There is room for everyone. Even non-decentralised blockchains... they all have their place.

Thanks, Raoul. As I see it RV is a great investment platform so dropping words of tokens that are obviously bad investments (EOS maybe had legs in 2017 but not now) is something a person of your format should not do. We forgive you because you are relatively new to the community and we love you :) But please be careful mentioning worthless tokens. Disclaimer - I am a CEO of crypto fund that focuses on liquid tokens only, no SAFTs, no ICOs, no equity, just the same tokens that people can buy in the exchanges. So we studied value accruation mechanics of every crypto token and no people should not buy EOS and XRP if they do not want to lose money.

ПшолНахуи

Raoul is giving an additional platform to Bitcoin, that is priceless. On RV you have many sophisticated investors who perhaps will take a second look at this space after seeing Raoul talk about it. What will not help Bitcoin is the tribalism of attacking everyone who has a different view. Once you first enter this space it is hard to differentiate at first, but with time you navigate the field and smart people realize that "okay Bitcoin is probably the only project that matters".

I agree, Ado. Tribalism is bad for crypto. But you still need to call out people for wrong things: 1) I understand why Dan has motivation to mentiin Ripple next to Bitcoin and Ethereum. 6 times btw. It is fine. I just pointed out in comments my opinion on the value of the token because it adds value to new people. Be careful. 2) Raoul mentioned EOS for no reason out of the blue. I asked him why and pointed out it is a centralised project with no USP and no fundamental reason to exist. As such and because I hold Raoul in high regard it had to be called out. EOS is 2017 thinking. Note also I did not mention any names of good projects. No tribalism here. Just value added comments.

The reason Ripple can do transactions globally for remittance is because XRP has value as a bridge currency. If you want to trade USD to MXN you now have instant settlement and high volumes of liquidity through Ripplenet. Families being able to send low value remittances for near-zero cost is pretty revolutionary. If you speculate that XRP will be used a bridge currency more in the future, the demand for it will increase. That is why investors hold XRP. It's really not as complicated as people think.

+1 I'd also love to see Nick Carter on RV at some point. His article on Medium called "A most peaceful revolution" is a masterpiece: https://medium.com/@nic__carter/a-most-peaceful-revolution-8b63b64c203e

"Pre-mined" is a ridiculous term used by people that don't understand the consensus mechanism. It implies that every blockchain needs to be secured through mining. Say what you want about Ripple the company, but in terms of transaction speed, throughput, and success rate, nothing comes close to XRP. Period. I agree however that there is a distribution problem, and hate that most XRP is owned (released through escrow) by Ripple. But please do not discount a $20 billion dollar project by saying "pre-mined" and moving on as though nothing else interesting exists.

You could’ve just not watched the interview. Just turned it off.

So whats the purpose of commentary? Only acceptable if it is fanboy commentary? If I hadn't watched the interview how could I analyze assessment of my opinion? Is that how you learn you seek conformation biases and only watch what you initially agree with or feel comfortable with at any given time? Don't you think critical thought is the only way to learn anything?

maybe because thats the way it gets set up after a game?

Bitcoin doesn't quite have the infrastructure and bandwidth for efficient remittance. Look into Bitso, ODL ($xrp), Moneygram and Ripple.

How does one know which online providers to trust to buy bitcoin? Who holds your bitcoins when you buy them? And if it’s these companies that hold your bitcoins then what happens if they go bankrupt ? Is there a central log/ database where all owners information of bitcoin are stored?

@Jason W. Same as any industry, really. Check out Coinbase in the US. Bitstamp is trusted world wide as well. You should really custody your own assets if you can manage it. It's not that difficult. Remember: Not your keys, not your crypto. If you don't hold the private key, they aren't yours. Plain and simple. If they go bankrupt you may be screwed, but generally the big players have insured assets that are custodied by companies like BitGo (among others). The only central database would be the companies that are required by the government to collect data on their customers. You can make the assumption that they'll begin associating private addresses with individuals for KYC/AML. So, as usual, it's the government.

