How’s the skit look now?

Been reading some more Taleb lately, and I agree, get him in. Regardless of what he says it will be entertaining at the very least.

The video was about paradigm shifts that they see happening. They all talked about them and gave brief overviews of their thoughts. Raoul even mentioned this was a short notice trip...

There's no such thing as a "free lunch". If you're a bank customer then the bank is making money off of you. The fees in the Bitcoin network are part of the incentive structure that keeps the network safe. Also, it's possible to put your private keys on a USB stick and physically hand it over to another person. A perfectly legit BTC transaction which costs nothing.

@Petter G, that costs you a USB stick it would seem. In any case, I agree the transaction fees are needed with the way the network is structured, how else can you incentivize individuals to do the work. With a large enough network of users, a small (almost insignificant) transaction fee added up can easily make up a large enough reward for miners to continue processing blocks.

Your comment gave me flashbacks to my Diablo 2 days as a young teen. Distorting the online trading economy via mass duping and botting, until I was banned (caught by the 'regulators').

Re. your comments about Socialism. I have the dubious pleasure of living in the UK, and I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine the rise of Jeremy Corbyn last year, nor do I think I've imagined the continued growth of his Millenial supporter base since his election inroads of 2017. Also had a long time friend of mine - a teacher who's voted for the Conservative Party his entire adult life - switching over and voting for Corbyn. I therefore cannot agree with your comments about Socialism coming apart. It's on the rise in both the UK and Europe. I also suspect that come the next US Election, you'll find Mr Sanders making a bit of a comeback against the Ginger Ninja currently ensconced in the White House (kudos to Chris MacIntosh for that particular pseudonym of the Donald).

RE socialism it's completely steam-rolled the entire political and economical edifices in the US & Europe. Not really too many true economic and social 'conservatives' out there any more. Especially with so many people on the government dole now (50% or more now in the US). And with rising Feminism/Matriarchy and Millennials asking the government to 'do something' about XYZ real or imagined (mostly imagined at this point) inequity or injustice it's only going to get worse. These systems have to implode before they start to get better, but that's a long way away I fear right now.

Europeans are going to vote themselves away to being nothing but a basket case non-entity on the global landscape.

The reality is whether people want to talk about it or not, as according to a Spectator article citing a UK Conservative Party Advisor (ex-advisor to David Cameron), race is the biggest determinant in how one votes (left or right). Recent non-white immigrants essentially strongly vote left wing. Last UK election, only 19% voted Conservatives. And with demographic change occuring, the vote is moving towards more 'Socialism' (the issue is not so much 'Millennial, as it is race, Millenials are much more racially mixed than any other generation'). Per other articles I have read on the subject / studies, the same applies to other countries. The same occurs in the US (recent immigrants vote strongly for more 'Socialist' oriented policy), same applies in Sweden (they massively vote Socialism). They dominantly vote for 'policies' that support an ever larger government and social program (which to be honest have already been trending this way for 70 years now, it's just likely to continue ever further, governments are likely to get even bigger than they already are (which they are already at historical highs), and growth is likely to get ever slower (most probably stagnating when you combine it in with demographics / ageing)). Corbyn doubtfully will win the 2022 election. But the Tories in the UK are in real trouble on any future election, and in the coming London elections, as there at present white generally older base dies out. Of course this can change, and you might / likely will see recent immigrant voters change political beliefs etc and start voting for more generally 'Conservative' and / or pro-'capitalist' policies again. As might some mass reformist politicians appear out of nowhere to enact change. Nothing is ever set in stone, and trends (politics, social sentiment etc) can change dramatically of course. But at present this is essentially what is occurring. This applies particularly to Europe I would argue, who already are swung much more to big government, mass regulation, big social program, big interventionism. At least more so than the US. Millennials complain this is justified, they are 'angry' and want 'change', for example big house prices, thus more 'regulation' or more government involvement is the answer. The reality is, per a recently released Reserve Bank of Australia research paper, planning legislation increases house prices by hundreds of thousands of dollars. In some of the most expensive parts of Sydney (per the RBA paper) it can adds as much as $800,000 to the value of a houses. As Milton Friedman correctly stated, the government interventionist crowd clearly acknowledge that markets can 'distort', thus need intervention from the government to 'smooth' this out. Yet they never acknowledge that every time the government intervenes, this also creates distortions (or to put it another way, unintended consequences). I.e. planning laws = higher house prices. Labour laws = job destruction. Energy or environmental policies = higher energy prices / erosion of manufacturing competitiveness. Millenials are likely to vote for more 'equitable' growth (which would be extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve, requiring immense intervention and distortion of the labour market / business environment), likely resulting in slower growth / less efficiency, thus less wealth. Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but you have Worth Wray and Raoul talking about the geopolitical aspect of it, and the US against China, or Europe against Russia, and he said how can the West economically compete in a Cold War 2.0 scenario? The US against the Soviets during the Cold War, the Soviets collapsed / failed to due to inefficiency. I think the same applies to the West today. They can't play that game. As the West (the Western voting electorate) is instead very likely to just vote themselves out of the competition and into less efficiency. China doesn't particularly have to do much I think. They just need to implement reforms, trade more with Eurasia, everything they are already doing at present, and then just play the waiting game, as the West becomes ever more inefficient and unable to compete. Notwithstanding dramatic technological change / black swans etc that can dramatically shift outcomes.

