StoneToss (allegedly, formerly Red Panels)

[Rekkington]

Does it work as a store of value if you can't exchange it for at least some goods and services?

Land and real estate has stored value and you cannot directly exchange it for goods and services unless it is a very specific direct barter or it is transformed into something else for exchange.

 

[AnOminous]

Does it work as a store of value if you can't exchange it for at least some goods and services?

Well, you can. There are a number of ebay like sites where you can directly buy stuff for crypto. It's also pretty good for buying online services, like paying for VPNs (or donating to the Farms). It's still a lot more common to cash it out for fiat and then buy stuff with fiat.

Land and real estate has stored value and you cannot directly exchange it for goods and services unless it is a very specific direct barter or it is transformed into something else for exchange.

BTC is definitely better than non-fungibles that can't easily be converted to fiat currency, because it can easily be converted to fiat currency or other cryptos (or used to buy fungible off-bank assets that can themselves be sold for cash). It's still not great for, say, buying a cheeseburger, because you don't want to wait for 6 confirmations on the freaking blockchain before you can leave the restaurant.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Land and real estate has stored value and you cannot directly exchange it for goods and services unless it is a very specific direct barter or it is transformed into something else for exchange.

You can rent out land, use it to grow crops, or build structures on it, so it has value outside of the transaction. Most land is bought to be used; crypto doesn't do anything other than tally how much of it you have.

 

[KateHikes14]

You can rent out land, use it to grow crops, or build structures on it, so it has value outside of the transaction. Most land is bought to be used; crypto doesn't do anything other than tally how much of it you have.

And yet one of them is more than you make in a year so

 

[Lurkio]

Which is a bad thing when your primary purpose is to write propaganda comics for your slightly edgy conservative/"alt right" fanbase. He has an audience and he knows what they want from him. Making vague comics which can lean either way risks been seen as a fence sitter.

I know Twitter can get people to think the contrary, but the vast majority people don't have every single belief or opinion they have strictly falling in either the "left" or the "right". I know some of these groups will orchestrate someone if they even slightly deviate from the norm, but chances are even the most radical looking leftly probably has an opinion or two that falls closer to the center or even towards the right, and vice-versa. They just don't vocalize it because they don't want to be vilified on social media.

Stonetoss has never really given a shit about that, so if he has an opinion he wants to express that falls closer to the center, then he'll probably do it.

 

[The escape....?]

New comic

Gag​

Happy April Fool’s day!

 

[AnOminous]

Which is a bad thing when your primary purpose is to write propaganda comics for your slightly edgy conservative/"alt right" fanbase. He has an audience and he knows what they want from him. Making vague comics which can lean either way risks been seen as a fence sitter.

Honestly I don't think his audience is mostly the unironic "Nazis" SJWs want it to be.

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

New comic
View attachment 2048777

Gag​

Happy April Fool’s day!

The Amogus one was better.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Which is a bad thing when your primary purpose is to write propaganda comics for your slightly edgy conservative/"alt right" fanbase. He has an audience and he knows what they want from him. Making vague comics which can lean either way risks been seen as a fence sitter.

Yes if that was his primary purpose he sure would have had egg on his face.

 

[George Floyd Sneed]

Well, what is this one saying? Is it pro-satan, or anti-Trump? Going by the logic presented here either both of them should be okay or neither, either way it would be contradicting one or multiple things he's said in past comics.

People like to give Ben Garrison shit for labeling everything and beating you over the head with his message but if you don’t explain and label everything, retards are unable to understand it.

 

[Rekkington]

You can rent out land, use it to grow crops, or build structures on it, so it has value outside of the transaction. Most land is bought to be used; crypto doesn't do anything other than tally how much of it you have.

Yes, so you agree that value is established beyond what its direct transactional ability is. You can trade bitcoin, use it in transactions, and it has functional value relative to other people just like land. Land still has value if you can't grow anything on it and if nobody wants to rent it. If what you're trying to say is bitcoin can only be counted you are simply wrong, and it's an odd thing to want to pursue.

 

[AnOminous]

Most land is bought to be used; crypto doesn't do anything other than tally how much of it you have.

But it does it in a completely unfalsifiable way, so you can actually conclusively prove you have it without having to go face to face and flash stacks at some guy's face who might just rob you.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Yes, so you agree that value is established beyond what its direct transactional ability is. You can trade bitcoin, use it in transactions, and it has functional value relative to other people just like land. Land still has value if you can't grow anything on it and if nobody wants to rent it. If what you're trying to say is bitcoin can only be counted you are simply wrong, and it's an odd thing to want to pursue.

What I was responding to was the suggestion that crypto had value as a store of value even if it wasn't being used as a medium of exchange (which is still extremely limited for BTC and nonexistent for many others), which I disagreed with, followed by someone saying that land had value even if it wasn't a medium of exchange.

