- 17,907
- 8,791
The irony of citing unproven accusations of sex trafficking and then laughing at imminent gay prison rape. (whilst calling me scum and ignoring the presumption of innocence)
Bitcoins/Litecoins/Virtual Currencies
- Thread starter Tripamang
- Start date
The irony of citing unproven accusations of sex trafficking and then laughing at imminent gay prison rape. (whilst calling me scum and ignoring the presumption of innocence)
Asshat Foler
Chief Philosopher
- 52,523
- 45,606
Big brain question. How would it work for the USD?He is angry because you are now shitting up the threads that he used to shit up all by himself.
Flobee , if BTC goes to 3.1 million then how does the world keep very small transactions relevant ly categorized? It's going to be hard to know the value of something if it costs 1.0e12 BTC.
OU Ariakas
Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
- 8,307
- 25,830
We would have a new Congressional act to mint coins or bills in new denominations to make transactions in these small amounts possible. How does that help anyone answer the question I asked?
- 1
Asshat Foler
Chief Philosopher
- 52,523
- 45,606
LMAO a congressional act!! Like all the other ones that have been passed to benefit this country right?
Brother pass me that hopium lmao
Flobee
Vyemm Raider
- 2,956
- 3,442
Every Bitcoin is subdivided into 100 million satoshis. So for a simple example $1,000,000 BTC would make each satoshi worth the same as $0.01. You can adjust the math for whatever BTC dollar value you would like.He is angry because you are now shitting up the threads that he used to shit up all by himself.
If needed you could also further subdivide into smaller amounts but as of right now the satoshi is the lowest denomination in the code.
A more relevant question is how does one transact with Bitcoin if the value is that high. Let's pretend that the transaction fee is the same as today (10 SAT/vB, which is pretty low) but price was $1 million. An on chain transaction would cost a minimum of ~$15 according to my napkin math. That's untenable if the idea is to use it as a medium of exchange.
The final answer is still being worked out, but as things stand now it appears that it will be some combination of Lightning, side chains like Liquid, and Chaumian mints. A lot of solutions exist today leveraging these in different ways (with different privacy and security tradeoffs) but I suspect more will be developed as the need arises. With just what exists today, that's been developed over just the past 5 years, I'm pretty confident its a solvable problem.
To be clear you can transact essentially for free, regardless of on-chain fees, if you use a custodial Lightning solution (Strike for example). You can do the same thing with a Lightning wallet you control yourself but channel management can be time consuming and technically difficult in it's current state. So while possible, its not ready to onboard the masses just yet IMO.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
OU Ariakas
Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
- 8,307
- 25,830
LMAO a congressional act!! Like all the other ones that have been passed to benefit this country right?
Brother pass me that hopium lmao
You are a dumb motherfucker. There have already been more than half a dozen congressional acts specifically around currency; phasing out old denominations and adding new ones in. You act like you know shit about the problem when the US dollar's problem is going to be the exact opposite of what I asked regarding BTC. The next congressional act regarding monetary supply is going to be to re-issue the $1000, $5000, and $10,000 bills because inflation is going to drive normal prices into those amounts at some point in the next 50 to 100 years.
- 1
- 1
Asshat Foler
Chief Philosopher
- 52,523
- 45,606
We get it. You’re a boomer who doesn’t understand crypto. You’ve probably never even read the Satoshi white paper but that’s ok because you wouldn’t understand it. You probably think AI will never take off because it can’t do your HVAC (yet).
- 1
- 1
- 1
Asshat Foler
Chief Philosopher
- 52,523
- 45,606
- 39,244
- 154,336
Haus
I am Big Balls!
- 17,362
- 70,558
This is actually the EXACT real actual use case for NFTs. Tokenize an NFT to represent any given asset you could own. Home title? NFT. Car title? NFT. Each share of stock in XYZ corp? NFT.
The problem will arise in that only a somewhat iron clad trustable secure blockchain can be leveraged for such a thing. Establish easy to use NFT's on a second layer on BTC and you might have something.
- 1
- 1
Asshat Foler
Chief Philosopher
- 52,523
- 45,606
Haus
I am Big Balls!
- 17,362
- 70,558
The problem will be that the government will see it as it's solemn duty to be the custodian and sole authority over that blockchain rather than have a truly distributed and secure one... Mostly because they can't fathom not having control to abuse it at their will.