'Just a product of sitting behind a Bloomberg screen all day and having no experience in the real world.' Honestly thats a fair criticism for a lot of us here at RV and I think! :)

Bravo!

Great questions. Personal opinion is that Trump is the grey champion predicted/described in the fourth turning, and the order being overturned is the liberal order which is a severe aberration in all human history - thrown into obvious relief by more traditionally oriented socities like china, russia and saudi.

Sorry Sarah but China appears to be making more positive moves re global warming than the U.S., who seem to be denying and regressing under DT. The 'other' side isn't always bad and wrong, when looking at things objectively.

To clarify: disrespect for due process and established fact refers to the failures of the criminal justice system to prosecute these crimes effectively. The criminal justice system has to operate properly, because something will step into its place if widespread criminality is allowed to go unpunished like this.

I agree. It was especially painful to listen to Mark Hart, the bitcoin cancer definitely took him over. And was he smoking anything? His comment that ECB is now buying Chinese bonds so the China can't go down... yeah, if Central Banker says so then it must be true because they are never wrong... Raoul Pal tried to be the lone voice of reason though.

Raoul, are these "unfriendly" comments or paid subscribers voicing their honest opinions and reactions? Policed seems to mean controlling the perception of others if one doesn't like the narrative. I feel like: "I may not tell you what you want to hear, but I'll tell you the truth".

Policing only appropriate ideas leads to 1984 or Facebook; don't go there.

Please don't invite Armstrong back after his last incoherent babble on RVTV

Armstrong is a difficult interview. He is not verbally adept but is well versed in monetary history, a succesfull trader and has enumerable contacts in China, Europe, as well as the US. He requires a skilled interviewer to keep him focused but worth the effort.

Big fan of Armstrong and his very knowledgable database and historical acumen. He is a hell of a character. However, I agree he is not an eloquent speaker. The RVT crowd would likely not appreciate his style even with a tight interviewer. Pity, he has so much broad knowledge and one of the most colorful histories of any economic commentator.

How is there huge network adoption when the absolute huge majority of BTC is actually held by a minority? I bought in and sold out of BTC, as well as other cryptos, and it's nowhere near as quick to send as you suggest. I share you excitement about the potential, but the problem is don't specially need bitcoin for any of that.

Kathleen I think you are getting too bought into the Bitcoin fad. Crypto will have a place I am sure, but only if mainstreamed. As Eric notes, a few people appear to own a huge chunk of Bitcoin. Governments are going to shut bitcoin down or place heavy controls on it, this seems obvious to me because of the threat Bitcoin represents. If people want to speculate great. To me gold and silver are not speculation they are almost a guarantee once we come out the other end of this credit binge and government interest rate manipulation farrago.

