Wouldn't it be quite difficult to "hide" $118Bn of assets that supposedly back Tether?

I, for one, find it difficult to move a couple of thousand dollars without being questioned.

A problem is even if they did have $118Bn bank deposits, their bank could fail. Concern over USDC's bank failing caused them to de-peg. There isn't a sure way to peg a stable coin. Each comes with it's own liquidity risk.

That is why Bitgold was experimental, where Bitcoin is the real thing.

Introduction to Peter Schiff's Arguments and Rebuttals

Peter Schiff, a vocal advocate for gold, frequently attributes its value to what he considers "remarkable" characteristics. While gold indeed has practical uses, many of Schiff's assertions overlook the broader context of economics, chemistry, and history. For example, from a chemical and physical standpoint, elements like carbon and oxygen play far more critical roles in human life. Carbon forms the backbone of all life and the hardness of diamonds, while oxygen is essential for respiration and energy production. If all gold were to vanish from the earth, human life would carry on unscathed, whereas the absence of carbon or oxygen would spell catastrophe.

Gold's real allure lies in its prestige and historical role as a store of wealth, not in its functional superiority. Watches, for instance, can be made from gold, but stainless steel is more durable and affordable. Schiff, however, is neither a physicist nor a chemist, and many of his claims about gold might be easily contested by experts in these fields.

This crib sheet is designed to help you engage with Peter Schiff's arguments—whether you're personally looking to clarify your own concerns or preparing for a more organised confrontation in a debate or video. Each argument Schiff typically raises has been carefully dissected and countered with well-reasoned rebuttals. You can use this list in various ways:

For Personal Clarity: If you find yourself doubting the merits of Bitcoin or questioning the value propositions Schiff makes about gold, review these rebuttals to clear any confusion.

For Debate: If you're preparing to challenge Peter Schiff, either in a formal setting or a personal conversation, these responses will equip you with well-structured points to dismantle his key arguments.

The key is to use this resource flexibly. Some may wish to dive deep into economic theory; others might focus on countering misconceptions about gold or Bitcoin. Schiff’s points often repeat in various forums, so having a clear, factual response ready can turn the tide of any discussion.

These are taken from Peter Schiff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfHCly1ZCQ0 To 19 minutes.

Key: PS-01A - Peter Schiff's firt argument, PS-01R - Rebuttal to Peter Schiff's first argument

PS-01A, There is unconstrained supply as there are unlimited number of other cryptocurrencies.

PS-01R, Cryptocurrencies, like elements, have distinct properties and values. While Bitcoin may share some superficial characteristics with other digital assets, its unique combination of originality, scarcity, decentralisation, and network effects sets it apart. It's similar to comparing gold to other elements on the periodic table—each has its own utility, but only one can serve as a store of value like gold. For example, oxygen is essential for life, but it wouldn't function as a store of value. Similarly, Bitcoin is not interchangeable with Litecoin or other altcoins, just as gold is not interchangeable with tungsten. This is a common misconception that altcoin proponents often exploit.

PS-02A: Other cryptocurrencies are better than Bitcoin—faster to use, cheaper to use.

PS-02R: It’s true that some altcoins offer faster transactions than Bitcoin’s layer-1 network. However, increasing base-layer capacity often comes with trade-offs, particularly in terms of centralisation. Bitcoin prioritises ensuring that ordinary people can easily run a node, which is vital for maintaining decentralisation. This trade-off is well understood. Moreover, Bitcoin's Lightning Network provides a second-layer solution that allows for immediate settlement with near-unlimited throughput. With Lightning, everyone in the world can buy a cup of coffee using Bitcoin—quickly, cheaply, and without compromising on base layer store-of-value decentralisation.

PS-03A: Nobody wants to use Bitcoin because it isn’t a very good cryptocurrency.

PS-03R: The market clearly disagrees. Bitcoin remains the largest digital asset, with a market cap exceeding $1 trillion. Its market depth allows it to absorb billions of dollars in buy and sell activity daily, demonstrating significant demand and liquidity. Furthermore, Bitcoin continues to operate flawlessly, maintaining its security and resistance to hijacking—hallmarks of an excellent cryptocurrency.

PS-04A: Bitcoin isn’t a store of value.

