1) Granted, but also EURUSD pricing does not work like any AMM (i.e. not formulaic exchange rates). So right now this does not work from both sides (no place to do and no method to do it). And no, it will not change to formulaic unless you have insane amount so liquidity in (but even then, central banks could just steam roll over you)

2) Lending can be regulated, so might or might not be ok for you to lend - not a lawyer. What about KYC/AML etc.?

3) Aren't there specialized prime brokers that do that? (maybe Genesis?)

> 1) Granted, but also EURUSD pricing does not work like any AMM [...]

Exactly. So, if I want to put liquidity in EURUSD market, I have no choice but to actively manage it, since traditional financial institutions won't do it for me. That was my point... to bring up examples of use-cases that are not covered by traditional financial institutions.

> 2) Lending can be regulated, so might or might not be ok for you to lend - not a lawyer. What about KYC/AML etc.?

Sure, lending is regulated. But then the problem mostly lies with AAVE (for example), not me (they are the one lending my assets, after all, and the ones possibly subjected to KYC laws), I would assume.

My point is... even if you are willing to go through KYC, and have nothing to hide (e.g. you got your crypto-assets, or whatever you want to call them, legitimately, and file your taxes correctly), there simply is no traditional financial institution that has a "BTC savings account", for example.

> 3) Aren't there specialized prime brokers that do that? (maybe Genesis?)

Probably. But then the argument that "there is no actual use-case for blockchain outside of crime and speculation" kinda breaks down. If you consider Genesis to be part of "traditional finance", then it's clear that "traditional finance" sees value in these things (it's not just vapor). If you consider Genesis to not be part of "traditional finance", then you're just confirming what I implied: there isn't anyone in "traditional finance" providing such services.

On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets)

Depending on which country you are in, things like bitcoin savings accounts are starting to emerge. Also funds might be able to invest.

And yes, traditional finance is starting to see value in providing services for these things (and has so for a while) - not strictly the same as seeing value in the underlyings, but separate point

Ok. So... if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things, it kind of becomes hard to hold on to the idea that there aren't actually any use-cases outside of crime and speculation.

EDIT: Just to address your edit...

> On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets)

And will they be willing to talk to a person that only wants to put 100 EUR + 100 USD into it? I seriously doubt it.

> [...]if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things,[...]

All this means is there is money to be made. It does not mean that any particular use-case exists. So no, this does not make it hard to hold on to the idea above - no use-cases outside of crime and speculation.

If you provide storage for people's stuff and someone wants specialized storage for tulips you probably do not care whether the tulips are worth anything or useful. You rent them the space to store their tulips if you can make money that way.

And "making money" does not sound like a use-case to you? Ok.

And tulips are not worthless... they just aren't as valuable as people thought they were, during the tulip mania.

This making money has nothing to do with any intrinsic use-case or value of Bitcoin. As an intermediary (under which I also comprehend banks in terms of "tulip storage") you always make money whether your client wins, loses or absent-mindedly walks over a monetary cliff.

Making money trading or storing something does not mean that something has a use-case (hence the tulips example). So the fact that people make money off other people who think Bitcoin is the best thing since sliced bread does not mean Bitcoin has any use-case or intrinsic value.

Wasn't my claim. And speculation is fine anyway, because it is at the heart of any new business etc.

Yes, I know. But it was the original claim that triggered the current thread.

Either way, thanks for the insight and information you brought to the discussion.

Two of your 3 problems solved by Bitcoin only exist because you have Bitcoin.

Yes... and?

Are people that have Bitcoin not allowed to do useful things with what they have? Does it bother you that there are actual legitimate use-cases for these things (as you seemingly admit, by not including my first example in your comment)?

Someone asked for an example, and I provided a few... perhaps you don't see value in the examples I gave, but there are people out there who do.

To the question "What problem does Bitcoin solve" the answer "Without Bitcoin I would not be able to transact in Bitcoin" is not valid.

Was that even the question to begin with? Here is the comment I replied to, originally [0]. Try to find the word "Bitcoin" there.