I'm not sure why Metcalfe's law is relevant to cryptocurrencies in any more special sense than it is relevant to any currency. A currency is the settlement mechanism for transactions that a community chooses to execute among its members. The problem of bitcoin in this sense is, that is ability to settle transactions is EXTREMELY limited. Essentially only a couple of dozens of transactions per second can be settled, GLOBALLY. US Dollar or Euro are in this sense much better enablers of networking effects than a cryptocurrency. Of course, one may argue that this time is different, because the bitcoin network is a network. It actually isn't in a true sense of the word. A true network is able to grow both in terms of functionality and capacity when you add nodes to it. Bitcoin instead is an interconnected group of computers that all are doing the same thing. Unlike with the Internet, adding nodes to the bitcoin network does not bring more transaction processing capacity nor new functionality. It just makes the group of computers doing the same thing bigger. Growing the network does not help its members achieve more. All that's happening is a price peak of a hyped asset people don't really understand. Bitcoins are bought, because the speculators believe the "bitcoin will soon scale infinitely and rule the world" hype. It won't scale without becoming a system that is subject to regulation. For that reason, it won't rule the world.

@D H: - "I'm not sure why Metcalfe's law is relevant to cryptocurrencies in any more special sense than it is relevant to any currency." > It's more relevant to talk about Metcalfe's law in the crypto space since the adoption rate is much higher in those currencies compared to other currencies. "Metcalfe's law states the effect of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system". - "US Dollar or Euro are in this sense much better enablers of networking effects than a cryptocurrency. " > Yes, the dollar has one of the strongest network effects in the world. But while the importance of the dollar will go down over time many believe that the importance of cryptocurrencies will go up. - "Unlike with the Internet, adding nodes to the bitcoin network does not bring more transaction processing capacity nor new functionality." > It's not supposed to! You really don't seem to understand the real purpose of Bitcoin. It's *not* about "transactions per second". It's about independence and censorship resistance. The purpose of running a bitcoin full node is to increase the security of the network and to enable the user to *independently* verify every transaction made on the network. The base layer provide security while the second layer(s) provide throughput/privacy/interoperability etc. There are many high throughput systems out there (Paypal, Visa, Mastercard etc) but none of them provide the independence and security of Bitcoin.

... and Bitcoin Gold

If all forks of Bitcoin eventually turn out to be equally succesful then I guess there is no difference. However, I think most believe that just one of these forks will survive in the long run.

Saying that forks dilute bitcoin (or are ‘printing’ bitcoin) is like saying printing Euros dilutes the USD - they are different assets with different exchange rates. A fork is really just an altcoin where you try to bootstrap adoption by giving it away to BTC holders, who usually either sell or ignore it.

In the end, it isn't any different. The Bitcoin believers just deny it. They want to believe, that bitcoin is "digital gold" as its amount is limited. The thinking goes something like this: "Bitcoin is gold" "Bitcoin cash is another kind of gold" "Bitcoin gold is yet another kind of gold" "Litecoin is yet another kind of gold" "Ethereum is yet another kind of gold" "Dogecoin is yet another kind of gold" "IOTA is yet another kind of gold" Ad infinitum... https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/03/16/how-many-cryptocurrencies-are-there.aspx So, it is all gold to believers, all 1500+ different cryptos. If you need more of it, just create a new crypto and call it "yet another kind of gold". Pro tip: If you don't like central banks, buy the real thing. There's only one kind of gold out there. If you don't like the color of gold, buy platinum or silver. But that's about it. No more "different kinds of gold".

@D H: *No one* in the crypto space thinks that every coin/fork/token is "gold". Why would you say that? Many in the crypto space like gold and many are so-called "Bitcoin maximalists" who thinks that *only* Bitcoin will be successful in the long run. Everyone knows that 95% of all altcoins are scams/simple trading vehicles (it's all a game where people try to trade themselves into getting more BTC).

Bitcoin should have the Lightning Network by the end of the year. It's already on the Mainnet but not quite ready for full production use. Neither Bitcoin Cash nor Bitcoin Gold will have this.

I'll just write this in case anyone else read the above comment: D H. is wrong in a big way. Bitcoin will scale massively in the coming years and will likely be the king of crypto for a very long time. But don't take my word for it. Read, study and form your own opinion. At least don't listen to guys like D H. No offence D H.