PS-04R: A store of value allows you to delay consumption at one point in time with the reasonable expectation that you can exchange it for something consumable at a later point. If its purchasing power decreases over time, it is a poor store of value; if it remains stable, it’s reasonable; and if it increases, it’s a good store of value. Over the past decade, Bitcoin has consistently outperformed gold as a store of value, with its purchasing power increasing substantially.

PS-05A: Bitcoin isn’t a good medium of exchange or unit of account.

PS-05R: Consider the difference between Bitcoin and gold. If you have one Bitcoin or a kilo of gold and want to buy $1 worth of potatoes, which one can you easily break down to make that payment? With Bitcoin, it's instant, divisible, and verifiable. With gold, you'd need specialised equipment like a file, accurate scales, and an assaying kit—not exactly practical at Walmart. Bitcoin's Lightning Network enables payments that settle in seconds and cost fractions of a cent. Even if a store doesn’t accept Bitcoin directly, you can easily convert it to a store coupon usable at major retailers.

PS-06A: There are other cryptos that are a better medium of exchange or unit of account.

PS-06R: Bitcoin is divisible down to units worth $0.0006, and each of those units is equivalent. Given this level of granularity and fungibility, it’s hard to argue that other cryptocurrencies offer a meaningful improvement as a medium of exchange or unit of account.

PS-07A: Everybody uses crypto to gamble; that's its main use case.

PS-07R: People use Bitcoin for whatever purpose they choose, just as they do with dollars or any other asset. If the argument is that using Bitcoin is a gamble due to price volatility against the dollar, the same can be said for many other asset classes, including bonds, which have led to the collapse of several banks. Volatility is not unique to Bitcoin and doesn't define its main use case.

PS-08A: ETFs are another way to gamble.

PS-08R: True—every financial instrument involving assets that fluctuate in price can be seen as a gamble. This includes bonds, stocks, or any fiat currency you choose. The key difference with fiat currency, however, is that it’s designed to lose value over time due to inflation.

PS-09A: People might be using Bitcoin to escape the financial system, yet they are buying ETFs.

PS-09R: People can use tax-efficient IRAs or established financial products to store wealth. Bitcoin ETFs serve as a bridge between the traditional financial system and the Bitcoin ecosystem, allowing investors to hold Bitcoin within the frameworks they already use, without necessarily being contradictory.

PS-10A: ETF vendors advertise their wares because it is easier. [Peter argues this as evidence that Bitcoin is hard to use.]

PS-10R: People also store their gold wealth in ETFs, even though it’s not difficult to go to a coin shop and buy a gold coin. Similarly, storing Bitcoin may require a greater understanding, but this complexity brings added flexibility and control over one’s assets.

PS-11A: Bitcoin has no fundamental value.

PS-11R: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "value" is defined as how much something is worth in money or other goods for which it can be exchanged. Anything that can be meaningfully exchanged possesses fundamental value. In Bitcoin’s case, a cryptographic signature securely transfers that value, making it a fundamentally valuable asset.

PS-12A: Bitcoin has no income or earnings.

PS-12R: Similar to holding gold, as you advocate, those who hold Bitcoin do not expect it to generate interest or income. However, the cost of storing Bitcoin is significantly lower than the cost of storing gold. Additionally, Bitcoin is easier to hide and protect, making it a more flexible and secure asset.

PS-13A: As long as people keep buying and nobody sells, the price keeps going up, deluding people into thinking they are getting rich.

PS-13R: Bitcoin has already experienced numerous price cycles, and significant sell-offs have occurred during price shocks. If a mass sell-off were to happen, it likely would have already taken place. This demonstrates that Bitcoin’s price resilience isn’t just a product of people holding; it’s a function of the market adapting and maturing over time.

PS-14A: The price will remain high until people try to get out, leading to a situation where they only have money "on paper."

PS-14R: Bitcoin has already gone through multiple cycles of price increases and corrections. If a group of weak-handed investors were going to exit, they likely already have. Market cycles tend to leave behind those who see long-term value, rather than those speculating for quick profits.

PS-15A: Money isn't tied to ETFs; it's just a trade.

