Bitcoin is funny money

[seattlecyclone]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/10/millennial-millionaires-have-large-share-of-wealth-in-crypto-cnbc-survey-.html

Well that's fucking horrifying.

my thoughts exactly. but on the flip side how many are only millionaires because of crypto.  Cash in the lottery ticket you won move on to more stable longterm assets.

Right. At this point "millennials" are between 25-40 years of age. To be a millionaire at this age you're already rather unusual. Consider that this generation has faced systemic economic challenges that have generally led to us accumulating wealth at a slower rate than previous generations, and a millennial millionaire is even more of an outlier. I'm therefore not surprised that a pretty significant fraction of those millionaires are the ones who got lucky betting on an asset that has enjoyed unprecedented returns over the past decade. At this point diversification would be very wise.

A US landlord/business must accept USD but it doesn't have to be cash. "No cash" is perfectly legal.

There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.

Goods and services are not debts. What do you suppose the actual effect of the legal tender law is, if it doesn't compel any private party to accept cash in any circumstance? What does "legal tender for all debts" actually mean if it doesn't mean that creditors are generally required to accept it? As with many rights, you may be free to waive the right to pay in cash as part of a contract such as a lease agreement. I'd still expect that in the absence of language to the contrary in the lease agreement, a landlord would be required by legal tender laws to accept cash. Of course it's also valid to point out that enforcing this right in court would generally not be worth the hassle. Same can be said about many minor rights violations.

Legal tender isn't just about taxes and wages, it's (in the US) about "all debts, public and private." My understanding is that "debt" is a key word here: when you owe somebody money for something. If you're shopping in a store you don't owe the store anything. The merchandise belongs to the store until they agree to sell it to you. You might ask to purchase something, but they're free to reject your offer if you want to pay them in a different way than they would like. No debt exists, legal tender doesn't come into play. If you've signed a lease for an apartment a debt does exist. You are occupying that apartment and in exchange you owe the landlord an agreed-upon number of dollars every month until your lease ends and you move out. Legal tender laws do apply here. If you offer ("tender") cash in the amount owed, you have satisfied your end of the bargain regardless of whether the landlord prefers to be paid in some other form.

Gotcha, that makes sense.  Thanks for the clarification. 

A lease (in the US) can specify "no cash" for rent payment. Courts may uphold that lease stipulation, according to state law.

Federal 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5103 doesn't require acceptance of cash.

Cash is a form of payment.  The US dollar is a currency.  Cash is not legal tender;  the US dollar is.

It's written right on the cash that that particular note is legal tender. That above-cited section of the USC also specifically calls out US coins and federal reserve notes as being legal tender.

[bacchi]

A US landlord/business must accept USD but it doesn't have to be cash. "No cash" is perfectly legal.

There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.

Goods and services are not debts. What do you suppose the actual effect of the legal tender law is, if it doesn't compel any private party to accept cash in any circumstance? What does "legal tender for all debts" actually mean if it doesn't mean that creditors are generally required to accept it? As with many rights, you may be free to waive the right to pay in cash as part of a contract such as a lease agreement. I'd still expect that in the absence of language to the contrary in the lease agreement, a landlord would be required by legal tender laws to accept cash. Of course it's also valid to point out that enforcing this right in court would generally not be worth the hassle. Same can be said about many minor rights violations.

The "legal tender" portion is about the requirement of a US business to accept USD. It can't accept only Euros or Pesos; it also doesn't have to be in bill or coin form. It can be a check or a card or Venmo, paid to the vendor in USD.

[seattlecyclone]

The above-cited US code section doesn't say anything about USD (the currency in the abstract), it says that the physical cash and coin objects are legal tender.

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

[celerystalks]

A US landlord/business must accept USD but it doesn't have to be cash. "No cash" is perfectly legal.

There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.

Goods and services are not debts. What do you suppose the actual effect of the legal tender law is, if it doesn't compel any private party to accept cash in any circumstance? What does "legal tender for all debts" actually mean if it doesn't mean that creditors are generally required to accept it? As with many rights, you may be free to waive the right to pay in cash as part of a contract such as a lease agreement. I'd still expect that in the absence of language to the contrary in the lease agreement, a landlord would be required by legal tender laws to accept cash. Of course it's also valid to point out that enforcing this right in court would generally not be worth the hassle. Same can be said about many minor rights violations.