The 'proof of work' model wont scale and all that computation (and power) going to waste is incredibly inefficient. Digital distributed ledgers are where its going to be at. Blockchain technologies are of course an sub-type of this but possibly just a first prototype. Agree that an interview with Erik Townsend on this would be good. Would love to hear Stephen Streater' ideas in this space too

..personally until there is that better distributed ledger i'm bullish Bitcoin

@Tito: The base layer don't have to scale. It have to be secure. And to be secure it needs to be costly for an attacker to modify the contents of the ledger. This is what PoW provides. Nothing more. Scaling solutions will be provided by protocols built on top of the base layer. This is something that Microsoft also have found to be the best way forward: "To support a vast world of users, organizations, and devices, the underlying technology must be capable of scale and performance on par with traditional systems. Some public blockchains (Bitcoin [BTC], Ethereum, Litecoin, to name a select few) provide a solid foundation for rooting DIDs, recording DPKI operations, and anchoring attestations. While some blockchain communities have increased on-chain transaction capacity (e.g. blocksize increases), this approach generally degrades the decentralized state of the network and cannot reach the millions of transactions per second the system would generate at world-scale. To overcome these technical barriers, we are collaborating on decentralized Layer 2 protocols that run atop these public blockchains to achieve global scale, while preserving the attributes of a world class DID system." Source: https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/enterprisemobility/2018/02/12/decentralized-digital-identities-and-blockchain-the-future-as-we-see-it/ With that said: It is possible that more efficient and equally secure consensus mechanisms are discovered in the future. But as Bitcoin is software, it is also possible modify the SW and switch to something else than PoW if consensus is found on making that sort of change.

Currencies are social expressions and fiat represents both social acceptance of a payments medium and a political system which can enforce the collection of taxes in that medium to a government with the societal acceptance and/or power to do so. There is a reason the hyper-inflationary collapse of a currency is typically followed by dramatic political change within the affected country. Cryptocurrencies ,and Bitcoin in particular, have captured the imaginations and modest resources of millions of retail buyers ; but for the moment they seem a lot closer to being Beanie Babies or Franklin Mint collectibles than real stores of value or media of exchange. The inviolability of Bitcoin is a myth . Apart from the technical issues , anyone willing to subsidize a new cryptocurrency intelligently would have a decent shot at getting their new crypto off the ground , having already banked a significant proportion of the eventual finite supply of tokens. This arbitrage will dilute the aggregate proportion of portfolios that might be placed into cryptocurrencies . A profusion of volatile new issues might be great for speculators and exchanges ; but it will be confusing for would-be store of value types ,and probably fatal to any chance of serious linking to the mainstream financial system. Finally, Hart& Co are bass-ackwards on equities. In theory , equities represent a share in the earnings stream of a business. The monetary and economic environment can affect the prosperity and stability in which the business operates ; but my bar should be able to function, pretty much regardless of the payments mechanism by which the patrons pay fro their beers.

@Petter G. I'm offended. What's your pedigree that entitles you to label me as a categorically unreliable source of information in this subject matter? Mine include: - 7 granted US patents about distributed transaction management since 1997, currently owned by IBM - Current position as the lead DLT architect in the largest bank of my country - Decent understanding about how the financial system as a whole works (RV partner, FWIW) I may be either right or wrong in my opinions, but you should concentrate on arguing about facts instead of labeling fellow members as unreliable. So far, you've failed to provide any factual counterarguments.

@D H: Sorry to hear that. As I said, I did not mean to offend you and when I now read my post again I can see how it could come across as insulting. I'll try to adjust my tone in the future. However, here are a few of my objections to some of your claims: 1) You claim that Bitcoin doesn't, can't and won't scale which is factually untrue. 2) You claim that Bitcoin is an illegal payment network which is also untrue in most juristictions. 3) You claim that fiat can be used in blockchains and seem to suggest that such a solution would be a good idea. Why on earth would you use a blockchain when you have a central authority that controls the system? A normal SQL database would be much more efficient in a setup like that. 4) You claim that the governance in Bitcoin is not working which is also untrue. It works exactly as intended. It's *supposed* to be hard to make changes to the base layer (unless clear consensus is found among participants). 5) You claim that Bitcoin won't last because there are so many others (more advanced) cryptocurrencies out there but fail to recognize that the hard part (now that Satoshi have done the *really* hard part for us) is actually getting a following. I can't tell what the future will bring, but when I see a post with so many errors (in my opinion) I feel I should give readers a chance to see the other side of the coin. Glad to see that you have a nice resume. But it doesn't change the fact that I think you're wrong.