PS-15R: While there has been a moderate net buy of Bitcoin ETFs, much of the activity involves investors shifting from Grayscale to ETFs with lower management fees. The original Grayscale trust was a closed-end fund, meaning Bitcoin within it couldn't be withdrawn. When those Bitcoin became accessible, some predicted it would drive the price down. In reality, the price has risen, not fallen, defying those expectations.

PS-16A: It will be difficult to get money out of ETFs because there's a lot of "fake dollar" tether backing Bitcoin purchases, but when there's a sell-off of ETFs, they need real dollars to settle.

PS-16R: If we view financial markets and on-chain Bitcoin as two separate markets connected by the ETF structure, for there to be a major problem, we would need significant asymmetry—such as all sell orders in one market and all buy orders in another. This kind of scenario is highly unlikely. Additionally, the stablecoin market has substantial depth, providing liquidity to bridge gaps during transactions.

PS-17A: Bitcoin is a speculative mania.

PS-17R: Speculative manias, as detailed in economic textbooks, typically follow a predictable pattern: a rapid price surge, a crash, and then a permanent decline. These bubbles are short-lived and don’t recover after the crash. Bitcoin’s history is markedly different. It has endured multiple significant price corrections, yet after each downturn, its value has rebounded and often reached new highs. The consistent recovery and long-term upward trend over more than a decade clearly differentiate Bitcoin from the classic pattern of speculative manias.

PS-18A: Crypto acts as a unit of exchange and medium of account when denominated in USD, but it doesn't provide an inflation hedge.

PS-18R: While we can agree that USD-denominated assets don't provide an inflation hedge, the issue goes deeper. If Peter Schiff's preferred solution—such as a gold-backed or USD-pegged system—gained universal acceptance, we’d be left with a centralised system reliant on a single entity to maintain that peg. Whether it’s to USD, gold, or any other asset, this introduces the risk of centralisation and trust, exactly what Bitcoin was designed to avoid. A decentralised system like Bitcoin doesn't rely on maintaining such a peg and offers a true hedge against inflation without the risks of central control.

PS-19A: The ideal marriage is between gold and blockchain by tokenising gold, creating a medium of exchange and unit of account with real value, making it a superior monetary instrument compared to Bitcoin.

PS-19R: The concept of tokenised gold isn’t new—Bitgold predated Bitcoin. The fundamental problem with this type of scheme is that it requires a trusted third party to maintain the peg between the on-chain token and the off-chain asset. Bitcoin, however, solved this issue by removing the need for a third-party custodian, thereby eliminating third-party risk. Bitcoin’s decentralisation ensures that no single entity controls or guarantees its value, making it superior in terms of security and trust.

PS-20A: Bitcoin is a "lousy" store of value because there is no value.

PS-20R: You’ve been making this claim to people who have successfully traded Bitcoin for years. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "value" refers to "how much something is worth in money or other goods for which it can be exchanged"—this is the widely accepted definition. If you are using a different definition of "value," it would be clearer to avoid the term to prevent confusion and ambiguity.

PS-21A: Bitcoin has a price, and people confuse price with value. You can put a price on anything; it doesn’t mean it has value—it just means someone wants to buy it.

PS-21R: If you can tightly define something and establish a price for it, then by definition, it has value. The act of assigning a price indicates that someone recognises its worth, which is the very essence of value.

PS-22A: The "greater fool" theory—people buy Bitcoin because they believe someone else will pay more.

PS-22R: Bitcoin offers a deeper escape from the financial system than gold, as it functions both as an asset and a means of payment. History is full of examples where financial systems collapsed—runs on banks and more claims on gold than there was gold in the vaults. Consider 15th August 1971, when the Bretton Woods system ended, severing the link between gold and the dollar. Bitcoin is immune to such systemic risks, making it more resilient in the long term.

PS-23A: You can’t store price; you can only store value.

PS-23R: If I sent you 0.1 Bitcoin, and you later send it to someone else, there is a time delay between those events. In that time, the value has been stored in Bitcoin. This demonstrates that Bitcoin does indeed store value.

PS-24A: You can get a good deal if something of value has a low price.

PS-24R: True.

PS-25A: If you want to get out of fiat currencies, you can own gold.

PS-25R: True. You can also own Bitcoin.

PS-26A: I buy gold stocks because they were "giving them away." I own real assets that aren’t losing value—a stake in plant equipment, etc.