The "legal tender" portion is about the requirement of a US business to accept USD. It can't accept only Euros or Pesos; it also doesn't have to be in bill or coin form. It can be a check or a card or Venmo, paid to the vendor in USD.

Nope. Coins and notes are legal tender in the US. They can be used to pay any public or private debt. This is why periodically a vengeful debtor will order a pallet of pennies to be delivered to a creditor. It satisfies the debt.

Some countries have laws that coins are not legal tender for debts over £5 or something like that. So a creditor could refuse a truckload of pennies.

However some creditors will warn against sending cash through the mail (usually mentioned in utility and mortgage bills) because if it is not received or stolen the debtor will have very little recourse and will still be in debt.

Further the posters who draw the distinction between debts already incurred and goods and services yet to be bought are absolutely right that cash does not need to be accepted for goods and services even though it is legal tender.  Try buying a pack of gum with a $100 bill.  The vendor doesn’t need to sell it to you. They don’t really need a reason but most will still allege that they cant make change. Further, many stores will have a published policy of not accepting bills over a certain amount.  This is because in the US goods on the shelf in a store listed at a price are not considered legally binding offers that create a liability or debt when the buyer accepts them.  They are considered “invitation to treat” which means that the seller will sell at the given price if the buyer makes an acceptable offer regarding the time, place, and manner and form of payment. This is implied when the buyer puts everything in the checkout and uses an acceptable form of payment and is willing and takes immediate delivery of the goods bought. And this is also why you can’t call the grocery store and tell them you accept their offer to sell one pound of peas at $1.29 since you saw it in the Sunday special, and now having formed a contract for your pound of peas you will be by to settle your debt with a $100 bill.

[bacchi]

The above-cited US code section doesn't say anything about USD the currency, it says that the physical cash and coin objects are legal tender.

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

Yes, they are legal tender. There's nothing in the law about a requirement though. In other words, they may be used to satisfy a debt but they don't have to be used. This is why we can pay businesses with a hundred other choices (eventually ending up with USD at a business' bank). It's also why, on the flip side, cash payments can be denied.

From the Treasury,

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
[...]
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/16/fact-check-cashless-businesses-banned-only-some-local-state-laws/3330804001/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/22/facebook-posts/are-businesses-required-law-accept-cash-depends-wh/
https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2019/08/is-it-legal-for-businesses-to-refuse-to-take-cash.html

Etc.

Yes, you can pay the IRS in pennies but a private business can't be forced to accept pennies even if it is a "debt," and not a "goods and/or services," which is playing semantic games.


If the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury aren't enough proof, I don't know how else to provide it.

[Wrenchturner]

Young people are buying crypto because they are trying to save.  Saving is not a concept respected by central bankers and fiscal policymakers, so people have to find it somewhere else.  Too many hands on the scales of stocks, bonds, fx. for saving to function in fiat.

[boarder42]

Young people are buying crypto because they are trying to save.  Saving is not a concept respected by central bankers and fiscal policymakers, so people have to find it somewhere else.  Too many hands on the scales of stocks, bonds, fx. for saving to function in fiat.

no they are buying it to try to get rich quick - i doubt many of my peer group is buying crypto as a way to save and invest.  They may be saying thats what they are doing but really they want to get rich quick.  many are doing it with large amounts of leverage as well.

[mckaylabaloney]

Young people are buying crypto because they are trying to save.

Uh, source? I only have anecdotal evidence, but I'm the same age as you and nobody I know who's investing in crypto is trying to "save" under any usual definition of the word. They're trying to get rich as quickly as possible.

Saving is not a concept respected by central bankers and fiscal policymakers, so people have to find it somewhere else.  Too many hands on the scales of stocks, bonds, fx. for saving to function in fiat.

??? I feel like I must misreading this because surely you aren't suggesting that crypto is a better savings method than, say, index funds.

[boarder42]

Young people are buying crypto because they are trying to save.

Uh, source? I only have anecdotal evidence, but I'm the same age as you and nobody I know who's investing in crypto is trying to "save" under any usual definition of the word. They're trying to get rich as quickly as possible.

agreed i'm in the same peer group and they all are looking for short cuts. i'm like short cuts exist by picking long term historically outperforming yet slightly more volatile asset classes like SCV.  You can get an edge there but you're just gambling with bitcoin

[Telecaster]

The personal savings rate is currently the highest it has been in decades. 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT

agreed i'm in the same peer group and they all are looking for short cuts. i'm like short cuts exist by picking long term historically outperforming yet slightly more volatile asset classes like SCV.  You can get an edge there but you're just gambling with bitcoin

What is SCV?