And, again, thanks for continuing to support my point, by failing to address the fact that the first example I gave had nothing to do with BTC.

Have a nice day.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769442

Yes that was essentially the original question to begin with. You can make a pedantic distinction between "Bitcoin" and "blockchain", but your comments make it clear you are arguing in bad faith here.

I'm arguing in bad faith, according to you, even though I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made.

Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud"), and still haven't replied to the question I made 4 or 5 times already: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

I guess my question is inconvenient.

I'm done here, but I do hope you have a nice day. And, don't worry, I won't bite your bait ever again.

> I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made.

Oh come on, look at your comment above mine in this thread. You're splitting hairs and trying to find minute flaws in the arguments against you instead of actually arguing the points. It certainly makes it look like you cannot defend your actual arguments.

> Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud")

I never said all stablecoins, but some certainly look like they are.

> I'm done here, but I do hope you have a nice day. And, don't worry, I won't bite your bait ever again.

Oh I'm not worried!

> Oh come on, look at your comment above mine in this thread.

Was that comment addressed at you? Please point out an actual example of me engaging in bad-faith argumentation with you. This is what you said, right? That I was engaging in bad-faith argumentation with you (not a third-party: you).

> You're splitting hairs and trying to find minute flaws in the arguments against you instead of actually arguing the points.

Uh... finding flaws in other people's arguments is how rational people argue. If you have a flaw in your argument, it's not a good argument.

Again, please point out a situation in which I'm needlessly splitting hairs with you and avoiding a question you asked.

> I never said all stablecoins, but some certainly look like they are.

Ah! So now that you figured out how bad your argument is, you decide to move the goalposts. You say "stablecoins are essentially fraud", and I'm supposed to interpret that as "some stablecoins are essentially fraud", rather than "all stablecoins are essentially fraud"? Sigh.

If you're not arguing in bad faith, it sure seems like you're going out of your way to make it seem like you are.

I keep forgetting how I'm not supposed to feed the trolls... ah, well...

Lol you got suckered in just like me again. They made it clear that nothing can convince them. It's like trying to convince a Christian to be Muslim. Nothing you say or do can change their view. It's incredibly frustrating because the goal posts keep moving and they will refuse to even say what will convince them - primarily because nothing can convince them. So why bother right...

I would agree that case 1 constitutes a potentially interesting use of block-chain. 2 and 3 assume the value of BTC, which I would not take as a given.

Regarding point 2, what's wrong with assuming that 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC now and forever? If I'm not trading asset A for asset B, then it's hardly "speculation".

If it makes it any better, I can lend BTC and ask to get returns in USDC (which should be worth as much as 1 USD, if you trust Coinbase). Am I still speculating?

Regarding point 3, where is the speculation, exactly? If, at any point, the BTC I left as collateral goes below a certain level of collateralization (let's say 200% of the value of the borrowed asset), I'll just get liquidated: whoever lent me the USD will get their USD back, and I will lose my collateral (or a part of it, at least), if I fail to keep the value of my collateral over the threshold.

I think perhaps we have a very different idea of what "speculation" is supposed to be...

Either way, I guess you accept that there are use-cases that are otherwise not being provided by more traditional tech/institutions. Good.

> what's wrong with assuming that 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC now and forever?

Because if 1 BTC = 0 USD, and has no real-world utility outside of speculation, there is no compelling reason to try to acquire more BTC.

> Because if 1 BTC = 0 USD...

A big assumption here. I can also hypothesize that 1 USD = 0 EUR, at some point in the future, and, thus, holding or buying USD is pure speculation and there is no compelling reason to try to acquire more USD.

Under this logic, I shouldn't ever buy or hold anything (forex, stocks, etc.), lest its market value goes to zero.

Also, thanks for ignoring the rest of my point: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

For 1 USD = 0 EUR to become a reality, we would have to imagine a massive geopolitical shift has taken place.

For 1 BTC = 0 USD, all you need is one government, which has been the victim or ransomware attacks, to regulate BTC out of existence.

> For 1 USD = 0 EUR to become a reality, we would have to imagine a massive geopolitical shift has taken place.