Thank you for you response Zachary M I appreciate it.

“100 % of your internet stocks investment no matter how big or small it is should be in Alta Vista”

There's also a thing called interoperability where blockchains can communicate with each other. Bitcoin's development is so slow and conservative (which has its merits) that ethereum is way ahead of its curve considering things like scaling etc.

Strong comment. I was bullish ETH and worried about BTC’s inflexibility, the slow rate of adoption of new tech in BTC, and the very slow progress at rolling out Lightning. The ETH money lego is very seductive. But, as you note, sidechains are the answer to all this. Sidechains can give us whatever combinations of anonymity, computation on-chain, speed, etc, are desired - without requiring BTC risk the whole network with rapid changes to the core code.

Well said at the end... 100% BTC for sane. The rest is PURE speculation of the highest order! Can one make money at the Altcoins? Sure...just like one can make money at the craps table or the track. Good luck doing it consistently over time.

I agree, there is too much deleveraging going on for real estate to be an attractive investment. Maybe take a look at the sector in 12 or 24 months but definitely not now.

They go down after the stock market crashes. Educated guess? Real estate declines 40-60%. Remember, in the last downturn (2008-2010 and the one before ...1999-2000) it took real estate 3-4 years to actually bottom. Were there pockets of faster recovery? Yes ...mainly in the largest cities (i.e. greater demand)... but those were outliers. Everywhere else it took 3-4+ years. So be careful believing real estate is a place to safe haven your cash or gain a return before 2023/24. I’m cashed up just for that reason. Waiting for the bottom to be truly in before deploying capital into income-generating real estate. I did it in 2013 in Asheville, NC. We bought a $1.3MM 5-cabin property on 17 acres (developed/built during the peak of 2008/9 ...then crashed) for $225k cash. Bank ONLY wanted cash offers. Those deals will be around again. But not for while. In the meantime (non-business assets) ...cash (40%), physical gold/silver (20%), BTC (15%) and gold miners - NOT ETFs! - (10%). The rest? ...in my personal (paid for) home.

Ripple described itself as an exchanger of virtual currency in a December 2013 filing made in San Francisco, California, federal court in an unrelated case. As an exchanger, Ripple was required to register with FinCEN and to comply with applicable federal laws and regulations. Yet Ripple sold XRP even though it had not registered with FinCEN, effectuating sales of over approximately $1.3 million in April 2013 alone. Ripple also failed to establish and maintain an appropriate AML program and failed to have policies, procedures and internal controls to ensure compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws. In July 2013, Ripple incorporated a subsidiary, now known as XRP II, that replaced Ripple as the seller of XRP. Although XRP II registered with FinCEN, it failed to have an effective AML program or to file appropriate suspicious activity reports. Source: Justice.gov

Bitcoin transactions require stable internet, thousands of server farms in China and Russia to have reliable power, no government interference among operators of the major mining pools, no significant advances in quantum cryptography, and adherence to proper offline private key creation and safeguarding which is detailed in multi-chapter technical papers. Other than that, bitcoin's totally the future of money.

That's because BSV is never going to work and no one will ever use it for anything meaningful. It's ridicilous from a technical perspective and the founder is a compulsive liar and a fraud who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I get that people are interested in alternatives to Bitcoin but I will never understand how or why people get sucked into the BSV circus.

Agree with Petter. The founder alone completely destroys any credibility BSV could have, not that these forks have any to begin with anyways. Look at the court case going on with CSW. Absolute fraud of a human and a disgrace to the crypto community. That's the general consensus, not just my personal opinion...

Honestly Real Vision is not youtube or twitter. The audience here is a bit more sophisticated. I genuinely feel that they do not deserve to be shilled a project that is a borderline scam. BSV is essentially a wash trading mechanism used by shady exchanges to facilitate pump and dump schemes. There is no usage, no real community and the security in terms of hashing power is just a joke.

