Elizabeth Warren Compares Buying Bitcoin to 'Buying Air'
The Massachusetts senator also came out in favor of creating a central bank digital currency

On Meet the Press, Chuck Todd posed a series of cryptocurrency-related questions to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.): "If I buy bitcoin, am I buying a share of stock or am I buying a pork belly or am I buying euros? What am I buying?"
"Or are you buying air?" responded Warren, calling bitcoin an "ephemeral token" where the value is only tied to other people's perceptions of its worth.
Todd pressed her on that, asking whether the finite supply of bitcoin makes it more similar to platinum or silver.
"With bitcoin, there's no thing that backs it up," responded Warren, saying, "it's just belief."
"Instead of bitcoin, we could be talking about digital currency," argued Warren, saying that central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) have "something that backs it up"—the government.
It makes sense that Warren, who wants people's transactions to be maximally surveilled by the government, would favor the creation of a digital currency. But CBDCs don't even come close to being useful substitutes for cryptocurrency, because they obviously fail to confer the benefit that makes cryptocurrency so attractive: anonymity, or privacy from government surveillance of transactions.
Toward the end of the segment, Warren said she thinks cryptocurrency "is going to end up getting regulated."
Contrast both this mindset and this regulatory approach with Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), who told Reason's Nick Gillespie last year, "There are different reasons to have a digital dollar, or a central bank digital currency, than to have bitcoin."
"As long as the dollar is in use, it's important that we make transactions clear faster and that people have more opportunity to use a digital format for the U.S. dollar," said Lummis, deemed the "crypto queen" of the Senate, who noted concern about the ways these currencies, like the digital yuan being developed by the Chinese Communist Party, can be used by the state to surveil citizens.
"In combination with China's 'social credit' system, the e-CNY [digital yuan] will also enable China to directly send money to, and take money from, favored and disfavored individuals," writes Avik Roy at National Review. "People and businesses who speak out against the government can have their bank accounts instantly wiped out and find themselves de-platformed from economic life."
As to how this might function in America, consider the fact that administrators of this hypothetical CBDC would have extraordinary amounts of data about where individuals spend their money. "If you were troubled by IRS leaks of private tax returns, wait until the Fed knows everything about your spending habits," cautions Roy.
In that hypothetical universe, cryptocurrency's promise of financial privacy makes it an even more appealing competitor.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Crypto is anonymous? Could have fooled me with the ledger being full public knowledge by design.
The ledger only tells you about the movement of money between addresses. Addresses are not associated with names or other identifiers. So, yes, crypto is anonymous.
Deanonymizing it requires forensic techniques and additional metadata.
Bitcoin is pseudonyms, not anonymous. Once someone knows the wallet address every transaction they have EVER made is easily trackable. If you think it won’t be easy to connect wallets with identities then you are blinded by confirmation bias.
pseudonymous*
I started earning $90-120/hour in my free time by completing tasks (ui56) with my laptop that i got from this company I stumbled upon on-line…Check it out, and start earning yourself for more info visit this site … https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Shut the fuck up. What kind of name is Refugia?
You misunderstand how Bitcoin is used. With Bitcoin, every time someone sends you funds, you give them a brand new address. This means that you end up with large numbers of addresses and their corresponding private keys, and these are stored in your wallet secured by a master key.
Wallet software will do this for you automatically. From the Coinbase support info: "We automatically generate a new address for you after every transaction you make or when funds are moved between your wallet and our storage system. This is done to protect your privacy, so that a third-party cannot view all other transactions associated with your account simply by using a blockchain explorer."
An attacker has no way of deducing from the blockchain whether two addresses are stored in the same wallet or not, so even if you tell them that your identity is associated with a particular address, they have no way of deducing from that what other addresses are in your wallet or what other transactions you have engaged in.
For example, we know that Satoshi Nakamoto owned the first address. But nobody can tell whether any of the other early addresses (some of which have had transactions) are associated with him as well.
Hope that helps you understand Bitcoin a little better.
pseudonymous*
Given the quantity in her head, Warren is undoubtedly an expert on air.
As always, I trust that 'air' a hell of a lot more than Warren and the rest of the clown show. We know what she and her ilk are going to do to the dollar.
You're buying one digital currency with another digital currency that isn't even backed by paper anymore, let alone gold. The only real difference is that one is subject to her control and manipulation while another one is not.
