That's a second big scammer. Charles, Roger... might as well invite the king of them all too - Craig Wright.

I actually agree with many, if not all, of your points Greg. Taking your point 7 for example; "How will states/governments collection tax revenues from all these anonymous crypto P2P transactions?" Perhaps someone could answer this question, as I've asked many people in the crypto field this exact question, and none of them have an answer that's even remotely plausible.

Greg how old are you? Just curious as this would explain alot of your traditional/conservative views.

I agree with the sentiment. I really wanted to embrace bitcoin a few years ago and still play around with Ethereum, but the security and fees and easy of transaction are not very impressive. If you see what traditional money can do in societies like Sweden or Singapore, there is really no need to re-invent the wheel. That governments cannot be trusted is another matter, but right now the constant feuds, forks and hacks do not inspire too much confidence. As a punt, it may work - especially as a spread trade vs BTC. But is is by no means in the top ten of human achievements of the last century, probably not even decade.

@Craig A. Just turned 40 recently but I'm actually pro innovation. However, as Thomas W. pointed, they are trying to reinvent the wheel for something that actually works fine. And it's not that you can improve the way it works, as if you start messing with it a lot of other issues pop out. I really liked the video as it was a one coherent presentation with broad discussion of different key aspects. It just happens that most, if not all, assumptions he makes (for the need of crypto currency), I find are pointless. Sometime ago I heard the talk that crypto is great for anonymity of transactions, whatever the reason (illegal activity or not). I find it hilarious. 99.9% transactions daily in the world are for legal purposes and parties have no reason for anonymity. And when it comes to "illegal activity" there are many issues involved that crypto won't solve. One still need to come up with income to be able to pay for such illegal goods/services, and they need to take "delivery" (in broad sense) of such goods/services. "Anonymity" can be solved in many ways: use old school briefcase full of cash, send someone paypal "gift" money, or use any "money laundering" company. Sure the latter two involve fees, but so will use of crypto currency as someone will have to provide computation power for the ledger. And speaking of illegal activities, there is a reason it is called illegal, it's is banned by law whether you like it or not. There are still ways to trace that "demand" and "supply" side, regardless how you pay for it. Consider the following: That pot that you're craving for and that is illegal, that bitcoin won't solve your issues here (income, order placement, delivery, use etc). Now add to this: local government decides to legalize (as some do) the use for whatever reason, be a medical or ... (attention!) extend their tax base (!!!), just like Vegas legalized gambling or prostitution. Doesn't that tell you anything? How about another, simpler fact: Why does it have to be bitcoin? Why can't it be Shitcoin next year? And something different the next? If some other name pops up that people like, they will start using that and all those providing "mining" will move on to offer their service to the new coin name, same crowd. Just like "why Uber" when anybody can make similar competitive company at any moment... Why would anyone "stick" to bitcoin (or other) when there are no technological barriers for anyone to come up with their own thing? That's why currencies issued by sovereign countries are the only legal tender so no one else is allowed to come up with alternative and population will not abandon (as crypto fans think) the regular currencies. The whole premised is failed and so will bitcoin. Sure the authorities are to be partially blamed. They are always late to "new ideas" but in this particular case they should have acted quickly and decisively by making clear to everyone that "alternative currencies" will not be allowed. When they finally wake up, they will have to outlaw bitcoin (or whatever iteration will be popular at that time) sending the dreams (and invested $$$) of many down the drain. Kind of reminds me of Bernanke when, just before the Bubble burst, he assured there is no problem. Those people that were buying Tulips back in the time, that you laugh at, they too have their valid (so they thought) reasons back then. There was scarcity of land in Holland, there is abundance of new money locally (made through trade as Holland was/is important import/export hub) looking to be invested, it was partially like an "art", to name a few that lead to that ridiculous bubble. Yet those tulip bulbs were no solving any real problems or needs. Sure they were worth something, but no more than similar flowers offered. To put it in yet another term: how much is your paypal or bank account worth? As much as the funds deposited there, expressed in valid (not virtual) currency. There is no value in paypal address or bank account number by itself. You can change it at any time to a different one. Should there be a (real) need for crypto currencies (which I think is a wrong assumption that will not work out) why wouldn't someone to change the "crypto currency" to another one later? If you go that route you can easily imagine thousands of crypto currencies available in the future. Can't you see how ridiculous it is? All that "value" out of thin air? I don't expect crypto fans to agree with me but at least do yourself a favor and critically consider all the facts. DON'T CONFUSE blockchain with cryptocurrencies. I'm sure there will be use for peer-to-peer ledger transaction log in the future, but that is NOT what you are paying for. Buying crypto you don't own blockchain as it cannot be owned as the internet. It will be offered as a service by anyone willing to offer it and that's when and what you will be paying for. Those people that "invented internet" didn't get rich and don't own it. There is no value you can put on the internet itself. Right now that bitcoin or ethereum you are paying for is like paying for a piece of internet without anything to show for it. You want to "own" piece of crypto world then start offering services i.e. computer power needed for it to function, exchange, applications. Then you will be able to offer your service (and make money) to anyone needing that or any blockchain technology whatever it will be called. All I see is the enthusiasm for something new that "might change the world" while I think it's a wishful thinking. I'm sorry but when I heard that it might be the biggest invention in 500-1000 years, that actually proves how delusional this crypto crowd is. You're trying to cater to less than 1% of the population with ideas that neither solve anything nor can't be done with currently available tools. And just to be clear: don't confuse the reasonable (I hope) facts I provide with negativity. I'm open to be proven wrong, but please respond to at least majority of the issues I countered with, or provide (if you can) information what else crypto currencies may solve that other means can't. Best to all of RV subscribers.