Interesting. Ten to one against. And the one vote "for" was my own. Rarely have I ever seen such unanimity, Yet it simply does not square with what I saw in London. The rooms and sessions, were jammed with some of the smartest people I have ever met and I have met a lot. I talked to at least 50 people, many in depth, and I only met one (I hired gun who was new there) who was not convinced that CSW was SN. It will be fun to watch this play out. But if anyone gives me good odds, I'd take the underdog in this one.

I would be remiss if I didn't chime in here. The audience on RV certainly is more sophisticated than on YouTube, and in general, understands that the mantra "do your own research" applies to crypto as well. So one of the questions I have struggled to get a good answer from investors without programming skills is how they perform due diligence on crypto networks without being able to understand the underlying "fundamentals"? As many of my programmer colleagues, I have invested a lot of time researching various blockchain technologies. But after three years of searching for a group of people who actually build things and haven't become an introverted tribe, unable to learn from others or retain an objective perspective, I had basically given up. But then, by chance, I got a last minute invitation to the event in London that Petter referred to and was shocked to find the place packed with real developers, writing real software that actually works. And most of them had recently joined the BSV community after coming to terms with the limitations of whatever protocol they had invested in up until they discovered BSV and *did their own research*. I am still conducting my own due diligence on the quality of the BSV codebase but I as an investor, I think one should dig a bit deeper than what CoinDesk has to offer on the subject: 1. CSW and nChain have made the largest contribution of approved blockchain related patents. These have yet to be challenged in a court of law, but are publicly available and are the subject of increasing scrutiny from researchers around the world. 2. CSW's position on how the use of Bitcoin should actually contribute to a strengthening of the rule of law is at odds with many of the players in the space. It is therefore not at all surprising that they seek to discredit him by any means possible. But it doesn't really matter if he is Satoshi or not, if everyone else has to use his network or pay him for a patent license. He wins either way. 3. Dan mentions in the interview that whomever Satoshi is, we are grateful to him/her for gifting Bitcoin to humanity. I think a lot of people feel that way, and therefore experience a certain cognitive dissonance when the narrative takes a different direction. This is my first comment on RV and it already needs a TL;DR. 1. Bitcoin is a protocol, not a store of value. Owning shares in TCP/IP wouldn't have made you rich, because it had to be free to succeed. 2. The biggest investment yet to made is not in converting one relative time/output proxy (USD) with another (BTC) but rather in developing network applications that utilize the unique properties of a reliable, accessible, stable and scalable communication protocol (Bitcoin) to deliver value (save time). 3. George Gilder, one of the most influential writers on economic growth and prosperity (Forbes quote) is entirely convinced that Craig S. Wright is Satoshi and put it all on the line by agreeing to be a keynote speaker at the conference in London. It was fascinating to hear him explain that "money is time". - money is what all of us are exchanging for time - time is one of the few resources we all consume at the time rate - the relative difference in output (productivity) between any two groups of people, each using their own unit of "fungible time storage" a.k.a. "money" should be reflected in the relative difference of said units of measure (exchange rate) - any monetary exchange network that fails to properly address the relative value that new participants bring to the network is destined to fail. Which is why every reserve currency to date has been replaced by another. 4. Someone else mentioned that it was really interesting to hear what people are reading. I personally stumbled across a hidden gem in Ole Bjerg's book, "Making Money: The philosophy of Crisis Capitalism". Really glad that I found Real Vision, I have learned so much from so many different perspectives on the global markets. And the community is starting to get more involved, which is what will ensure the long term relevance for Real Vision as a concept. Keep up the good work Raoul & co!

@Ben: Read you post, but still not sure if you're positive towards BSV or not? Anyway, all I can say is that I agree that the protocol need to be free and accessible to all (no patents). And also that the design of BSV (where they are pursuing block sizes of up to 1 GB) is a flawed design. It will result in massive centralization where only those with top notch hardware and infrastructure will be able to run a node. The whole point is that anyone should be able to do this.