[bacchi]

The personal savings rate is currently the highest it has been in decades. 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT

agreed i'm in the same peer group and they all are looking for short cuts. i'm like short cuts exist by picking long term historically outperforming yet slightly more volatile asset classes like SCV.  You can get an edge there but you're just gambling with bitcoin

What is SCV?

Small Cap Value.

[ChpBstrd]

Young people are buying crypto because they are trying to save.  Saving is not a concept respected by central bankers and fiscal policymakers, so people have to find it somewhere else.  Too many hands on the scales of stocks, bonds, fx. for saving to function in fiat.

no they are buying it to try to get rich quick - i doubt many of my peer group is buying crypto as a way to save and invest.  They may be saying thats what they are doing but really they want to get rich quick.  many are doing it with large amounts of leverage as well.

Since June 2019, the US CPI has increased at an annual average of 2.5%. Yes, the yields on safe government bonds are negative right now. I find that a poor excuse for not saving, particularly for young people who should be in more volatile investments than treasuries and AAA bonds.

In terms of "hands on the scale" for stocks and bonds, I certainly hope so. The millions of people employed by the companies I'm invested in should be going to work every day creating value as they have been doing for many lifetimes. They will succeed at creating value because they are motivated by financial gain. If you mean to imply that the illuminati are manipulating prices so that young people have to pay more... um kay... lay off the YouTube maybe?

[talltexan]

I think there's a selection issue about "millionaire millenials" owning crypto.

People who like crypto will tell you about crypto. People who amass stealth wealth are going to be more...cagey. So it's a process that proportionately will reveal more crypto boosters.

[seattlecyclone]

The above-cited US code section doesn't say anything about USD the currency, it says that the physical cash and coin objects are legal tender.

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

Yes, they are legal tender. There's nothing in the law about a requirement though. In other words, they may be used to satisfy a debt but they don't have to be used. This is why we can pay businesses with a hundred other choices (eventually ending up with USD at a business' bank). It's also why, on the flip side, cash payments can be denied.

From the Treasury,

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
[...]
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Yes, you already quoted that bit. It specifically talks about businesses being able to refuse cash as payment for goods and services. It is silent on the issue of whether they must accept cash to satisfy debts.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/16/fact-check-cashless-businesses-banned-only-some-local-state-laws/3330804001/

That article cites the already-linked Treasury page saying cash is not required to be accepted for goods and services, and a page from the Federal Reserve that says essentially the same thing about goods and services while also stating

Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve Banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all U.S. money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.

So, it's valid to offer USD cash and coins to satisfy a debt. Once you make that offer, what is the creditor's obligation? I always understood it to mean that they needed to accept your legal tender and can't just arbitrarily demand you pay in gold bars or something, but I could be wrong! If I am wrong I'm utterly baffled at the point of this statute. If declaring US paper currency to be legal tender doesn't create any new obligations for anyone, why bother writing it down? My layman's understanding of legal interpretation is that courts prefer to interpret every single word of a law as though it has some effect. To have an entire law that does nothing at all seems counter to that. It's not as though offering cash for debts would be illegal in absence of this statute. You're free to offer whatever you like.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/22/facebook-posts/are-businesses-required-law-accept-cash-depends-wh/

Once again, this talks about businesses being free to reject cash as payment for goods and services, while repeating that cash is legal tender for debts.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2019/08/is-it-legal-for-businesses-to-refuse-to-take-cash.html

Ditto.

[MilesTeg]

A US landlord/business must accept USD but it doesn't have to be cash. "No cash" is perfectly legal.

There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.

I meant cash when I said USD. Sorry for being imprecise.

You are conflating "purchasing goods and services" with "debt". A store in the U.S. can absolutely refuse to accept cash when you attempt to buy a good or service, but no public or private entity can refuse to accept cash for any money already owed (e.g. a debt). If you owe a debt, cash must be accepted to settle that debt.

Going to the supermarket checkout counter does not involve the creation of any debt thus the supermarket is free to set whatever policy it wants. It require any (legal) form of payment it wants. USD, BTC, monopoly money, your labor, whatever it wants.