Greg. I agree with most of your points and I like your analysis. There is one issue that I don´t fully agree with, which is that bitcoin, could potentially, be used simply as a store of value. Gold, rather than fiat money, is used by an important fraction of financial players not by is usefulness in day to day transactions but as a store of value. Why is this the case? It is purely a social construct that exists for historical reasons. The network effect – the fact that enough people “believe” that people will value gold in the future- is what makes it valuable. I do agree with you that Bitcoin does not have future as a “typical” currency. However, there is a point to be made for it as a store of value –imperfect because of its incredibly volatility-. There are at least 2 characteristics in which Bitcoin is better than gold: easy portability and perfect (and cheap) divisibility. Gold has centuries of network effects –again, mostly based on beliefs about beliefs not on “fundamentals”- and an industrial use as advantages compared to Bitcoin. Following your logic: Why Uber?... Why gold? I am not saying that Bitcoin will replace gold. I am simply saying that there are prices that depend purely –or mostly- on collective beliefs and that is the case with gold and other alternative metals used as a storage of value. It is possible that Bitcoin keeps existing as a store of value, it is also possible that its value goes to zero. The answer is not clear at this point.

Greg o, Whilst the viewing of Charles semi "monologue" is must viewing, I'm pretty sure I found equal value in the above response for the simple fact its the first piece of balanced clarity in the "valuation' discussion I've come across (not looking too hard) since first crypto purchase in 2015. Hope its not a "bot' copy n paste. Nice work.

Agree with this 100% . People have fallen in love with a great invention, that unfortunately is not commercially valuable as such. Cryptocurrency is just an uber-cool demo about what is possible. To get to the real value, you need to innovate a couple of steps further. Those steps are currently being made. The crypto-based distributed ledgers have huge business cases e.g. in trade finance and identity management (Facebook, Google etc., here comes your killer...) , but NONE of them requires cryptocurrencies and most of them are not using blockchain. (I'm 50 with 20 years of background in distributed data management and currently super-excited about some truly valuable blockchain/DLT business cases.)

Greg. Great posts. Are you long any crypto as a hedge?

ICOs are replacing equities so you should be interested.

I think whether it is $10 or $1000 is a bit irrelevant if there is potential. Where I agree with you is that as we reached 50 billion dollars market cap today, the potential for further explosive growth is somewhat limited by the money in the world available to buy something that does not have any use or intrinsic value. :-)

Hi Hot M My feeling is this. Care or not care, I ask myself this..... do I want to be the guy around the dinner table in 50 years time who has to answer the question 'Grandpa, why didn't you buy any crypto when you were young?' We are witnessing undeniable change to the financial system, and after 9 years in existence, I think we can all say it is here to stay. Perhaps, just perhaps, in 20 years time there will be 2 kinds of people on the planet. Those who bought crypto and those who didn't. Like it or not, we are saddled with the burden of choosing a team right now. Food for thought, and have a great 2018 to all RV fans. Peace. Dan.

fianancial settlemets is not what most crypto's are about. It's an entire new decentralised ecosystem

True. ETH has become a total scam

Sorry - you were asking for that :-)

How much did they pay you to say that?

You should buy CCJ. Tangible assets. What are you buying when you buy a bitcoin.... an increasingly long ledger of transactions that have happened over the last 8 years of its existence LOL

I can sell you a napkin that says I gave you this napkin on so and so date, now why don't you give that napkin to someone else and write down the date that you gave it on there and we've just invented another decentralized "currency". how much will you pay for my napkin i'm open to reasonable offers.

The FX spread you pay your bank is the service fee, just like there is a fee for transactions with crypto currencies. Also it is one of the many failed arguments he makes. The very fact that you can go anywhere in the world and use current financial instruments to do everything you may need actually negates the need for crypto to do the same thing. It's like saying "this town has a food market on every street, but we "really" need to come up with yet a new type of food market". Why?

Even more reason to abolish the IRS and the income tax. The blockchain would further enhance the viability and efficacy of the value added tax.

As much as I hate to envision the VAT tax under current conditions....the Value Added Tax being a Consumption Tax might work well should the tracing of income in a Crypto World become problematic.

https://youtu.be/Ja9D0kpksxw He mentions it will be quantum resistant in 2018