The most diversified way to invest in this asset class is to buy bitcoin (on a bitcoin only platform like swanbitcoin amber or river) and learn how to use it with a hardware wallet (ledger, Trevor, cold card), and use a multi sig solution to secure your custody and security with Unchained Capital.

Michael, would you not think diversified would mean bitcoin along with other coins? Would one or 2 of Dan's funds be most appropriate for a busy in business non-tech guy like me?? Thanks !

Strength of bitcoin and any blockchain is stemming from the decentralisation. For this you need adoption in the crypto community of miners and users. I guess this already answers your question why government issued "coin" would not inspire trust and adoption.

Is this the interview you mention? https://podcasts.apple.com/tt/podcast/slp162-matt-dsouza-bitcoin-halving-analysis-bullish/id1415720320?i=1000470177206

Hi Lee - yes, SLP162 and Pomp's #256

Cool. Here's the link to Pomp's #256 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/256-matt-dsouza-on-upcoming-bitcoin-halving-miner-sell/id1434060078?i=1000470070003

A hash collision once in a blue moon won't ever matter, especially if BitCoin was used as intended at massive scale and micro-transactions without address re-use.

Firas I was using MD5 Hash collision as an example what we thought was bulletproof, wasn't. WEP, ... WPA, ... WPA-PSK (TKIP), ... WPA2, ........ WPA2-PSK,.... And when a system like this bitcoin is eventually is broken,.. it's usually not an individual component that will bring it down, it will be something unexpected from the combination of the components.

It does help to know that there is a multi-billion dollar bounty available for anyone who finds any exploitable cryptographic flaws, and that no one has claimed anything so far. If something is found, it will be fixed. Its happened in the past, and I don't see why, if needed, it won't happen in the future. The Bitcoin whitepaper is not an encryption scheme, in its essence its an incentive structure that is agnostic to the encryption scheme.

Anurag imagine the chaos that would create. Fast forward a few years.. bitcoin's market cap is 10x of what it is today. An exploited flaw in bitcoin that causes huge sums to move from wallets to an attacker. What happens next? The patch is coded. Then what? The miners have to roll back to a snapshot of the blockchain? What about all the private full nodes? They all agree and coordinations this perfectly? How long does it take for them to agree how and when to do this? (if they can?). --- The time it takes for them to coordinate a fix would shake the confidence of magic internet money to the core.

It won't be Bitcoin the major problem if (when) SHA256 will be broken, I'm sure you know that it's used everywhere. Every system will need to be updated to the new standard. It won't probably happen overnight too, there will be time to make the switch. And it won't probably happen anytime soon either, we're decades far from it. I don't see a problem for Bitcoin, nodes and miners will reach consensus in such case because those who don't will operate in a broken system that doesn't work anymore. Same considerations for the quantum computing argument.

@Aaron: There would be no rollback. That's the whole point.

@Peter - There >>WILL<< be a roll back - that's my whole point.

@Aaron: If a rollback was made then the system would fail. Price would go to zero. Tell me why the miners would decide to do this when their income relies on the BTC price? And a followup question: If the miners would actually do this, what do you think the node operators, users and businesses would do? My bet is that they would reject the rollback and keep working on the non-rollbacked chain just as they did in 2017 when the miners tried to force 2MB blocks into the code base. Miners don't control the network. Miners are just service providers that will work on the chain where the revenues are the greatest.

A) China and many other countries have banned Bitcoin dozens of times and achieved absolutely nothing. People are far to fearful of this. B) Using mathematical extrapolations I can show you that every single human being on the planet is going to get infected by covid-19. Math won't prove that you're wrong but but real life will. C) Advances in computing would not make Bitcoin any better from an energy consumption perspective (it would just ramp up the competition within the mining space). Breakdown of modern cryptography is, at best, decades away and when/if this start to become reality we would have time to switch to other algorithms. We're not going to wake up one day and suddenly realize that all wallets have been hacked. And if that was the case (modern cryptography suddenly being broken that is) the people doing it would not use it to hack Bitcoin. Why would they use extremely expensive computing power to crash the Bitcoin price (and reveal that they now have this power) when they could hack governments and get military intelligence or something similar instead? Crashing Bitcoin would be far down the priority list.