++
While I'm bullish on the long-term prospects of cryptocurrencies, at this point, I consider them almost purely speculative plays. If there's not a ready market to exchange cryptocurrency for goods and services beyond gimmicks (and, no, at this point, there isn't), it's hard to say that they really are much more than buying air. I think that could change in the future. But, we aren't there yet. The sober and sane position is to let them develop free of government interference and see what happens.
That said, what I don't support at all, is pure digitalization of the dollar. The entire initiative is nothing more than an attempt at totalitarian control. We see it today in what our own government is doing to the Russians. We see it in what was done to the Canadian truckers. We see it in the attempts to "de-bank" certain unfavored individuals and businesses. The Bible itself talks about the devil instituting absolute authority by denying individual the right to buy and sell. That's not supposed to be an instruction manual.
While I'm bullish on the long-term prospects of cryptocurrencies, at this point, I consider them almost purely speculative plays. If there's not a ready market to exchange cryptocurrency for goods and services beyond gimmicks (and, no, at this point, there isn't), it's hard to say that they really are much more than buying air. I think that could change in the future. But, we aren't there yet. The sober and sane position is to let them develop free of government interference and see what happens.
Warren's comment is actually making me lean the other way. I was never very bullish on BTC but recognize paper money is and likely will go away and that makes sense but her comment points out a very anti-libertarian flaw in BTC, that is to say, does air or freedom of speech have a price? They're already truly anonymous entities controlled by no fiat that are, to greater or lesser degrees, generally trusted. If we had to protect air or free speech by running massive encryption and consensus algorithms would we do that? Why?
Why, yes, air has a price. Exercising freedom of speech has a price.
And executing monetary transactions also has a price, no matter what form of payment you use (fiat money, gold, bitcoin, bank transfer, etc.). Among the many mechanisms you can use for monetary transactions, bitcoin is one of the cheapest for large transactions.
Why, yes, air has a price. Exercising freedom of speech has a price.
OK, what's the price?
For free speech? Printing costs, broadcasting costs, network costs, etc. All that you need to pay for.
Likewise, holding Bitcoin doesn't cost you anything. But if you want to transact in Bitcoin, you pay for the transaction costs.
Printing costs, broadcasting costs, network costs, etc. All that you need to pay for.
Distill it down for me. What's the price in BTC at any point, your choice, in the past week?
Can you ask your question in coherent English, please?
What's the price for free speech expressed in BTC?
"Or are you buying air?" responded Warren, calling bitcoin an "ephemeral token" where the value is only tied to other people's perceptions of its worth.
Wait, is she not incorrect here? The US dollar has been described the same way, especially when it was divorced from gold as its basis. And even gold, to a degree can be described in similar terms.
Toward the end of the segment, Warren said she thinks cryptocurrency "is going to end up getting regulated."
Wait, is she not incorrect here?
Yeah, the whole conversation just convinces the that BTC fanbois have been staring into the abyss for too long.
It would be interesting to see what happens if Trump weighed in with "I agree with Fauxcahontas. We need more digital wampum that we use as gifts, to signify social status, to solemnize trade agreements, and to record debts and history but totally aren't money."
Then Trump would be just as wrong as every other idiot trying to control money.
Yeah, but the question is, would the other idiots trying to control money downshift into "Controlling money is bad when Trump/Warren/Sanders does it but not when I/we/Satoshi/Musk/Larsen/Zhao/Wu/The Winklevosses do it.", upshift to "We need more distributed crypto to dilute out Trump/Warren/Musk/Larsen/Zhao/Wu/The Winklevosses.", or wake up and realize that their opinions about the gear, make, model, or engine of the car, if it exists and is going anywhere, don't matter because they're not driving and never will be and, because Muh (Pseudo)Anonymity!, will never really know who is.
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum aren't controlled by anybody; that's the whole point.
I thought the whole point was anonymity? If it's not controlled by anybody, how is anyone to trust it? To know when it hasn't gone out of control?
Why don't you read the original Bitcoin paper? It doesn't even mention anonymity in its abstract. The point of Bitcoin is disintermediation and removal of centralized control:
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
You can examine the protocol and the software, and you can inspect the entire public ledger. So, whatever properties you desire in order to "trust" Bitcoin, you can verify yourself. In particular, you can trust that the kind of currency manipulation and interference with transactions that occur in the traditional financial system do not occur with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is out of control and it is uncontrollable: that is the whole point of it. If you want something that is "under control", use the US dollar or the Chinese Yuan.
Why don't you read the original Bitcoin paper? It doesn't even mention anonymity in its abstract.