PS-26R: If a gold mining company goes bankrupt, the value you recover may be far less than the cost of the new machinery. Additionally, if sanctions are imposed on a country like Russia, and you hold gold mining stocks there, they could become entirely worthless, as your claims would be voided. You’ve likely seen this scenario play out. Bitcoin offers a level of insulation from government intervention and behaviour.

PS-28A: Gold is a conductor of electricity; it’s the best conductor we know.

PS-28R: Gold is actually the third-best electrical conductor, after silver and copper.

PS-29A: Gold is used in electronics, medicine, and dentistry.

PS-29R: Gold is chemically unreactive, like several other elements. In fact, it has no known biological role, as it doesn’t participate in many interesting reactions. While it’s inert and non-poisonous, making it useful in certain applications, it is just one of many biologically inert materials.

PS-30A: Because gold has uses beyond being a store of value, its price won’t drop to zero like Bitcoin.

PS-30R: Bitcoin has had many opportunities for its price to collapse, yet it hasn’t. As time passes, the likelihood of Bitcoin going to zero decreases, due to the "Lindy effect"—the longer something has existed, the longer it’s likely to continue. This same effect helps gold retain much of its value due to its historical role as a store of value. However, as the world becomes increasingly digital and online, gold's relative underperformance could be explained by its decreasing relevance in a digital economy.

#Bitcoin nostr:nprofile1qqs2xs05tluhtr6hpgsmqqxp04898gayjlyrjlexcrndv8j6el784xqtg3trx nostr:nprofile1qqsqhpgj6zessn3kp4kjvg5849x32z6m0shs2pn9sg8dg5pmu6r7emcg22cmp nostr:nprofile1qqsvf646uxlreajhhsv9tms9u6w7nuzeedaqty38z69cpwyhv89ufcqngza3a nostr:nprofile1qqsvf82j54enveujhxnwfpg4slpgqshmyna9vfwx6eace9wgw5dv59gsu6hcp

Even if Bitcoin were to reach astronomical valuations or become more widely used for everyday transactions, Schiff has stated that he would still not consider himself wrong. This stubborn stance has raised questions about his motivations and whether his criticism is based on sound financial analysis or personal biases.

Schiff's appearances on shows and interviews often involve shouting over others, which can detract from the quality of the discussion. In a recent discussion, young nostr:nprofile1qqsvf646uxlreajhhsv9tms9u6w7nuzeedaqty38z69cpwyhv89ufcqngza3a called him out asking "who is the adult in the room?" Some argue that his disruptive behavior should disqualify him from being given a serious platform.

There is an old proverb "Pride before a fall".

I listened to him intently in the 2005-13 time frame. He talked a lot of sense. I took his words with some weight.

He made an amazing speech at the American Mortgage association. This led to many "Peter Schiff was right" videos. He was riding high.

Nevertheless, I did buy a little Bitcoin, but perhaps with much more trepidation than I would otherwise.

It's a shame that Schiff's legacy is now so closely tied to his Bitcoin criticism. If he had simply acknowledged the potential of Bitcoin and focused on other areas of his expertise, he might have maintained his reputation as a financial visionary

Peter Schiff's Bitcoin Bet: A Legacy Lost?

Peter Schiff, once hailed as a financial prophet for his accurate prediction of the 2008 financial crisis, has made a significant gamble on Bitcoin. His unwavering criticism of the digital asset, labeling it as a "bubble" and "Tulip Mania," has become a defining feature of his recent career.

While Schiff's initial concerns about Bitcoin's volatility and lack of intrinsic value were understandable, his continued insistence on its failure, even as Bitcoin has seen unprecedented growth, has raised eyebrows among investors and analysts.

Many individuals who listened to Schiff's advice in the early days of Bitcoin have missed out on one of the most dramatic monetisations of an asset in history. His persistent criticism of Bitcoin could ultimately have negative consequences for his legacy.

Questions for Discussion:

Do you think Schiff's criticism of Bitcoin is justified, or has he simply missed the mark?

How might Schiff's Bitcoin stance impact his long-term reputation as a financial expert?

Could Schiff's continued criticism of Bitcoin be a sign of a changing financial landscape - one in which he has been left behind?