But it does it in a completely unfalsifiable way, so you can actually conclusively prove you have it without having to go face to face and flash stacks at some guy's face who might just rob you.

But if it fails to gain acceptance among merchants and converters' interest in allowing you to cash out wanes, it's conclusive proof you spent a lot on a certificate that says "I have this" and nothing else.

 

[KateHikes14]

But if it fails to gain acceptance among merchants and converters' interest in allowing you to cash out wanes, it's conclusive proof you spent a lot on a certificate that says "I have this" and nothing else.

Oh so like stock, or fiat currencies?

 

[Thomas Talus]

Oh so like stock, or fiat currencies?

Stocks have the value of the company they represent behind them, and once upon a time there were things called "dividends." Fiat currencies are a closer comparison, yes, but those are accepted by all merchants within the relevant jurisdiction (and often even outside in the case of greenbacks), whereas crypto isn't, which is the entire point I was making: it's like a technologically advanced dollar without the "legal tender for all debts public and private" part. And without that part, demand is eventually going to stumble and the value of a coin will stop appreciating and runs the risk of entering a death spiral. Thus, I don't think crypto is a good investment if you're looking for gainz.

 

[AnOminous]

But if it fails to gain acceptance among merchants and converters' interest in allowing you to cash out wanes, it's conclusive proof you spent a lot on a certificate that says "I have this" and nothing else.

The only way I see it cratering in any permanent way is when it's actually broken by something like quantum cryptography. Or some as yet unknown math genius figures out how to crack it by some as yet unknown method. So the odds of it being cracked in 20 years or so is pretty unpredictable. The odds of it happening tomorrow? Vanishingly slim. It's more likely the entire U.S. goes belly up and the dollar becomes worthless, or suddenly nobody wants gold any more.

 

[Rekkington]

What I was responding to was the suggestion that crypto had value as a store of value even if it wasn't being used as a medium of exchange (which is still extremely limited for BTC and nonexistent for many others), which I disagreed with, followed by someone saying that land had value even if it wasn't a medium of exchange.

The problem is you're just trying to play whack-a-mole with people comparing it to other things that you understand have value, because you do not want to understand the concept of value. It has value because people are using it. If one person had all the Bitcoin, it would have no value. If nobody has Bitcoin, it has no value. The more people adapt it, employ it, and work with it, the more value it has. Land has no value unless people want it for things. The functionality is related but not really necessary to the concept of value which is defined by people.

But if it fails to gain acceptance among merchants and converters' interest in allowing you to cash out wanes, it's conclusive proof you spent a lot on a certificate that says "I have this" and nothing else.

And if your land fails to gain interest, then your land has no purpose and no application and very little value. But we would not say that land has no inherent value. People have private property ownership over Bitcoin more than they actually do with cash money, if private ownership is your metric with which to gauge value here. But I don't think it is; what I think you are doing is you're just going to keep saying "apples and oranges" forever because you just don't like how a lot of people are doing a thing you think is dumb, and despite your belief it appears to have value against how you think the world ought to work.

 

[KateHikes14]

Stocks have the value of the company they represent behind them, and once upon a time there were things called "dividends." Fiat currencies are a closer comparison, yes, but those are accepted by all merchants within the relevant jurisdiction (and often even outside in the case of greenbacks), whereas crypto isn't, which is the entire point I was making: it's like a technologically advanced dollar without the "legal tender for all debts public and private" part. And without that part, demand is eventually going to stumble and the value of a coin will stop appreciating and runs the risk of entering a death spiral. Thus, I don't think crypto is a good investment if you're looking for gainz.

Good, doubters just like you have made me money everytime when they realized the currency they were deriding for not being widely accepted enough purchased yet more acceptance, they saw that and fomo'd my bags.

 

[round robin]

If we're gonna be off-topic anyway, I bet StoneToss has a folder full of comics if Chauvin is acquitted and another if he's convicted.

 

[Ron Jeremy Stan Account]

Well, what is this one saying? Is it pro-satan, or anti-Trump? Going by the logic presented here either both of them should be okay or neither, either way it would be contradicting one or multiple things he's said in past comics.

Are you serious? I got the joke instantly. The gag is that 30-40 years ago, conservative Boomers were paranoid about satanic messages in media, and were on a witch hunt to cancel things they deemed problematic. Now in current year, Millennials are adults and thus the new wave of paranoid, delusional Chicken Littles who constantly attack everything as being racist – all in all, having absolute zero sense of irony and self awareness that they're effectively the new Boomers.

I'm a Xennial (older Millennial, late 30s and powerleveling) and I distinctly remember the Satanic Panic and how Boomers were on a crusade to censor media. In a strange turn of events, the progressive Millennials have filled their parents' role of being delusional and wanting to censor everything.