So the point isn't anonymity.
Correct. The motivation for Bitcoin was disintermediation and removal of centralized control.
The Bitcoin paper explains what that entails for privacy:
The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.
The motivation for Bitcoin was disintermediation and removal of centralized control.
Ah. So, per your quoting the paper and Satoshi himself (in case it's unclear, "This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were."), it isn't really anonymous or decentralized any more than the traditional banking or stock exchanges.
Fucking Christ when does the TDS wear off and people realize that a question about a hypothetical Trump is never about hypothetical Trump?
He's a CNN junkie.
"where the value is only tied to other people's perceptions of its worth."
looks like someone passed currency 101, give her a hand folks!
Wait, are those green slips of paper primarily valuable because I can do origami with them or use them as to start a fire?
Homeless people can stuff them in their sleeves to keep warm!
Why would they have to stuff dollars up their sleeves when they can just huddle around mining hubs for warmth?
USD has value primarily because various governments must accept them for tax payments. If that ever goes away then, no, USD has no value.
"You pay for gas in rubles!"
"With bitcoin, there's no thing that backs it up," responded Warren, saying, "it's just belief."
"Instead of bitcoin, we could be talking about digital currency," argued Warren, saying that central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) have "something that backs it up"—the government.
Ask Elizabeth Warren if she knows what a fiat currency is and if she knows what a Zimbabwean or Venezuelan dollar is worth.
another example of a democrat with way too much power, way to much interest in using it to control people's lives, and the knowledge of a 3rd grader.
Though I think 3rd graders might understand fiat currency better.
She is what AOC could aspire to be, at best.
"it's just belief."
No, it is trust. As in: "I trust every Marxist to conflate monetary issues to exaggerate the need for central planning."
I don't understand 'central bank digital currency' other than as a government controlled version of banking or Bitcoin. Giving politicians control of monetary transactions seems idiotic beyond all belief.
Fauxcahontas sounded very excited the other day about every transaction being perfect and recorded by Central Bank
She imagines a world where the IRS can simply levy her targets funds at the push of a button.
"Or are you buying air?" responded Warren, calling bitcoin an "ephemeral token" where the value is only tied to other people's perceptions of its worth.
Not exactly; I can actually use "air" to breathe; bitcoin has no practical use. Sort of like the dollar, but at least you can burn dollars to keep warm or to cook.
The total volume of air for you to consume is limited but the total number of dollars for you to burn to keep your self warm isn't. You clearly have no understanding about how this bitcoin stuff works.
Do Visa and MasterCard have a "practical use"? Does SWIFT have a practical use?
Well, there you have it: Bitcoin has the same practical use: it's a payment processing system, and a pretty good one at that.
for all Liawatha's stupidity she's a dangerous chick.
"Christ, what a stupid bitch"
"America's most hated Mother-In-Law"
- "She has a Plan for that!"
- "Yeah, a bad one"
Elizabeth Warren Compares Buying Bitcoin to 'Buying Air'
She then proposed a 35% tax on air.
Cryptocurrency is only backed by belief... Much like fiat currency is backed by a belief in government.
A digital dollar would likely mark the end of the dollar.
For me crypto currency is more a speculative commody than a currency. In the end Warrens representation of it as air might not as far off as her representations of the alternatives and fiat currency she prefers. Right now it's useless to me for normal purchases but time will tell.
How nice for you. For other people, however, it's an alternative global system for transferring value, quickly, efficiently, relatively cheaply, and without government interference.
Please stop spreading correct information about crypto. It hurts my market advantage and reduces my entertainment potential.
Except it's not quick, efficient, cheap, or without government interference. At this point, it's impossible to tell who's more misinformed and misinformative, Warren or NYOB2. I can say I've never seen the both of them in the same room at the same time. NYOB2 does seem to be more prolific in his disinformation though.
Obviously, you don't have much experience with the traditional financial system.
It looks like "misinformation" to you and PhatMatt because you are so illiterate that you think that "once someone knows the wallet address every transaction they have ever made is easily trackable."
NOYB2
April.1.2022 at 11:53 pm
Cryptocurrencies are already heavily regulated, to the point that in the US, they are largely unusable.
...
NOYB2
April.2.2022 at 12:03 am
it's an alternative global system for transferring value, quickly, efficiently, relatively cheaply, and without government interference.
Yes, and both statements are correct.