- 1
- 1
Arden
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 2,970
- 2,241
Yes, this is the nature of power and governments. It's also why the bitcoin utopia that bitcoin "true believers" envision is never going to happen. It has nothing to do with bitcoin (which is great) and everything to do with how humans behave, especially in groups, which is usually shity. The larger the group, the shittier the behavior.
Flobee
Vyemm Raider
- 2,956
- 3,442
Man... Are we about to start doing the digital land crap again? NFT as a concept could be useful, but not a single implementation to date has been useful. I'm not sure what the missing component is, but so far they've only served as yet another vehicle to rob fools of their money.
If you think the Finks of the world pining about digitizing assets is anything other than a way for then to seize more power you're a fool. Digitizing securities could be useful as it would cut out centralized authorities like the DTCC in favor of the companies themselves controlling the shares outstanding. It also opens up massive capability of those companies to pull shady crap. I can see how it could be a good thing but I suspect they'll rob as many as they can between here and there.
I suspect the upcoming big grift will be around the digitization of real world assets (RWA they call it lol). Bro, you can own 1/1,000,000th of a Picasso! You have no real ownership rights and can't hang it on your wall, but you can definitely trade it like a degenerate while we own the art itself.
Perhaps this is a bit paranoid but its not very difficult to imagine a world where RWAs (lol) are required to access real goods. Want to drive on public roads? Redeem your RWAs. Want to drink public water, or even the ground water Bill Gates bought from under you? Redeem your RWA. If you actually listen to what the Finks of the world say about this stuff they're looking at it like this. By all means though be excited about their "potential" that us curmudgeons clearly can't see.
Or... Just buy Bitcoin and hold it yourself, stop funding these scammers because you want to feel smarter than everyone else
If you think the Finks of the world pining about digitizing assets is anything other than a way for then to seize more power you're a fool. Digitizing securities could be useful as it would cut out centralized authorities like the DTCC in favor of the companies themselves controlling the shares outstanding. It also opens up massive capability of those companies to pull shady crap. I can see how it could be a good thing but I suspect they'll rob as many as they can between here and there.
I suspect the upcoming big grift will be around the digitization of real world assets (RWA they call it lol). Bro, you can own 1/1,000,000th of a Picasso! You have no real ownership rights and can't hang it on your wall, but you can definitely trade it like a degenerate while we own the art itself.
Perhaps this is a bit paranoid but its not very difficult to imagine a world where RWAs (lol) are required to access real goods. Want to drive on public roads? Redeem your RWAs. Want to drink public water, or even the ground water Bill Gates bought from under you? Redeem your RWA. If you actually listen to what the Finks of the world say about this stuff they're looking at it like this. By all means though be excited about their "potential" that us curmudgeons clearly can't see.
Or... Just buy Bitcoin and hold it yourself, stop funding these scammers because you want to feel smarter than everyone else
- 1
- 1
Haus
I am Big Balls!
- 17,362
- 70,558
I think what you're thinking about is the NFT as digital collectable bit for the most part.
What I was talking about was using NFT's as a non-fungible and reliable means to show actual possession/ownership, not fractional ownership. Things like right now I have to keep track of a lot of stupid paper to prove I legally own some things (car, house, etc). This would be a way to convey that much easier, but with the caveat that the public has to agree upon a standard for that storage and legally recognize it. (The way we agree on the legal standing of a signed contract right now).
The problem for the government is that doing this without them absolutely owning the blockchain that it happens on robs them of the stranglehold of property ownership they get right now where they get to act as the intermediary on every transaction to tax as they see fit, approve or deny of transfers in some cases, and charge you for the right to own what you have already paid someone else for. I think that's where the bigger legal fight will happen.
- 2
Flobee
Vyemm Raider
- 2,956
- 3,442
That's not even close to what I said. However I more or less agree with the rest of your post. The idea has value, I just don't believe any current iteration has value and I'm very pessimistic about anything in the near future.
An NFT is just proof of ownership on chain. There is a very real issue of how this is connected to the real world, or even anything outside of the block chain itself. As you mentioned the legal framework will need to be developed for it. As of now it has no real world tether and nobody seems to understand why that matters.