But, if you, for example, pay the supermarket with a credit card to you incur a debt to the credit card company, and they may not refuse cash in order to settle that debt.

[MilesTeg]

So, it's valid to offer USD cash and coins to satisfy a debt. Once you make that offer, what is the creditor's obligation? I always understood it to mean that they needed to accept your legal tender and can't just arbitrarily demand you pay in gold bars or something, but I could be wrong! If I am wrong I'm utterly baffled at the point of this statute.

"Legal tender" is specifically defined in law as a form of money that must be accepted to satisfy debts. So the statute that defines US coins and cash as legal tender does indeed state that they must be accepted to settle debts.

[the_gastropod]

The more I read about this El Salvador deal, the more clearly it appears to be the scam we all kind of knew it was. From Strike’s CEO, describing how Strike works:

When I initiate the $1,000 payment, Strike debits my existing USD balance.

Strike then automatically converts my $1,000 to bitcoins ready for use in its infrastructure using its real-time automated risk management and trading infrastructure.

Strike then moves the bitcoins across the Atlantic Ocean where it arrives in one of our many European infrastructure pieces in less than a second and for no cost.

Strike then takes the bitcoins and automatically converts them back into Euros using its real-time automated risk management and trading infrastructure.

Strike then credits the existing user with the Euros to their Strike account.

Source: https://jimmymow.medium.com/announcing-strike-global-2392b908f611

Aka: Give ‘em your USD, they’ll give your counterparty fabricated fake internet dollars (Tethers). What could go wrong? So what it seems might be happening is Bukele’s scheme is to confiscate USD from remittances and force people to accept USDT. 

[ChpBstrd]

Bookies see a nearly 60% chance of bitcoin sliding to $10,000 this year

https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-price-bookies-odds-10000-cryptocurrency-betting-oddsmakers-regulation-6-1030516537

I don't like crypto, but at those odds I might take the opposite bet. This trade is obviously crowded because it's a way for people to hedge their long bitcoin exposure. HODL? Yea, right.

[Vienna4ever]

Binance scandal, TechLead summary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG8LfZoMd_E

[BattlaP]

https://tokenist.com/buterin-explains-why-ethereum-2-0-upgrade-wont-arrive-until-late-2022/

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Ethereum pushes back the promise of proof-of-stake yet again

[Juan Ponce de León]

https://tokenist.com/buterin-explains-why-ethereum-2-0-upgrade-wont-arrive-until-late-2022/

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Ethereum pushes back the promise of proof-of-stake yet again

If its fake-internet fairy money like everyone on this forum thinks, who cares what they use?  It's all worthless and going to zero right?

[boarder42]

https://tokenist.com/buterin-explains-why-ethereum-2-0-upgrade-wont-arrive-until-late-2022/

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Ethereum pushes back the promise of proof-of-stake yet again

If its fake-internet fairy money like everyone on this forum thinks, who cares what they use?  It's all worthless and going to zero right?

I don't think people here think it's fake internet funny money. Just that it's not really a good way to build wealth. Even tulip bulbs are still fire sale.

[BattlaP]

https://tokenist.com/buterin-explains-why-ethereum-2-0-upgrade-wont-arrive-until-late-2022/

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Ethereum pushes back the promise of proof-of-stake yet again

If its fake-internet fairy money like everyone on this forum thinks, who cares what they use?  It's all worthless and going to zero right?

Weirdly aggressive response.

It's worth listing broken promises and other legitimate complaints, and we care what they use because the claim for has been for years that the proof-of-stake model will improve the pathetic energy usage situation. Specifically, it was hyped in the first quarter of this year as coming in late 2021 in response to bitcoin energy usage hitting the news cycle.

[DaKini]

Germany currently is planning to roll out law to better track crypto transactions, btw

What really worries me about proof of stake is that it really benefits those who already have a big stash. Aka the early adopters. While i think it will be a good thing for the environment, it - in my eyes - does incentivize speculating even more.  I can’t understand the reasons why anyone would want to switch to pos unless they are already in big time and want to rip off the naive youngsters.

The shifting of money from the crowd to the big fishes (aka pyramid) is so clearly on the table - what am i overlooking?

[DaKini]

Not so funny for the Chinese miners - they were forced to shut down...