Petter G- Who appointed you God of Bitcoin/Cryptocurrencies? You should be ashamed of your arrogance and dismissal of anyone who disagrees with your opinion. The value of this interview regarding crypto is that it is still in its infancy. Smart people are still trying to figure it out. Disagreements are all over the place when you have a technology that is so new. It is the disagreements are the basis of learning and moving forward towards what crypto will or will not become in the future. No one, including you Petter G has all the answers.

@PetterG: "1) You claim that Bitcoin doesn't, can't and won't scale which is factually untrue. " You're yet to present evidence about that. When you do, make sure that you understand the audience has some long-time experts of distributed data management solutions AND banking systems. Specifically, the "Lightning Network" is not the answer, because it will essentially introduce a lousy banking system with quite big payment hubs requiring allocated capital on top of a extremely slow peer-to-peer transaction engine. In clear language: Lightning network tries to solve the problem by creating the same problem that Bitcoin tried to solve. "2) You claim that Bitcoin is an illegal payment network which is also untrue in most juristictions." Once the scalability problem has been "solved", there are entities, such as the payment hubs, in the ecosystem, that become subject to regulation. Those entities must comply with all AML and KYC requirements out there. 100% guaranteed. "3) You claim that fiat can be used in blockchains and seem to suggest that such a solution would be a good idea. Why on earth would you use a blockchain when you have a central authority that controls the system? A normal SQL database would be much more efficient in a setup like that." The whole blockchain revolution is about making cross-organization business transaction management by orders of magnitude more efficient than what such systems are today. Those business transactions need to be settled on-ledger, but the settlement mechanism does not require a cryptocurrency. Fiat will do just fine, and it is trivial to implement. "4) You claim that the governance in Bitcoin is not working which is also untrue. It works exactly as intended. It's *supposed* to be hard to make changes to the base layer (unless clear consensus is found among participants)." For any real use, the "consensus of unknown contributors" governance model is completely unusable. You need to have sufficient degree of certainty about the capabilities of the base layer, if you want to implement any business solutions on top of it. "5) You claim that Bitcoin won't last because there are so many others (more advanced) cryptocurrencies out there but fail to recognize that the hard part (now that Satoshi have done the *really* hard part for us) is actually getting a following." Bitcoin has superior brand value over the other cryptocurrencies, but that's it. In many other respects, it is just a first demo of a very cool innovation. That, unfortunately, is not alone sufficient for a commercially viable solution.

@D H: 1) The Lightning Network will enable borderless, peer-to-peer micro-transactions on the worlds most secure decentralized settlement platform. See what I did there? I claimed something for a *fact* just as you did when you started this whole thread. You don't know. I don't know. But claiming that Bitcoin *won't* scale is naive. The question is how *much* and in what *way* it will scale? 2) Once scalability have been solved payment hubs won't be an issue. Because if they *are* an issue then scalability have not been solved. Lightning is not the final solution. But it is *a* solution. 3) The whole blockchain revolution is here because someone decided that it would be a good thing to have a neutral, open, borderless and censorship resistant global currency. It took about 15 years to find it but now it's here. And it's called Bitcoin. It has never been about businesses. 4) You seem to think that you argue *against* the Bitcoin consensus model on this point (but you're really not). Changing Bitcoin is *very* hard. This in turn create a great deal of certainty for anyone who want to build stuff on top or use it in any way. 5) There's one important difference in this case. Basically all cryptos out there are open source. So if everyone agrees that feature X should be adopted by Bitcoin then it *will* be adopted by Bitcoin. Also, Bitcoin is the largest open source project the world have ever seen. It's not a demo. Not anymore. Cheers. PS. I'd really like you to stop trying to scare me (and others) from speaknig our minds by saying stuff like: "When you do, make sure that you understand the audience has some long-time experts of distributed data management solutions AND banking systems. " This comment section is open to all who subscribe to RV. And you have no clue what *my* credentials are. So just stop. PPS. This is the last comment I will make on this thread. If people want to know more about Bitcoin and/or Lightning Network I would recommend you listen to Andreas Antonopoulos on youtube.

Well said Mark. That's what it basically boils down to, relying on some other bigger idiot who will pay more than you. It's wild speculation.

Thanks Eric. I’m neutral on bitcoin but I don’t think it’s fair to call people who own it idiots. Speculators yes, but as they say that’s what makes markets. The big question is what are the supply/demand dynamics that will drive price?