The US government is incapable of interfering in the operation of the Bitcoin network. You can send and receive Bitcoin to your heart's content and your transactions will be carried out by the Bitcoin network no matter what kind of hissy fit Warren throws. In fact, if you are reasonably careful, you can do so without the IRS or any other government agency even being able to track you.
It is entirely your choice whether to abide by US government regulations when using Bitcoin because Bitcoin is beyond the ability of the US government to interfere with or even track reliably.
Personally, I choose to abide by US laws even if they are stupid and unjust and even if I could likely get away with breaking the law. You need to make your own choices.
"Instead of bitcoin, we could be talking about digital currency,"
We're all clear that, despite Lizzie making some semblance of sense we're discussing a moot point, right? The Rentenmark was pretty overtly just a placeholder in the move between the Papiermark and the Reichsmark and when the ultimate choice is between the Socialists and the Nationalist Socialists, they (BOTH SIDES!) could've called it the unsinnigmark and it would've worked the same, right?
Sen Warren - When you accept a dollar in exchange for a good or service, what are you accepting? Hint: an "ephemeral token" is a pretty good description of any fiat currency.
So what makes your ephemeral dollar automatically better than my ephemeral bitcoin? Is it really that you don't like the fact that you can't arbitrarily devalue of my bitcoin and might be held to account for your financial malfeasance when the dollar loses its position as the default reserve currency?
Ya, promote Bitcoin on the idea of fiscal stability. Let me know how that works out....
BTC on election night: 15k
BTC today: 46k
Damn you really got us there. Much better to keep your money in dollars.
Damn you really got him. Arguing against stability by pointing out a 300% inflation of the value. Or do you really think a 300% increase in the value of BTC reflects a 300% output in economic production? Just think if, instead of changing the minimum wage from $10/hr. to $15/hr. we, instead paid them in BTC, we'd be paying them $30/hr. now!
Takes a lot of balls or a massive amount of stupidity to make that argument in the current political climate.
Ah, I see, you subscribe to a Marxist kind of economics, where goods and services have intrinsic value. The real world doesn't work that way.
In fact, the 300% increase in the value of Bitcoin represents a sharp increase in demand. Bitcoin works the same way as fiat currencies and gold that way.
Damn, you really got him there. No... I mean it.
I feel stupid for having subscribed to the ideology that predates Marx by millennia and has nothing to do with him, that goods and services have intrinsic value of their own, and that will continue long after BTC is gone. The fault for failing to recognize that the only true value in life is demand for BTC is mine. I freely admit it. If you enjoy the freedom of being told what to value and how by people like Warren or NYOB2, you should buy BTC or similar.
And you should feel stupid about it, because that's the economic equivalent of believing in the flat earth hypothesis.
No good and no service has an intrinsic value, not even Bitcoin.
...
Bitcoin's "true value" is in the ability to transfer money without intermediaries.
Does your version of libertopia exclude stupid, flat earthers?
Wasn't BTC over $60k a couple months ago?
By a 'couple months' do you mean April of last year, October of last year, or November and December of last year?
No. No. Wait. Sorry, that's a skeptic questioning the stability of BTC. What I mean to say, as a true believer, is you're an idiot. The price of BTC went through a 50%-100% deflation inflation cycle last year but that's not representative of its true value. It's representative of the *demand* for it's value, which is to say that it's really popular. Once enough people adopt BTC and it's truly implemented, we'll see its true value. You have to adopt the currency to find out what's in the currency.
Bitcoin's price in USD varies, but so does every commodity and stock; that doesn't mean that it has had "inflation" or "deflation".
I have explained this to you before: Bitcoin's "true value" is in the ability to transfer money without intermediaries. If that isn't of value to you, you don't have to use it.
Do you spend this much time badmouthing every product you don't need? Or is there simple envy at work with you? What's your motivation?
I have explained this to you before:
And you did it again below:
"No good and no service has an intrinsic value, not even Bitcoin." Bitcoin has no 'true value'.
Do you spend this much time badmouthing every product you don't need?
I thought, as a libertarian or even as a non-libertarian who has or desires freedom (from a fiat), a non-fiat currency was essential. Are you saying it's not?
What's your motivation?
Exposing deceit and disinformation. Bitcoin isn't decentralized, it's distributed. It's not anonymous, it's pseudonymous. It's not anti-fiat or anti-authoritative, it's crypto-fiat or pseudo-accountable. It's not trustless, it's faithful. Most importantly, for all of the above, the more it becomes any one of the former, it becomes more of the latter for the others. I don't have a problem with re-jumbling any given metric. I have a problem with people selling all of them as more in the same entity. You fundamentally can't increase all of them simultaneously, to assert you can is to lie.