[the_gastropod]

https://tokenist.com/buterin-explains-why-ethereum-2-0-upgrade-wont-arrive-until-late-2022/

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Ethereum pushes back the promise of proof-of-stake yet again

If its fake-internet fairy money like everyone on this forum thinks, who cares what they use?  It's all worthless and going to zero right?

Much of the criticism of Proof of Work is because of the carbon footprint to societal benefit ratio. If you believe the societal benefit is 0 (e.g., it's "fake-internet fairy money"), then you'd especially care that the promise to move away from PoW was broken.

[the_gastropod]

Germany currently is planning to roll out law to better track crypto transactions, btw

What really worries me about proof of stake is that it really benefits those who already have a big stash. Aka the early adopters. While i think it will be a good thing for the environment, it - in my eyes - does incentivize speculating even more.  I can’t understand the reasons why anyone would want to switch to pos unless they are already in big time and want to rip off the naive youngsters.

The shifting of money from the crowd to the big fishes (aka pyramid) is so clearly on the table - what am i overlooking?

Preface: I'm not defending any of it. I think the whole blockchain-based cryptocurrency concept is fundamentally broken. But.. I don't know that PoS is significantly more big-fish-centric than PoW. According to this [1] CCN article, ~51% of the hash rate is controlled by just 3 mining pools. This is for Bitcoin, not Ethereum, but as I understand it, Ethereum's mining centralization is similar. PoS advocates argue that PoS actually helps decentralize mining.

[1] https://www.ccn.com/bitmains-mining-pools-now-control-nearly-51-percent-of-the-bitcoin-hashrate/

[BattlaP]

All "proof-of" models can effectively be renamed "proof-of-capital" because you will always be able to buy a majority controlling stake, with enough actual money, of whatever hurdles you need to jump. Graphics cards, hard-drives, WiFi coverage, capital investment, etc.

[the_gastropod]

Annnd $3.6 Billion has been stolen from a South African Bitcoin exchange. As usual, I'm sure all the victims totally deserved it for not jumping through all the necessary hoops to ensure their totally-secure-unseizable-censor-proof-hardest-money money was secure.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-23/s-african-brothers-vanish-and-so-does-3-6-billion-in-bitcoin?srnd=premium-europe

[onecoolcat]

Annnd $3.6 Billion has been stolen from a South African Bitcoin exchange. As usual, I'm sure all the victims totally deserved it for not jumping through all the necessary hoops to ensure their totally-secure-unseizable-censor-proof-hardest-money money was secure.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-23/s-african-brothers-vanish-and-so-does-3-6-billion-in-bitcoin?srnd=premium-europe

That sucks.  Not your keys; not your coins. 

It's also worth noting that there were red flags all around this exchange as it promised its customers up to 10% a day interest on their Bitcoin.  That is significantly more than Bitconnnnnnnnnnnnnect offered and the writing was on the wall for that one too.

[seattlecyclone]

Not your keys; not your coins.

I know that. You know that. There's $3.6 billion worth of people who are just getting that picture now, who are probably wishing this asset was subject to as much government control as all the banks they've dealt with in the past.

[firemane]

The flaw with “not your keys not your coins” is that hardware wallets are a hassle and you pretty much have to work in IT or be very tech savvy to use them. Try to picture this process for someone who is older or doesn’t work in tech.

For one, you have to check for firmware releases and update the firmware. It’s not like you can throw the wallet and bury it in the yard and go back and get it in 10 years.

If there is something like a coin “split” such as Bitcoin gold you have to move your coins somewhere else to get the coin. The inefficient blockchain can cost as much as $100+  and take several hours to move your coins for Bitcoin or ethereum during network congestion.) and it is stressful because if u fat  finger one digit or accidentally have a copy/paste fail your money can be loss

Another thing is that with any move from the Wallet or to the wallet, the irs considers it a taxable event. So not only do you need to be an it engineer but u also need to be an accountant. Edit: I’m not entirely sure I’m correct on the tax thing, but you would have to track cost basis somehow

[onecoolcat]

The flaw with “not your keys not your coins” is that hardware wallets are a hassle and you pretty much have to work in IT or be very tech savvy to use them. Try to picture this process for someone who is older or doesn’t work in tech.

For one, you have to check for firmware releases and update the firmware. It’s not like you can throw the wallet and bury it in the yard and go back and get it in 10 years.

