I wish I was overexposed in my 20's. Keep your bitcoin and start investing in other core assets. Hope you make a bundle.
I have about half in Bitcoin, but Bitcoin fluctuates so much that it's always changing. If I didn't have exposure elsewhere my risk tolerance wouldnt be so high. I've invested heavily into my 401k as well but I've been investing heavier into Bitcoin and Gold the past few years, once both of those pass all time highs I'm going to just let them ride out and start going back into the stock market more.
Willing to bet by the next halving a lot more people will be talking about it here, we shall see in 2024. Bitcoin hovers around exactly where the model says it should be. Also...
People won't use crypto until they can use crypto without knowing how it works. Currently you have to know how it works in order to use it. Similar to how everyone uses the internet but 99% of people have no clue what html is, let alone all the coding involved. Crypto needs a lot more development but I do believe it's heading in that direction when you have Visa and JP Morgan along with Microsoft etc all preparing to build systems for the mainstream.
How do you explain the headline in the article that the patent Visa seeks is intended to replace cash when nothing in the article refers to that at all?
The article does refer to it, its basically a system where you convert your paper money into a digital cryptocurrency. It would replace cash, this cryptocurrency could be a Federal dollar or a Visa dollar, it doesn't really specify. This goes back to my original thoughts though, we are going 100% digital for currency.....so why would someone use a government currency that is manipulated and inflated and loses its value over a free market cryptocurrency that can't be inflated or controlled by the governments? Bitcoin will win this.
Well, the headline sure looks like they're looking to replace all dollars, not just those used by that tiny group of people who think they have found a better way. That will never happen. In answer to the question bolded my thought would be that all currencies are manipulated and I'd much prefer to use one that is supported by something identifiable, like a 244 year old world power than by...???? Bitcoin will win what, exactly? Is there a contest?
Bitcoin is not manipulated though. Bitcoins inflation has not been artificially changed, the rules have remained the same, Bitcoins mining reward decreases by 50% every 4 years, which has been written into the code and that will remain the same for the next 244 years+.........unlike the US Dollar where they can print and manipulate it at ease, when they want to, whenever they want to. That is manipulation. Win as in become the form of money that the free markets decides to use. The free market has chosen many forms of money throughout history, from seashells, beads, rocks, salt, gold, gold back paper, etc, and currently fiat that isn't back by gold. Each of those forms of money all have their flaws, which is why the free market moved on to the next one, because it had less flaws. Superior money has always won throughout history, Bitcoin is fundamentally superior to fiat currency, and will be the next form of money because it is superior and history says superior money always wins in the end, and 1000s of years of history show that. FYI- The Government currency you refer to does not have a 244 year history, it has a 49 year history. This is a 49 year experiment currently. US dollar before 1971 was backed by Gold, the fiat we currently have is not backed by Gold, significant difference, hence why it is called "fiat".
I don't believe you're that naïve. I'm sure you have neither the position nor equipment to know what is or is not manipulated today, tomorrow or 244 years from now. You can't really expect that any code created by man cannot be decoded by man. I don't believe there is a currency in current use that is backed by gold today so any currency's integrity can only be backed by its issuer and the confidence rooted therein. Your choice then is to select a currency supported by a world power or an anonymous cloud. Bitcoin is fiat currency but without any claim of its integrity or invincibility. Good luck with that.
Why trust the government when they have been devaluing fiat for the last 49 years? Bitcoin is a form of money back by hard code that anyone can see and it is completely public, the rules are fair and remain the same. I will trust something is completely public over the federal reserve who have backdoor meetings, change the rules, are not public, and choose when they want to manipulate interest rates, printing, etc. Bitcoin is backed by the people; all over the world and is completely voluntarily unlike fiat currency. I trust cryptography over the government. Bitcoin hasn't been altered since its inception, fiat has been altered endlessly for the last 49 years. Also if the US dollar was still backed by Gold, Bitcoin wouldn't need to exist, the free market created Bitcoin because of the failures of fiat. We need a real of form money, something fiat is not. We can't go back on the Gold standard either, it failed us when Nixon took us off it.
Let me ask a you simple question - If you access your bitcoin account tomorrow and it is missing $200, who are you going to call?
No one currently and it is a good thing, I am responsible for my own wallet, the same way I am responsible for my own physical wallet. The great thing about the free market is that the free market creates things that people want, if in the future people want a Bitcoin insurance fund that is backed by Bitcoin, the free market could come up with that. Bitcoin will create a whole new market of jobs as it already has currently with hardware wallets, blockchain developers, etc, etc...but right now it does not exist and may never exist. When the internet first started, no one knew that we would be talking on a messageboard like we currently are, or that we could watch youtube videos on our phones while we are sitting on our car. The ideas, are endless. Being bailed out is not a good thing however, do you think banks should be bailed out if they lose someones money? Why should everyone else have to pay for a bank being careless and irresponsible? Why should the US dollar be printed/devalued every time someone has to be bailed out? Being bailed out/insured by governments incentives carelessness. Not being able to be bailed out incentives responsibility. Do you think we should prioritize carelessness over responsibility?
Bailout? Is it a good thing to not have health insurance? Car insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance? If you can say yes to those things I suppose you can say yes to not having your investments insured. Have you ever made an insurance claim? Have you paid for car insurance and had your windshield broken? Do you consider that a bailout? What if your house burns down? Will you be too altruistic to collect the benefit of that insurance? That's a bailout, right? Do you even understand how insurance works? Do you know what the FDIC does? The SIPC? But with your Bitcoins you don't have anyone to call even if someone made an error and you don't care? Really? I can call Chase 24/7 and have someone tell me what's going on with my account and make it right. If there is a further problem I can call the state banking commission. You can go outside and shake your fist at the clouds. Good luck.
I clearly stated that the free market can develop an insurance. Perhaps you should create a Bitcoin insurance, why don't you if you see it as something necessary? You have some sort of issues based on your hostile response, but good luck, your attack on Bitcoin won't age well.
So, my pointing out that if there is a problem with your account you have no contact to get it corrected and there is currently no insurance or other safeguard to unexplained losses, not even an agency to enlist on your behalf and that makes me hostile ? Pointing out shortfalls of something as critical as security in a new monetary system is the issue I have but is hardly an attack, but rather part of an essential exploration of benefits and detriments. Call it due diligence, if you will. You seem overly testy in your defense of this product; there is no need to take this so personally. I would continue to suggest that investors use extreme caution entering such risky environments.