Would certainly love to see this. The Bullish vs Bearish China debate is one of the most interesting in my opinion, and I'm sure they'd both have a lot to say.

Absolutely. I admire these guys, for what they've done. But i'd like to think if my opinion was publicly valued, I wouldn't use the opportunity to get a cheap dopamine hit by denigrating my own people. I mean can you imagine an individual from any other group doing this? Imagine a chinese investor saying 'i'm so glad that chinese companies are losing market share in x industry' - it's absurd on its face. You have to be highly educated and rareified to believe the kind of intersectional nonsense that this self-hatred is based on.

I think we are watching two completely different interviews, and I'm afraid you are totally missing the point. Nobody is celebrating the diminishing power of white males, what they want to applaud is the releasing of potential human power and leveling of the playing field.

Clearly the point he is trying to make is that meritocracy is increasingly winning over any sense of racial or gender entitlement/bias. To spell it out, in economic terms: breaking down inefficient barriers or frictions improves productivity.

There's an economic advantage point to letting women and the population become a free and bigger part of the consumption. Belief's regarding women won't change overnight in Saudi or the Middle East. Same with North Korea----behind the scene's things are changing, but the news will keep it down and negative until the big boys own it all.

Maybe those guys bought Bitcoin at $18,500 and need to get it back?

Hell, they wouldn't let him talk----that was unfortunate.

No kidding. Especially Worth's comments that if the Euro gets too strong they can just go buy some Yuan to ease the pressure. Can you imagine the global response if the world's 2nd largest currency was actively managing its exchange rate against the world's 3rd largest...? Completely make believe as you said.

Bitcoin $750 - $920 ...Jan2017. Just adding some perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bitcoin#2017

Agreed...again, blockchain is a fantastic tech advancement but cryptos are heading down because to many cryptos are chasing too few dollars. Bitcoin is the biggest name but I doubt they end up being the standard. Again, the supply of bitcoin may be limited but the supply of cryptos is limitless. There are always new ones coming out and the tech is 'always better'. It's similar to what killed the internet stocks in 2000....too many new shares were coming to a hot market chasing too few available dollars.

The biggest fallacy might be that low volatility assets like bonds in an over indebted world are "safe" and a Blockchain asset like bitcoin are "risky". BTC 1 year return +700 Investors got paid to assume the volatility risk

He sounded drunk.

Mark Hart is so unimpressive. I have interns in my office that have more coherent global macro messages.

The first Mark Hart interview was fantastic. Every interview that followed was a further letdown.

45th minute in Raoul realises Mark has upped his coke intake 10 fold!!

Oh yes he does! Not good, sounds desperate to be brutally honest.

I am sorry but it is you that does not understand what a fork is; when a block chain is forked a new cryptocurrency is created it does not diminish the amount of the original. As with Bitcoin cash - the number of bitcoins did not go up and those that owned the original bitcoin got BCash -- BTC is still at 21 million. If bcash died off because nobody adopted it - it would no way effect the original btc. Look it up.

You must be one of these crypto-maniacs I keep reading about. Seriously, there is just so much you don't understand about bitcoin and blockchain adoption on a global basis. All you hear in the positive spin and hype - you need to check the reality!

Hey Steve R, someone doesn't understand that it is impossible to dilute bitcoin and I correct them and you call me a maniac-- LOL!!! U sound pretty ignorant -- maybe u should educate yourself by following experts in the space like Andres Antonopoulus or Nick Szabo --

Kathleen S. - Seriously, you need to get out more!

Kathleen, you clearly don't understand what dilution means. I would argue that if you held pre fork then possibly you haven't got diluted but anyone buying in after one of more forks is definitely getting diluted.

Agree - Worth shows his worth through an excellent grasp of history and the inter linked economic/ financial implications over time

Sorry, Worth just wasn't worth it for me.

What do you not get -- it makes a completely new currency that has no connection to the previous currency -- thus there is no diluting in the first currency. If the currency becomes something fine, if not fine. I always love young people because they get this - they are not trapped. Maybe you should stick to stocks, that actually have no finite value because they like the US dollar can be printed into infinity.