Bitcoin's "true value" is in the ability to transfer money without intermediaries.
Heh, without intermediaries, except maybe whomever is managing the wallet... and the digital miners/consensus network... and the people controlling the physical network. Except for all the intermediaries, you can transfer money without intermediaries.
Yes, it's truly sad that I am having to argue that a novel currency with a recent history of very high fluctuations in value might nevertheless be less bad than the US dollar as a reserve currency.
Despite my misgivings, the data suggests that might be the case. Bitcoin's valuation movements are result of a (mostly) untampered market. Further, I believe that while Bitcoin still has a large beta, the alpha (the central value around which the daily valuation fluctuates) has about reached it's stable value. The US dollar's valuation movements are mostly the result of actions by ignoramuses like Warren and are almost entirely negative because of political incentives for inflation.
"In combination with China's 'social credit' system, the e-CNY [digital yuan] will also enable China to directly send money to, and take money from, favored and disfavored individuals," writes Avik Roy at National Review. "People and businesses who speak out against the government can have their bank accounts instantly wiped out and find themselves de-platformed from economic life."
And it’s naive to think this evil horseshit isn’t coming to the western world also.
I hope the early government proponents of this get destroyed politically, but my hopes aren’t too high. The voter seems fine with whatever their betters have planned as long as the free shit rolls.
It's much worse than you think. The secret sauce to making CBDC workable at the scale of say, China or the United States is artificial intelligence. No Federal Reserve governors, no electable politicians – indeed no human assembly of minds could ever manage the real-time crosstalk of a social credit/penalty system combined with infinitely fractional interest rates and no middlemen bankers to hedge funds and existing shadow banks like Blackrock (which already uses AI to buy up controlling shares of most equities). The end result of putting AI directly in charge of observing *and* reacting to real-time changes in human desire, socialization, and belief systems (all valuations are belief systems) would be the most sophisticated, invisible, tyrannical forcing function in history to remove humans from experiencing the results of making decisions. Think THX 1138 but much smarter at intercepting perceptual changes of individual human desire before those humans can realize they're being manipulated. No this is no science fiction. We are less than 20yrs from CBDC and quantum sapient artificial intelligence. The worst part is you've already seen in your lifetime how humans tend to revere and promote psychopaths/sociopaths, so it's not a stretch to imagine an AI overlord with no conscience despite being smart enough to pass a Turing test.
(And btw once they put artificial general intelligence in charge of the global money system it's game over for "they" also. The enemy's goals are important to define here and some people just want to manufacture a god out of the "air" Warren is waxing Orwellian about.)
Bottom line: we go the way of China we take the highway to hell.
And yet 'blockchain' "air" trust is 45,000 times better than the trust in the USD... Heaven forbid that would tell Warren and the rest of the Nazi shills anything?
Couldn't possibly be that their massive counterfeiting Nazi-Operation is turning the USD into the exact same 'funny-money' that countless other Nazi-Regime's have done.
Nope, nope.... I guess for the Democrats it means MORE Gov-Gun pointing at it's own citizens.. Ya know; just like the German Nazi's did.
she is clearly the dumbest native american to ever hold office
Actually, the most important differences between cryptocurrencies and fiat money is the absence of a federal reserve, the impossibility of political interference in the money supply, and the impossibility of government interference in transactions.
If cash-like anonymity is your only concern, you don't need cryptocurrencies; smart cards can provide that and are already used in Europe that way.
Cryptocurrencies are already heavily regulated, to the point that in the US, they are largely unusable.
On the other hand, Lizzy, honey, while you can certainly take an ax to both digital currencies and the US dollar, you should know that people still have tons of other alternatives, including barter. Better and much smarter socialists than you, Lizzy, have tried to control markets, and they all have completely failed. They have been thrown into the dustbin of history, and that's where stupid people like you will go as well.
Cryptocurrencies are already heavily regulated, to the point that in the US, they are largely unusable.
And that, right there, tells you pretty much everything you need to know about BTC.
That's not all people need to know.
People also need to know that collectivists, crony capitalists, and totalitarians in both parties (Elizabeth Warren, Mitt Romney, etc.) are responsible for this sorry state of affairs it. As are ignoramuses like you who enable and support them.
People also need to know that when you have turned the US into an impoverished shithole and totalitarian state, they have alternatives.
the harder the normies go after BTC the more I'm convinced it will win outright and sooner than we think.
