This is a duo that can’t afford to not exist. So long as we’ve got a government, we would always have a congress and would always have a system that prints money (the banking system), backed by the armed forces and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

However, while Bitcoin might solve inflation problem (in parts), I say that because, it doesn’t go without creating a unique problem of its own which is in volatility. Where in a Bitcoin functional society, we would always have issues to deal with when certain goods on the shelves where bought/produced at higher cost in BTC would have to be sold for less in the bull seasons.


Obviously, it’s a sad reality that we can’t change as these profiling that gives our societies its structure would always continue to exist, continued through the raising of dynasties or we just have others take their place and continue the cycle.

Fiat money is backed by reserves like bonds, gold or any other asset that is preserved to make the country's money stable in the international market. But the harsh reality is that we don't have any kind of transparency in the traditional system, and we, as residents of any country, can only speculate on what the government tells us it has in country reserves. Most of the country's people have no way to track what their country has in reserves because they are not very literate.

Then it is very obvious that, without evidence in the form of transparency, when the government overprints money, this will bring inflation which will become uncontrolled. As the money supply overcomes the country's reserves, its value in the market becomes lower.

This is why Bitcoin is totally contrary to the traditional finance system. I really believe that one day it will overcome the whole traditional system. In my point of view, the current traditional finance system is a big trash system that really needs much upgrading or needs a better replacement. What do you guys think about this?

Unfortunately, a lot may have known already about bitcoin but they remain hesitant on what bitcoin can do for them while sticking to fiat that only made them suffer more because of inflation. That is why constant promotion for bitcoin is still a must, not to attract people to shift their perspective from fiat into bitcoin but to give them clear knowledge that bitcoin is the only key to stop all these money printing problems and get rid of the influence from the centralized banks and government.

Inflation vs Bitcoin on a balance scale makes money available to whoever has more. The man who has more money in fiat currencies doesn't really experience inflation because they have enough and even see inflation as a tool to influence their position, policies and grow their power in the society. While on the otherhand, the man who has more Bitcoin can always refuse the influence of inflation that makes them subject to the influence of the man who has more fiat currency in millions because their Bitcoin holdings has value and may amount to nearly half or more than that fiat currency if converted.

So when I see people ignoring Bitcoin, I just think they don't understand the importance of it as a valuable currency that can bridge the gap of wealth and make inflation look like an opportunity to exercise independence and soverignty knowing that with it's fixed cap, political interference or any individual influence is overridden and it serves as a firewall against CBN control and government control.

It sounds like religious preaching to me. Bitcoin has cultish tendencies already. With it, Bitcoin might lose practicality.

With all due respect, I don't think inflation is the world's biggest problem. Secondly, I don't think Bitcoin has the ability to solve the problem of integrity that so deeply affected the sectors mentioned. As far as I know, long before fiat existed, even during the gold standard, powerful influences have already shaped healthcare, journalism, politics, and the economy.

This has actually happened before in this market, with FTX and Mt. Gox being examples.

Also, GBTC traded at massive premium over the value of the BTC it actually held for years, sometimes at 20-40%+ premium to NAV, as it was one of the easiest ways to gain regulated exposure to crypto when there were no spot ETFs available.

So some market distortion due to supply and demand for certain product does not necessarily mean exchanges are issuing unbacked BTC. Some people just wanted that GBTC wrapper badly enough that they were willing to pay way more for it.


To expand on what OsaiEmma was saying, it does not even necessarily have to be shady CEX BTC. You could also argue that futures and derivatives markets like CME BTC futures can have large effect on BTC spot price. No actual BTC needs to change hands in such trades and cash settled futures contracts do not require BTC delivery. Nonetheless, through arbitrage and hedging opportunities, research has shown that derivatives exchanges contribute nontrivial amount to BTC price discovery, with leadership switching back and forth between spot and futures markets under different market conditions.

So BTC price is influenced by financial products that do not even claim ownership of BTC, regardless of fractional reserve risk posed by CEXs. So I guess this extends his argument somewhat.

Exactly, that's the point I was trying to raise, and it is pretty messed up. We are all in a crusade against CEX, meanwhile it seems they have a major voice in the most influential aspect of bitcoin—I am talking about bitcoin's price.

---

Paper Bitcoins are refers to custodial IOUs, or written agreement that holds a promise of bitcoin settlement to the bearer. For example: with custodian institutions, after purchasing "Bitcoin" through their platform, they issue you a bitcoin balance to your account; that balance is not actually bitcoin but a symbol of how much bitcoin they owe you—what you are promised to have once you request a withdrawal. Meanwhile, the real bitcoin is sitting in their hot/warm wallet—depending on their infrastructure or model. This is what i refer to as "paper Bitcoin".