„There is a real possibility you will not be able to cash out your Bitcoin at all.“

I was just in an argument with a major Bitcoin critic on Reddit (some might know him…) regarding their core arguments: „It’s just a greater fool.“ - „If everyone wants to cash out their Bitcoin, it will crash to zero.“ Because that critic is known for deleting posts and because my post is in a pretty niche sub, I thought I should post it here as well, to help you guys in similar arguments about Bitcoin vs. Fiat. This was my post: […] I will address one core misinformation and biased framing that is pretty central to most of your arguments. The second to last sentence of your post is so incredibly telling about your state of mind and biased framing/narrative.“ Quote: „There is a very real possibility in the future you won’t be able to cash BTC out at all.“ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠(More of a side-note) Bitcoiners recommend self-custody. Exactly because exchanges (just like banks) can fail and your money is gone. So when following Bitcoiners advice on self-custody, that shouldn’t be an issue. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠(More importantly) You still see Bitcoin only as a means to an end to get more Dollars and are (probably) unable to envision a future where - like people do today with money in their bank account - people simply hold their unspent money in Bitcoin instead of a bank statement. Because, guess what, also not all people can „cash out“ all their money in the bank. Banks with their fractional reserves would fail or at least limit „cash out“ amounts and people would realize that their money isn’t really there (just a „number on the screen“). FDIC insurance (or comparable insurances in other countries) would also reach its limits and would be financed by bailouts/newly printed money like in 2008 which again debases the purchasing power (and people lose again). * Now you might say: but people can still pay each other via digital payment, the money is still there. Same with Bitcoin: no one needs to „cash out“, everyone can still pay each other. One person receives goods/services, the other an increased balance in the monetary unit (Dollar/Bitcoin). But I am sure that you’ll read that and tell yourself „But no one wants Bitcoin, everyone wants Dollars, because it’s safe/„more real“/„actual money“ or whatever individual consensus you follow. But it’s still just a subjective view on what’s „real“. That’s probably also why all these posts by OP try to frame Fiat money as „real“ because it’s the central point to almost all argumentation (including the „Greater Fool“ argument, where there is supposedly a final biggest fool that misses out. When it’s all just voluntary trades of money for goods, no one loses.) You want to have the souvereignty of definition for what’s „real“ based on your social consensus. But economy is no natural science, but a social science, and social consensus can change. *Added: thinking about it, the Fiat system is actually much more fragile, if you assume that people want to actually „cash out“ (take full control over their money and be sure to have it). With Bitcoin in self-custody they are already there. All balances display what people own. With Fiat in the bank, they would have to go one more step to actually have the cash money. The balances in the banks don’t actually show what people own. Depending on the amount, only part of it is insured. And depending on the willingness of governments to bailout the banks with their fractional reserves, even more could be lost.“ Hope this argumentation makes sense for all of you as well. Feel free to use it! submitted by /u/PhilMyu [link] [comments]

Jun 13, 2025 - 23:15

I was just in an argument with a major Bitcoin critic on Reddit (some might know him…) regarding their core arguments: „It’s just a greater fool.“ - „If everyone wants to cash out their Bitcoin, it will crash to zero.“

Because that critic is known for deleting posts and because my post is in a pretty niche sub, I thought I should post it here as well, to help you guys in similar arguments about Bitcoin vs. Fiat.

This was my post:

[…] I will address one core misinformation and biased framing that is pretty central to most of your arguments. The second to last sentence of your post is so incredibly telling about your state of mind and biased framing/narrative.“

Quote: „There is a very real possibility in the future you won’t be able to cash BTC out at all.“

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠(More of a side-note) Bitcoiners recommend self-custody. Exactly because exchanges (just like banks) can fail and your money is gone. So when following Bitcoiners advice on self-custody, that shouldn’t be an issue.
⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠(More importantly) You still see Bitcoin only as a means to an end to get more Dollars and are (probably) unable to envision a future where - like people do today with money in their bank account - people simply hold their unspent money in Bitcoin instead of a bank statement.

Because, guess what, also not all people can „cash out“ all their money in the bank. Banks with their fractional reserves would fail or at least limit „cash out“ amounts and people would realize that their money isn’t really there (just a „number on the screen“).

FDIC insurance (or comparable insurances in other countries) would also reach its limits and would be financed by bailouts/newly printed money like in 2008 which again debases the purchasing power (and people lose again). *

Now you might say: but people can still pay each other via digital payment, the money is still there. Same with Bitcoin: no one needs to „cash out“, everyone can still pay each other. One person receives goods/services, the other an increased balance in the monetary unit (Dollar/Bitcoin).

But I am sure that you’ll read that and tell yourself „But no one wants Bitcoin, everyone wants Dollars, because it’s safe/„more real“/„actual money“ or whatever individual consensus you follow. But it’s still just a subjective view on what’s „real“.

That’s probably also why all these posts by OP try to frame Fiat money as „real“ because it’s the central point to almost all argumentation (including the „Greater Fool“ argument, where there is supposedly a final biggest fool that misses out. When it’s all just voluntary trades of money for goods, no one loses.)

You want to have the souvereignty of definition for what’s „real“ based on your social consensus. But economy is no natural science, but a social science, and social consensus can change.

*Added: thinking about it, the Fiat system is actually much more fragile, if you assume that people want to actually „cash out“ (take full control over their money and be sure to have it). With Bitcoin in self-custody they are already there. All balances display what people own. With Fiat in the bank, they would have to go one more step to actually have the cash money. The balances in the banks don’t actually show what people own. Depending on the amount, only part of it is insured. And depending on the willingness of governments to bailout the banks with their fractional reserves, even more could be lost.“

Hope this argumentation makes sense for all of you as well. Feel free to use it!

submitted by /u/PhilMyu
[link] [comments]