If there is something like a coin “split” such as Bitcoin gold you have to move your coins somewhere else to get the coin. The inefficient blockchain can cost as much as $100+  and take several hours to move your coins for Bitcoin or ethereum during network congestion.) and it is stressful because if u fat  finger one digit or accidentally have a copy/paste fail your money can be loss

Another thing is that with any move from the Wallet or to the wallet, the irs considers it a taxable event. So not only do you need to be an it engineer but u also need to be an accountant. Edit: I’m not entirely sure I’m correct on the tax thing, but you would have to track cost basis somehow

Hardware wallets are very simple to setup.  Here is a 5 minute showing how to set it up:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeRbJUc0Xus

To upgrade firmware its literally opening the wallet and clicking the large button that says "download firmware to latest version".

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to use it.

[the_gastropod]

Oh, look! The exact wallet from your video has a pretty legit-looking counterfeit in the wild! But you’d have to be an absolute moron to fall for that ol’ gag, and therefore 100% deserve whatever fate befalls you, am I right? https://www.coindesk.com/scammers-are-now-sending-ledger-users-fake-hardware-wallets

[Juan Ponce de León]

^^ I wouldn't fall for it - but I'm sure plenty would.  It's not to say that they deserve to lose their crypto, more that the scammer outsmarted them and deserved it more.  There's been cases where people have gone on overseas holidays and on their return discovered that their house had been sold out from under them by scammers and legally they no longer owned (or lived in) their own house.  So I guess we better get rid of houses.

[JLee]

^^ I wouldn't fall for it - but I'm sure plenty would.  It's not to say that they deserve to lose their crypto, more that the scammer outsmarted them and deserved it more.  There's been cases where people have gone on overseas holidays and on their return discovered that their house had been sold out from under them by scammers and legally they no longer owned (or lived in) their own house.  So I guess we better get rid of houses.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Equivalence

[Juan Ponce de León]

^^ Call it what you like, there are swindlers in just about everything.  If you're not tech-savvy and you generally rely on a lot of 'customer support' and asking how to do things rather than doing your own research, stay away from crypto IMO.  You'll get done.

[Telecaster]

^^ I wouldn't fall for it - but I'm sure plenty would.  It's not to say that they deserve to lose their crypto, more that the scammer outsmarted them and deserved it more. 

I reject your notion that the thieves are more deserving.   

[StashingAway]

^^ I wouldn't fall for it - but I'm sure plenty would.  It's not to say that they deserve to lose their crypto, more that the scammer outsmarted them and deserved it more. 

Good God, man. This definitely supports the "crypto is for criminals" worry.

[GuitarStv]

^^ I wouldn't fall for it - but I'm sure plenty would.  It's not to say that they deserve to lose their crypto, more that the scammer outsmarted them and deserved it more. 

Good God, man. This definitely supports the "crypto is for criminals" worry.

Bitcoin - "Because smart criminals deserve your money more than you do."

[seattlecyclone]

Right. It's interesting logic for sure.

You don't need to be a cryptography expert to use bitcoin safely, just use a hardware wallet.
Hardware wallets exist that will steal your coins.
If you pick one of those, you just don't deserve to have bitcoins.
How do you know whether a hardware wallet is secure? Well, you'd probably need to examine the chips, which requires you to either be an expert in cryptography or trust the opinion of someone else who is.
That brings us back to trust in third parties. The goal of bitcoin is to get us away from that, but at some level that's only achievable if you have the expertise to personally verify the security of the full stack of technology you're using to make the transaction.

[Rosy]

Germany currently is planning to roll out law to better track crypto transactions, btw

What really worries me about proof of stake is that it really benefits those who already have a big stash. Aka the early adopters. While i think it will be a good thing for the environment, it - in my eyes - does incentivize speculating even more.  I can’t understand the reasons why anyone would want to switch to pos unless they are already in big time and want to rip off the naive youngsters.

The shifting of money from the crowd to the big fishes (aka pyramid) is so clearly on the table - what am i overlooking?

Germany just gave its first trading license and permission for custodial service to Coinbase exchange.

[Rosy]

The flaw with “not your keys not your coins” is that hardware wallets are a hassle and you pretty much have to work in IT or be very tech savvy to use them. Try to picture this process for someone who is older or doesn’t work in tech.

For one, you have to check for firmware releases and update the firmware. It’s not like you can throw the wallet and bury it in the yard and go back and get it in 10 years.