It's not really a completely new currency and it certainly doesn't have no connection to the previous currency. You undermine your own points. The hard forks completely undermine this and I don't understand how anyone can have faith in such a system. To call it a currency is a joke. Btw, what do you think the average age of e.g. BTC is across the whole network? I bet you it is not that young...

2140

Maybe that explains the lack of shoes ?

Why would you suggest that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme? If you had studied how Bitcoin actually works you would know this is not the case. Sad to see so many people still are sceptical to Bitcoin 'just because'.

Very well put.

Hey B. I would disagree with your statement of blatant bigotry. If you look at recent statistics in tech, even though asians represent 40% of the tech workforce, as you climb the ladder into upper management it still is predominantly white males that hold these positions of power and influence. The average salary of female investment banker at Barclay's in 2017 is half that of male counterparts? Sounds ridiculous but it's still true even in today's "even playing field". I think we have come along way, but I think he's touching on a valid topic that few large fund managers rarely discuss. Kudos to Mark, and I hope he is given a larger platform to go into these issues in more detail.

Douglas w..Thanks for the response..I guess it is possible to interpret his comments in the manner you pointed out..But the western culture was created by white males to a large extent, and the only things you can compare it to is "other cultures" (comparing them to a hypothetical culture is of no use)..and you are not going to find white males among asian cultures..Female salaries are close to male salaries (at the top end) but most of the failed business ventures,bankrupcies and suicides are male...no one is looking for equality among these ranks. The legitimate cases of discrimination are far outweighed by ideologically driven dogmas against the white patriarchy..(best described by Thomas Sowell)..Inequality is dangerous, it leads to revolutions and If one is misdiagnosing the problem one is not helping. There has been extensive psychometric studies that have been available for decades which explain the variances between race and gender .

The fact that a variance exists does not mean that discrimination is the reason for the variance..

douglas w. - the narrow definition of equality you have in mind is neither achievable, nor desirable. It is simply communism 2.0.

Jordan Peterson FTW!

It the hard left crazy? Yes. Is the hard right crazy? Yes. Is Jordan Peterson an overhyped intellectual lightweight? Yes.

I would really like to have heard the timing and reasoning for Mark’s “hard reversal” on China. I figured he and Kyle Bass have been essentially “timed out” on their China plays even if they wind up being right in the end. When RV, Grant, or Raoul become aware of such a 180 degree reversal on a well thought out and argued major Maco position it would sure be great to get us a presentation for the reasoning behind it asap.

I would say that Nikolai Kondratieff is the one who deserves the credit for the Fourth Turning. His ideas and he got shot for them!

He went through this i his last video, a year ago.

The ideas revolving around G2 are refreshing. The part I don't get is why investment managers always need to promote the relative value angle on a certain asset versus it's comp. In this case, bitcoin versus gold as a store of value. I've tried to read a bit on the whole issue of quantum computing and whether that can lead to circumvention of the finite of supply of bitcoin to come. The only argument I see is that quantum computers are too expensive and pose some form of money printing type breakthrough on Bitcoin until the cost of quantum computers, let's say converge to certain ratio versus the bitcoin mining operations. Maybe there is some relative trade where supply of bitcoin gets disrupted, just like money supply and central banking. Another curiosity for future real vision episodes would be whether the forking is already a form of stock split or new bitcoin supply in "like wolf in sheep's clothing". It's like trying to modify the definition of what new supply actually is. I would like to know more on why brand value of Bitcoin is so important. Brands are valuable until they become really "uncool". We like in a world where Jenna Kardashian can give snapchat a really hard time. If crypto currency illuminates turn against their creations, a bit like Vitalik Buterin.. isn't that a brand issue? Another anecdote from perspective of growing up in Japan, where people love to speculate on currency and have adopted Bitcoin as a currency on margin speculation mania is the Kokusai global sovereign fund mania.. which was the biggest bubble in EUR carry trade at the retail level that ever existed. I remember that the size of that fund inflated to be the largest retail mutual fund in Japan. Japanese retail exposure to bitcoin now exceeds that the last FX retail bubble before the last EUR carry trade unwinded. I buy "u should hold a small X% of your assets in crypto" argument. Mrs. Watanabe are not the world's best market timers. Maybe this time could be different. Final thought would be to investigate whether to what extent the bitcoin limited supply thesis is absolutely bullet proof. I don't have enough datapoint to make that assessment. Maybe Peter Thiel has the answer. He is a brilliant technologist and VC, but at the same time a somewhat failed macro hedge fund manager that didn't get the timeframes right on broad macro trend bets. If bitcoin falls into the category of the big asset allocation bet, I have yet to hear someone with the right asset allocation argument on Bitcoin that relies on nothing more than the greater fools theory.