Peter G. "China and many other countries have banned bitcoin" I remember China banned bitcoin in September 2017. The peak in bitcoin (USD terms) came in December of that year if I remember correctly? Maybe that ban had more of an impact than you think? Obviously I'm generalizing here. "Advances in computing would not make bitcoin any better from an energy consumption perspective" - You're misinformed. ASIC vs GPU vs CPU. I remember building an XMR miner when the new VEGA graphics cards came out and could mine at twice the hash rate using the same power consumption as older graphics cards. Much more efficient. Have you ever built miners? "Math won't prove that you're wrong but but real life will." Umm...really?

@Skyler: a) China have banned Bitcoin several times :) And even if banning it in 2017 cause the market to crash, did they actually achieve anyting? Bitcoin is still around, it still got a pretty large market cap and it's got more development going on than ever. b) Yes. I can't say how, but I feel very confident that Bitcoin mining won't boil the oceans (however, I'd probably laugh if that's the way humanity ends ;)). c) Of course it's more *efficient* to run an ASIC miner than mining on a normal CPU or on a GPU. But let's say you were using (for instance) 2 ASIC miners at 7.5 kW each and were getting 16 TH/s (8 TH/s per unit). Then a new miner came out that was twice as efficient (so 1 miner at 7.5 kW would give 16 TH/s). Would you replace your 2 miners with 1 new to cut your power consumption in half or would you buy 2 of them to double your output to 32 TH/s? That's my point. More efficient miners don't lead to lower consumption, it leads to tougher competition among miners (and yes, I have been mining BTC myself).

It's not like governments have a choice. They can't shut down the network - that's the beauty of decentralization. Question is will people use BTC as Gold2.0 in a digital era or will they prefer government issued digital currencies. I expect a huge breach of trust in governments will be a consequence of this crisis and that BTC will prevail. Exciting, but also scary times ahead imo.

@Brett M. --- True, governments cannot shut down the network (blockchain). However, they can make any cryptocurrency illegal and severely limit the "on and off ramps" to that blockchain, which will make it more difficult to use. I'm not saying that will happen or that it's a bad thing, in the grand scheme of things ... just adding a thought...

XRP is a scam

You do not understand XRP, or even BTC it appears. Go research it yourself and stop getting your facts from people who have something to sell.

Yep....XRP is a scam. And ETH is a dumpster fire clownshow 🤡...with broken architecture. Bitcoin it is!

This thread is starting to look a bit like the old Poloniex trollbox!

I got the impression that he's invested in Ripple more so than XRP the currency (Ripple owns ~50% of the XRP supply). Ripple is not a bad business to own shares in. XRP is a terrible currency to own because Ripple owns a ton of XRP and can dump it on you if you're dumb enough to hold their coin.

Most of Ripple’s XRP is locked in escrow, so they can’t “dump it”; even if they could, that act would crash the price and the value of their own holdings, liquidity of the asset making it less able to fulfill its use case, etc. Each month, 1 billion XRP is released from escrow, but most of it gets put back in escrow. It’s funny how Bitcoin people complain about this and don’t mention that early bitcoin wallets have a massive concentration as well, with “Satoshi” himself estimated to own 5% of max supply. This means Bitcoin is actually MORE vulnerable to a “dumping” in terms of motive and percentage of supply...

L-BTC exists today and does everything Ripple claims it can do, and more and better in every way. One advantage for ripple though - it's an indicator of the intelligence of the overall crypto market.