Which is a possibility (the same way that 1 BTC = 0 USD is also a possibility; just a very unlikely possibility).

> For 1 BTC = 0 USD, all you need is one government, which has been the victim or ransomware attacks, to regulate BTC out of existence.

Unfortunately, reality proves you wrong. Here [0] is an example of one government regulating BTC out of existence (or trying to)... but I'm sure you can find others.

What's the price of BTC today? (hint: not zero)

I think there's not much point in continuing this discussion, since you seem pretty convinced that the ultimate value of BTC is zero (even though you admit that there probably are legitimate use-cases for such things). If you already pre-decided that it is the case (and you are totally within your right to speculate on the value of BTC), nothing I can say will change it.

Also, thanks for ignoring the rest of my point: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/15/india-plans-cryptocurrency-b...

Since you seem to be arguing in good faith I'll engage; at which point will you accept that the value of BTC is > $0? It's coming up on a decade of showing seemingly limitless upside with the bottom constantly rising. The tulip mania everyone loves to cite lasted about 3 years. This is going on for more than 3x. At what point would you consider you are maybe wrong?

Personally speaking, I was on the other side of this until about 3 years ago. I first learned about crypto in 2011. At one point I realized I was not looking at the facts unfolding right in front of me. I was just telling myself "look everyone are idiots, and everyone is going to crash and burn because of this. This makes no sense." Then I realized smarter and smarter people were getting in and more and more people were getting convinced and either I benefit from this or I become the person on the sidelines left behind.

There are indeed people willing to trade USD for BTC, so there is a market price for BTC. However, there are three major risks in my opinion which I think could make BTC worthless in the next 10 years:

1) There seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud, and Tether makes up a massive portion of the BTC market cap

2) Ransomware is becoming increasingly prevalent, and has managed to compromise large institutions - it's not difficult to imagine regulatory action banning cryptocurrency as a result of this

3) Similarly, BTC is viewed by many as an unnecessary driver of fossil fuel consumption. Carbon regulation will necessarily get stronger in the next decades, and BTC may face harsh regulatory challenges because of this

1) Seems like a random point to me. I agree with some stablecoins there are fishy things going on, and others not so much. But again I'm failing to see the relevance of this point. Also I'd like to point out, the SEC loves to go after crypto. It's quite clear where they stand. Somehow they are ignoring this "very credible evidence". At what point does this becomes a conspiracy theory? Or is the SEC in cahoots with them? Or do they not care? (can't be this because they demonstrated with XRP they really do care).

2) Yea I see this as a risk. Might reduce the value but tbd on how much. On the flip side you have entire countries trying to adopt it as currency.

3) This current change is much needed IMO for btc to evolve and I'm glad its happening sooner rather than later. BTC mining getting kicked out of China is great. If BTC can't survive without fossil fuel consumption it doesn't deserve to exist. This is forced evolution and I'm pretty optimistic about it.

My initial question still stands. At what point will you think you are wrong with regards to the value? Will you constantly move goal posts, as I did for years, or have a line in the sand after which you will adopt it.

1) As far as I know there are legal proceedings ongoing agains Tether - I don't think this is a conspiracy theory.

> My initial question still stands. At what point will you think you are wrong with regards to the value? Will you constantly move goal posts, as I did for years, or have a line in the sand after which you will adopt it.

I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind. I don't know what would change my mind, but we're certainly not there yet as long as the risks which I cited still exist.

> As far as I know there are legal proceedings ongoing agains Tether - I don't think this is a conspiracy theory.

Even so, how do you go from "there are legal proceedings against Tether" to "there seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud"?

Being hyperbolic does not help your argument here... it just makes it seem like you don't know what you are talking about (i.e. you don't know the difference between USDT, USDC and DAI, for example).

> I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind.

You seem to be under the impression that people are trying to change your mind, rather than simply pointing out the flaws, leaps-of-faith and speculation in your argumentation.

Trust me... you also did not convince anyone that the value of BTC is literally zero (except the ones that were already convinced).