If there is something like a coin “split” such as Bitcoin gold you have to move your coins somewhere else to get the coin. The inefficient blockchain can cost as much as $100+  and take several hours to move your coins for Bitcoin or ethereum during network congestion.) and it is stressful because if u fat  finger one digit or accidentally have a copy/paste fail your money can be loss

Another thing is that with any move from the Wallet or to the wallet, the irs considers it a taxable event. So not only do you need to be an it engineer but u also need to be an accountant. Edit: I’m not entirely sure I’m correct on the tax thing, but you would have to track cost basis somehow

Really?
I'm a boomer and had no trouble figuring it out. Youtube and all those lovely Millennials are my friends./S
Ledger magically arrived on my doorstep all the way from Paris.

Granted, crypto is still terribly clunky and fees can get expensive just like the Internet was in the days of dial-up way before google and smartphones or laptops were even a thing. If you do a little research you discover workarounds to avoid or lower fees.
Besides, isn't that exactly what all those projects, layers, protocols and blockchain coolness is trying to solve?
Speed - Interoperability - all that is improving bit-by-bit:)
I bet in five years we will not even recognize the crypto landscape.

Here is something to cheer you up: https://cryptosrus.com/nydig-ncr-partnership-lets-650-u-s-banks-offer-bitcoin-services/
650 US banks to offer crypto services

Even better - 650,000 ATMs for bitcoin payments
 

According to reporting by Forbes which broke the news, the partnership is likely to have further phases to it, which could allow 180,000 restaurants and retail chains, as well as more than 650,000 ATMs currently serviced by NCR to be opened up to bitcoin payments if everything proceeds as planned.

CRYPTO TAXES
Tax guide for 2021  https://www.coindesk.com/crypto-tax-2021-guide
Most of the sites I use let me download or print them or give auditor right to a crypto tax service via the miracle mini-computer called my cell phone.
Good to know what impact your actions/moves will have on your taxes.

For a sector that is supposedly so unregulated, the IRS sure didn't miss a beat.

[Psychstache]

I bet in five years we will not even recognize the crypto landscape.

I agree, but I think we mean different things when we say that.

[onecoolcat]

I bet in five years we will not even recognize the crypto landscape.

I agree, but I think we mean different things when we say that.

Where do you think Bitcoin will be in five years?  Care to make a friendly bet?

[seattlecyclone]

I bet in five years we will not even recognize the crypto landscape.

I agree, but I think we mean different things when we say that.

Where do you think Bitcoin will be in five years?  Care to make a friendly bet?

I think it will see no appreciable increase in use for typical commerce. What the price will be, I have no earthly idea.

[onecoolcat]

I bet in five years we will not even recognize the crypto landscape.

I agree, but I think we mean different things when we say that.

Where do you think Bitcoin will be in five years?  Care to make a friendly bet?

I think it will see no appreciable increase in use for typical commerce. What the price will be, I have no earthly idea.

I think it will see more use in commerce but I do not even believe its real value has anything to do with its use in commerce.  Nevertheless, it will see more use in commerce as layered solutions, e.g. Lightning Network, are more widely used and more nations adopt it as a currency. 

[Juan Ponce de León]

Do you guys think we'll ever see a use case for Gold Bullion in typical commerce?  I'm concerned about this..

[ChpBstrd]

Do you guys think we'll ever see a use case for Gold Bullion in typical commerce?  I'm concerned about this..

Even in a Mad Max scenario of total currency meltdown, bartering with gold bullion would be too risky and too much trouble. Might as well barter with catalytic converters hacked off of old cars. Dried beans are more easily divisible, have inherent value, and would appreciate vs. fiat currencies to keep pace with inflation. 

[Telecaster]

Here is something to cheer you up: https://cryptosrus.com/nydig-ncr-partnership-lets-650-u-s-banks-offer-bitcoin-services/
650 US banks to offer crypto services

Even better - 650,000 ATMs for bitcoin payments
 

According to reporting by Forbes which broke the news, the partnership is likely to have further phases to it, which could allow 180,000 restaurants and retail chains, as well as more than 650,000 ATMs currently serviced by NCR to be opened up to bitcoin payments if everything proceeds as planned.

Outstanding news for cryptoenthusiasts!  You can now have THREE third-parties involved in each Bitcoin transaction:  the bank, the holding company, and the payment processor.    Involving third parties in the transaction is the main reason for crypto, right?