#Bitcoin #PeterSchiff #FinancialCrisis #DigitalAsset #Investment #Legacy

I've been watching a debate between Peter Schiff and Raoul Pal, along with a similar one featuring Jack Mallers nostr:npub1cn4t4cd78nm900qc2hhqte5aa8c9njm6qkfzw95tszufwcwtcnsq7g3vle . It seems to me that Schiff's arguments can be dismantled point by point, but they rarely are in these discussions.

Would it be helpful if I created a Peter Schiff argument crib-sheet for anyone preparing to engage with him in interviews?

My only hesitation is that he'll likely just produce more fluff, as he has with his current baseless arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfHCly1ZCQ0

Well, Happy Birthday!

Thanks for the heads up. To help adoption, I have been generously zapping, but it seems it might be repeating the same posts.

Enjoy your sats!

Why do most altcoins lose value relative to #Bitcoin, even when the total relative market cap of alts seems stable? It’s a zero-sum game in a crowded space...

The #crypto market is highly competitive, and the rankings of altcoins are constantly shifting. But there’s more going on than just price volatility—there’s a deeper structural issue.

In a 'zero-sum competition within limited market windows,' gains for one coin must come at the expense of another. The total value in the altcoin window is finite. When one altcoin rises, others fall.

Take #Ethereum, BSC, #Solana, and #Ripple—top altcoins by market cap. If a new coin like #Ton rises and overtakes BSC, it does so by taking market cap away from others. Rankings shift, but total value in the window tends to stay stable.

This means investing in altcoins isn’t just about price—it’s about surviving in a market where new entrants can erode the value of existing coins, even when the overall market cap looks healthy.

The real takeaway? As new coins rise, older coins fall in rank and value relative to #Bitcoin. Understanding this 'zero-sum competition' is key to navigating the altcoin market.

Will the altcoin market ever break out of this zero-sum dynamic? Or is it a permanent feature? Share your thoughts below 👇

Same here

I'm now into JS

You don't know how true this is!

I started going grey at 16, at 20, people thought I was 34, and at fifty-something, people think I am in my late 30's, and I feel as fit as when I was 21.

Make sure you have a healthy yeast to start. When the final gravity levels out, then wait a few weeks, if you can wait that long!

(from a winemaker).

SECP256K1 ?

I believe Robin Cook was justified in resigning his Cabinet post under Tony Blair; he was on the right lines. A political party is a complex machine, composed of councillors, activists, MPs, and ordinary members. I hold that everyone who willingly participated in keeping the party machine running under Blair, while aware of his actions, shares some moral culpability.

However, I would exclude Jeremy Corbyn from such culpability; he consistently used his position to speak out in the strongest possible terms against Blair. Incidentally, Corbyn received more general election votes than Starmer. While I am politically a very long way from Corbyn and disagree with most of his social and economic policies, I recognise his basic integrity--something that seems lacking in the post-Blair era.

Labour has yet to genuinely become heirs to government; they are where they are today largely due to the failures of the 'Conservatives', whose name is unearned, as it no longer represents their behaviour, only their rhetoric.

Benjamin Franklin would be turning in his grave at the thought of his likeness being inscribed on central bank fiat currency; the Founding Fathers were unequivocal in their stance on what should constitute money, and fiat dollars were certainly not it.

Video was filmed in the city of Kunming in Yunnan Province on August 27 2021.

Fifteen unfinished buildings, which stood for seven years, were demolished at the same time and sent a large cloud of smoke into the air.

Authorities decided to take action because the buildings had been abandoned for a long time and the basements were submerged in rain water.

The total demolition area, measured by total floorspace and number of buildings, were reportedly the largest for a one-time demolition in China.

Presumably built for "investment purposes". Chinese apparently like to invest in assets that can be made in almost unlimited quantities.

Those immigrants will be out of work too!

Voting lends legitimacy to the regime and the system; by participating, you’re supporting candidates who have already been vetted by the establishment.

However, if you don’t vote, the regime’s mouthpieces will claim that the electorate 'doesn't care' or that 'voters are apathetic,' when in fact the opposite may be true.

A better approach might be to cast a ballot but select 'none of the above'. This forces the system to recognise that the electorate is not apathetic, but rather considers the system itself to be illegitimate.