The main arguments against the quantum are (a) its still a pipedream with todays Quantum computers only doing 69 qubits when u need 1500+ to break private keys and (b) quantum resistant cryptography ALREADY exists and can likely be added to bitcoin via softfork

Would I buy a 'Fedcoin'? Yeah sure maybe a few if they were cheap. Would I store my wealth in 'Fedcoin'? No way.

Fedcoin will just be a digital currency for convenience. Just like any another form of currency. It will be just as fiat as the next dollar. I would not collect them either; just like I do not collect dollars. DLS

China already banned cryptocurrencies, ICOs, and mining. They did it last year at like $5k and bitcoin shot up to 20k regardless.

Worth reminded me of a bobblehead doll for a moment anyway.

Totally agree. Hart has very innovative views on many topics and will listen to the interview again but Hart's perception that these social movements like 'metoo' or ones like them will be successful is naive. Many of these movements philosophies are paper thin, contradicting themselves over and over. To reference 'white patriarchy' as if it is something that is oppressive in and of itself is silly. All the white men I know don't sit around figuring out how to maintain power among white men.

Thanks for responding Mark..I always felt like I was getting my moneys worth from real vision and happy to pay for info free from Mainstream Ideologies..But that comment was an anomaly

Thanks for responding Mark..I always felt like I was getting my moneys worth from real vision and happy to pay for info free from Mainstream Ideologies..But that comment was an anomaly

and I forgot...Bitcoin has broken DOWN

Your comment is ridiculous.

The very reason why there can be an infinity amount of crypto is why bitcoin is so valuable. In terms of the development of new tech, in order to scale, every cryptocurrency is going to need a 2nd layer off chain scaling solutions which is highly dependent on user base. The lighting network just rolled out for bitcoin as the 2nd layer. As for smart contracts, Rootstock is being built and being run on the testnet. To be honest though, I think people are either going to believe in crypto or they're not. But you shouldn't chastise people that are taking part in this new belief system. Bottom line, they believe in it and like it or not, that makes it real.

I think you missed the point with bitcoin and Metcalfe's Law. If the network adopts bitcoin as the standard, what's the use of having better tech if no one uses it? The internet as a whole uses the DARPA developed OSI 7 layer network model still. More secure and faster protocols have been developed, but haven't caught on. We've instead developed technology like FTCP and MPTCP and infrastructure like CDNs around the standard that's been adopted by the network. In the last few decades, we've gone from transmitting simple text packets to video streaming of major events like the Super Bowl

A lot of the value for Bitcoin is in the security of the network. It would cost ~$7,000,000,000+ to buy the hardware alone for trying to do a 51% attack today (that would allow you to double spend etc, not modify anything that’s already written to the blockchain). On top of that it would cost you approximately $13,000,000 per day in electricity cost. That’s one of the reasons why the network effect is so huge with the PoW (Proof of Work) mining system. Sure, you can copy the code, but you can’t copy the network, the community and the security. There’s not room for that many currencies that rely on PoW and PoW is the most secure way to store data that we know of today. The winner kind of takes it all. It’s also why the debate about the high electricity cost for the bitcoin network is somewhat ridiculous. If anything, it’s something good because it’s a proof that you can trust the security of the network because an attack would be extremely expensive to perform. Then you could build layers on top of this network for performing day to day transactions (like the lightning network tries to) or build a new system that’s designed to handle smart contracts (Ethereum etc) or use PoS (Proof of Stake) to handle more and cheaper transactions. But then you’ll have to cut corners with the security and people will probably look for the most secure place to store the majority of their funds. Today that place is bitcoin and it won’t be easy to replace. Thank you for the interview Real Vision, really interesting!

Keep thinking about it... If it's generational trend for new asset class and millennials going to do to crypto same what boomers done to stock market, then it doesn't have to be bitcoin. Same framework will apply for any alternative with same or better properties. I am sceptical of bitcoin. Mining is wasteful. Got to be a better way.