Hi I am in Singapore. The Prime Minister did not say that (in his 3rd April address to the public). At best he said this is a long fight. The full transcript is here : https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/coronavirus-covid-19-lee-hsien-loong-update-address-nation-tv-12606328

well your statement is kind of true and kind of not. Nobody knows who actually holds what address or how many addresses you hold. Of course if you go through KYC with an exchange chain analysis can make an effort to track who holds what, but if you use coinjoin or other services it will be very very hard to track you. My name is Ado and I hold Bitcoin. I do not think a single person on this planet, chainanalysis or not, can tell you how much Bitcoin i hold. So the public nature does not per definition mean lack of privacy in terms of ownership.

Wasabi is proven to be ineffective in hiding coins' owners. Ado, don't underestimate governments' power: if they want, they can track your wealth however they want, and also services like Chainalysis are pretty effective. As the history of the Internet shows quite well, you cannot add privacy to an inherently non-private network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_cash_flow Look at what happens mathematically when the discount function becomes negative

(Quick caveat: I understand that the Fed building up debt is not a positive thing, and that it could have global implications on the dollar system etc. My question is more - why are investors so concerned with this particular line in the sand? Is it related to )

I agree. Im an advocate for blockchain technology and have been but can see the obvious flaws in bitcoin. In my view it simply cant work. Someone please explain how and where im wrong with this. A. Governments can simply ban it via shutting down exchanges (or regulating them out of existence). B. If I'm not mistaken, $1M bitcoin would require as much energy as the rest of mainland USA combined. That would quite literally warm the Earth. Someone point out where my math is wrong on this? C. Advances in computing will make bitcoin more efficient yes, however such great advances to lower energy consumption will also make bitcoin useless if encryption can be broken. I am buying others though that have real world utility. Like Etheruam, ChainLink, HBAR, etc

You cannot stop the internet. You can opt out to ringfence yourself from an open internet and be left behind. You cannot stop open digital economies based on decentralised networks. You can opt out and be left behind.

As a money supply and monetary policy, BTC is as perfect as it gets. Anything you can dream of can be built on top, e.g. private transactions, Lighting Network, credit cards, etc... Replace USD with BTC money supply and you quickly see this. If the answer is not BTC, and something better comes along, the same argument could be used infinitely over and the entire crypto space fails for lack of confidence. BTC or bust.

Insightful response, Andrew W. Thanks.

The risks you mention could all be categorized as user incompetence which is possible. I am more concerned about something like the Chinese advancing quantum computing or some other technology that breaks the encryption. (In spite of this I am long BTC since 2015).

@Dave irrational exuberance runs rampant.. I am long bitcoin, but the community can afford to dial it down a notch.

Google: “ Everything they told you about Bitcoin is a lie | Giacomo Zucco”

Blockchain-based Bitcoin has not been hacked for 10 years will source code that is open source...that kind of security is not just a store of value, it creates value with respect to time. Play this out for a few years and security alone will be worth more than gold.

Was meant to be money, yet, that didn't seem to pan out. Now the mantra is "digital gold". I'm a Bitcoin holder, but I went in with both eyes open.

Is it even worth speculation? Libra is a whitepaper that has significant headwinds to ever seeing the light of day.

Free people need distributed peer 2 peer. Governments and corporations have turned the Internet into a client server model. unstoppable domains is needed for free speech.

Me cringe too....it’s not about Blockchains, ICOs, DLT or Crypto 🤢🤯 It’s about Bitcoin, Gold and Sound Money Technology 🔥🚀

Its not about the internet, its about pets dot com!!!

hahaha

Internet of Money by Andreas Antonopoulos, https://theinternetofmoney.info/ The Bitcoin Standard by Saifedean Ammous Blockchain Revolution by Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott Andreas Antonopoulos has a insightful youtube channel as well: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJWCJCWOxBYSi5DhCieLOLQ As an introduction I recommend watching this vid by James D'Angelo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhe61JaNFLU

Excellent. Thanks!