomorrow investment, and others will say it's like getting into the dot com boom. If you do your homework and invest wisely, you can make serious returns, but as some say, it's a very volatile investment and it's easy to lose your money. In contrast I would ask, how many have lost fortunes on the stock markets? As for decentralised currency, yes it is and that will stop the governments controlling the value of your pound dollar or euro, which they now do whenever they want to, or decide that more money should be pumped into the economy, weakening it further and running away from problems, but hey ho, they are only in for four or five years before the next lot gets voted in and so the hamster wheel continues. Bitcoin etc are financial freedom that will allow you to decide what to do with your money without government interference. As for values and investing, stick with the big guns in this like eth and bc and as long as you take a long term view, imho, you will have a cracking investment. I'm invested across the board from various properties in Gib, Spain and UK to stock and crypto. The old adage of never put all your eggs in one basket rings true but if you never diversify you'll never know. Do you think the banks and governments are running scared of crypto? Believe they are, but they will end up having to give ground because it is the future. Something as simple as a bank transfer proves it. 24 hours plus for the bank with exorbitant charges, various crypto companies, seconds and pennies. Where would you say the future lies? Will we ever see the end of (fiat) cash? No but there will be a lot less of it going around. As for the fraudulent side, the US dollar is still the No1 choice for crooks. There's a lot to look into before investing MrP but find the right crypto companies and there are excellent returns to be made. IMHO Bitcoin will hit $100,000 and ETH will hit $10,000. But that is only my opinion.

[Logicalman]

Can someone tell me what the hell you are talking about, or is this another version of Mornington Crescent? Also, should I, as an eighty something be worried?

Peabody, in a nutshell, this is a currency or currencies that, unlike the pound note or coin you have in your pocket, exist solely in electronic form.
An analogy would be a letter compared to an email, one physical and the other virtual, but both viable.

Thank you for that. Am I right in thinking that this would not be good for us really old ins?

Mr P,

If you are one of those people that are interested in, and understand, the investment side of life, then it really can be treated as just another commodity, though I would not always suggest in dabbling in actual using the stuff in M&S!   :003:

[Logicalman]

Can someone tell me what the hell you are talking about, or is this another version of Mornington Crescent? Also, should I, as an eighty something be worried?

Peabody, in a nutshell, this is a currency or currencies that, unlike the pound note or coin you have in your pocket, exist solely in electronic form.
An analogy would be a letter compared to an email, one physical and the other virtual, but both viable.

Thank you for that. Am I right in thinking that this would not be good for us really old ins?

Far far from it Mr P, it depends on your investment outlook. some on here will say it's a here today gone tomorrow investment, and others will say it's like getting into the dot com boom. If you do your homework and invest wisely, you can make serious returns, but as some say, it's a very volatile investment and it's easy to lose your money. In contrast I would ask, how many have lost fortunes on the stock markets? As for decentralised currency, yes it is and that will stop the governments controlling the value of your pound dollar or euro, which they now do whenever they want to, or decide that more money should be pumped into the economy, weakening it further and running away from problems, but hey ho, they are only in for four or five years before the next lot gets voted in and so the hamster wheel continues. Bitcoin etc are financial freedom that will allow you to decide what to do with your money without government interference. As for values and investing, stick with the big guns in this like eth and bc and as long as you take a long term view, imho, you will have a cracking investment. I'm invested across the board from various properties in Gib, Spain and UK to stock and crypto. The old adage of never put all your eggs in one basket rings true but if you never diversify you'll never know. Do you think the banks and governments are running scared of crypto? Believe they are, but they will end up having to give ground because it is the future. Something as simple as a bank transfer proves it. 24 hours plus for the bank with exorbitant charges, various crypto companies, seconds and pennies. Where would you say the future lies? Will we ever see the end of (fiat) cash? No but there will be a lot less of it going around. As for the fraudulent side, the US dollar is still the No1 choice for crooks. There's a lot to look into before investing MrP but find the right crypto companies and there are excellent returns to be made. IMHO Bitcoin will hit $100,000 and ETH will hit $10,000. But that is only my opinion.

Well put Mr. B.

[Statto]

Personally I'd never take investment advice from anyone on a football forum but I'd strongly suggest anyone who's thinking of doing so should in particular avoid taking it from a poster who rants about governments controlling him and thinks a bank transfer still takes 24 hours. Weren't you also an anti-vaxxer IIRC Blingo? Says it all
064.gif

[blingo]

How exactly does it say it all Statto? For someone that works in finance (although you don't say what brach of finance at a guess, I'd say financial advisor), you like to give the impression that you are a lot smarter than you possibly are. I have not given any investment advice, only my opinion. Perhaps you should read the post properly before commenting.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

I remember when you could buy a horse and cart for two sheep and a goat.

I got paid one sheep and one goat for my daughters hand in marriage 5 years ago.  Times have changed.