I am quite confident my arguments are sound. However you are posting from a brand new account, continuously splitting hairs rather than confronting the argument head-on, and generally engaging in bad-faith argumentation tactics.

This might be effective on other forums, but I'm quite confident the HN audience will not be impressed.

> I am quite confident my arguments are sound.

Ah, yes. Like the argument that "Tether is being investigated for fraud" thus "every stablecoin is essentially fraud". Seems like a water-tight argument you have there.

> However you are posting from a brand new account,

So, instead of addressing my actual arguments, you're concerned about going through my account history? Great. Note that my account is not "brand new", though: I created the account days ago, to participate in discussions that have nothing to do with "blockchain". You can check it out in my history, if you haven't already.

> continuously splitting hairs rather than confronting the argument head-on

Point one one single argument that you have made to me, that I did not respond to head-on. Just one. I'll wait.

In the meantime, while you look for it, and as a proof that you are indeed argumenting in good faith, feel free to respond head-on to the question I already made 5 times: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

Until you do, I'll keep assuming you are discussing in bad faith and refuse to reply to anything else you write.

> and generally engaging in bad-faith argumentation tactics.

There is exactly one such comment from my side (or one that could be seen as bad-faith, if you consider "pedantry" to be a sign of bad-faith), and it was not directed at you, so I'm not seeing where your complaint comes from. I re-iterate: point out a single example of me engaing in bad-faith argumentation with you. A single actual example. And then, maybe, we can continue the conversation. Until then, and as I already said, hope you have a nice day.

> There is exactly one such comment from my side

So you admit you were arguing in bad faith?

> Point one one single argument that you have made to me, that I did not respond to head-on. Just one. I'll wait.

> point out a single example of me engaing in bad-faith argumentation with you. A single actual example. And then.

Sure, how about this very comment?

> Ah, yes. Like the argument that "Tether is being investigated for fraud" thus "every stablecoin is essentially fraud". Seems like a water-tight argument you have there.

You're misrepresenting my statement in a way to obfuscate the very real fraud accusations against Tether and other stable-coins. I never said all stablecoins are fradulent. Why are you focused on that falsified version of my argument rather than arguing against the fact that Tether is indeed fraudulent?

> maybe, we can continue the conversation

Not interested in continuing it, thank you!

> I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind. I don't know what would change my mind, but we're certainly not there yet as long as the risks which I cited still exist.

This is a common tactic to best understand if I am wasting my time. Seems like I am. Hope you have a good rest of the day.

That's a convenient way not to engage with the actual arguments - seems like you have been wasting everyone's time. A good day to you as well!

> That's a convenient way not to engage with the actual arguments

What actual "argument" did you put forth? You brought up tether and stablecoins, which is a pretty speculative argument. Nothing concrete is happening. The other two points you mentioned I directly addressed.

> seems like you have been wasting everyone's time. A good day to you as well!

lol. How am I wasting anyone's time? You in a long winded way basically said nothing can convince you. So who's wasting whose time? I literally said BTC doesn't deserve to exist if needs to rely on fossil fuels. That's where my line is. What's yours? Nothing. So yes, I am wasting my time while you are arguing religiously with no way to convince you so you are basically wasting everyone else's time.

Also let's not forget other legendary investors like Stanley Druckenmiller don't think the risks you mentioned are substantial enough to not invest. But I'm sure you understand the risks much better than them.

> in my opinion

> I think could

Who is speculating about the value of things here? Wasn't speculation supposed to be bad?

None of the things you mentioned support the hypothesis that the value of BTC is literally zero (not 0.00000000000001 USD, but literally zero).

> 1) There seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud, and Tether makes up a massive portion of the BTC market cap

I have a hard time even parsing this ("Tether makes up a massive portion of the BTC market cap"), and it sounds more like an appeal to emotion than an actual argument. Please explain in which ways are DAI and USDC "essentially fraud". Perhaps you should contact US authorities, and complain about the fraudulent Coinbase, if you really believe that to be the case (and if you're not just engaging in unfounded speculation).