Yeah, it's a shame that in the next 10 yrs. BTC will do what the LP has failed to do for the last 50. It's really gonna make all those libertarian economists like Friedman, Sowell, Rothbard, and Davies look like morons.
The part that really scares me, from the perspective of a kulak, sorry, normie, is the people saying "See, it's tripled in value in the last year so it's stable!", "Goods and services don't have value, that's Marxist thinking, only BTC has value.", and "It's been regulated to the point of uselessness in the US but, once it's adopted by everyone everywhere, it will be useful." Comparatively, Warren's suggestion of a central currency for the Fed is exceedingly cogent and benign.
I mean, I know, the bad interpretation of all those statements won't come true, thanks to Satoshi. I'm just saying that fellow BTC converts should really get their shit together and realize they sound more like globalist socialists than Warren does to the wreckers and kulaks, sorry again, normies.
That makes no sense. Libertarian economists are in favor of privately issued, non-inflationary money, precisely what Bitcoin provides.
No good and no service has an intrinsic value, not even Bitcoin. The fact that you don't understand this shows what an economic nincompoop you actually are.
Bitcoin is already useful to millions of people around the world. Bitcoin is also already useful to millions of Americans. It simply isn't useful for commerce in the US because US reporting requirements make that too cumbersome.
You don't have to use Bitcoin if you don't want to. It's a free country.
But you should seriously stop spewing your ill-informed nonsense. You obviously have no idea how Bitcoin works, or how money works, or what libertarianism is all about.
No good and no service has an intrinsic value, not even Bitcoin. The fact that you don't understand this shows what an economic nincompoop you actually are.
You're absolutely right, goods, services, and even currency don't have any value, intrinsic or otherwise, unless deemed so by knowledgeable authorities such as yourself.
Bitcoin is also already useful to millions of Americans.
You said "uselessness", not me. If you meant something besides uselessness, you probably should've said something besides uselessness. I'd recommend a dictionary but have been duly educated that they don't have any intrinsic value.
Gets rich and sends her children and grandchildren to private schools. Does not want anyone else to get rich and send their children and grandchildren to private schools.
Well, if there’s one thing Senator Warren is actually knowledgeable about, it’s air. She has quite a head for it.
Unless something has changed, finding a new Bitcoin requires a large amount of computing power, which requires a large amount of electrical energy. Nobody can create trillions of dollars worth of bitcoin just by holding a meeting at the Federal reserve.
Unless something has changed, finding a new Bitcoin requires a large amount of computing power, which requires a large amount of electrical energy.
You bitcoin haters, trying to downsell BTC like it's really expensive and slow. Next, you'll probably point to El Salvador's crumbling adoption of BTC as legal tender to prove that BTC won't work when it's obvious to anyone that true Socialism, I mean Bitcoin, has never been implemented economically.
Bitcoin's current next block fee is around a dollar; if you can wait for an hour, the transaction fee is about a dime. This is vastly cheaper (in particular for large transaction) than the US banking and financial system.
Bitcoin is not currently suitable for replacing small cash transactions; El Salvador's attempt to use it that way is foolish. Small cash transactions are best carried out with smartcards.
Bitcoin is suitable for fast money transfers in the range of a few hundred dollars to millions of dollars, in particular internationally. If that's what you need to do, great! If not, don't use Bitcoin.
Small cash transactions are best carried out with smartcards.
You mean the smartcards that everyone carries around in their phones that have made everything more affordable and everyone who carries one invariably more free?
The phrase "bag of hammers" comes to mind.
This isn't merely about anonymity, although that's an important facet.
This is also about the freedom to transact freely without the ability for the government or companies to intervene in transactions it doesn't like. Like it or not, the Freedom Convoy has shown clear as day that citizens of all nations need those protections, even in the supposed 1st world. It's YOUR money, no one but you should have a say in how it's spent.
Not at all like buying air. It takes no faith, zero, to understand why air has value. Bitcoin is 100% faith. As soon as people lose that faith Bitcoin has no value, zero.
This is a great spectacle and I love watching it. So many people with such incredibly unshakable faith...it is fascinating.
Maybe there is some sense in her words, but now I see that cryptocurrency is very popular, so I think that it is worth investing in cryptocurrency, even if it is something ephemeral. In addition, now there are no problems with choosing a crypto exchange to start trading. I advise you to click this link to learn more about which crypto exchanges are really worth your attention.