Crypto lobbying is going ballistic(economist.com)
economist.com
Crypto lobbying is going ballistic
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/12/07/crypto-lobbying-is-going-ballistic
202 comments
I can't wait for this bubble to burst so I never have to hear about these tulips again.
If climate change is finally taken seriously at some point, I hope they get clamped down on very hard. Unlike meth labs and "terrorists", a large mining farm can be traced by power usage. (Unless you're using solar, then go ahead and mine all you want.) Crypto fanatics are doing nothing of any practical value while greatly helping out with destroying our planet.
We've been having rolling blackouts recently because of these fuckers. Energy is cheap in my country and they use that. Power lines are not built for that sort of thing. The normal paying consumers are suffering as a result.
We've been having rolling blackouts recently because of these fuckers. Energy is cheap in my country and they use that. Power lines are not built for that sort of thing. The normal paying consumers are suffering as a result.
> doing nothing of any practical value while greatly helping out with destroying our planet
Serious question, where does this line of thinking end? Gaming rigs use upwards of a thousand watts, no practical value in gaming. Watching sitcoms on a television has no practical value. Phones capable of doing things other than making calls have no practical value, but we charge them all the time.
Honestly I think providing an alternative financial system is more practical than most of the other energy intensive things we do these days.
The idea that we should do less stuff and be miserable because climate change is fatalist and just silly. We should be building nuclear power plants at a drastic rate to meet supply.
Serious question, where does this line of thinking end? Gaming rigs use upwards of a thousand watts, no practical value in gaming. Watching sitcoms on a television has no practical value. Phones capable of doing things other than making calls have no practical value, but we charge them all the time.
Honestly I think providing an alternative financial system is more practical than most of the other energy intensive things we do these days.
The idea that we should do less stuff and be miserable because climate change is fatalist and just silly. We should be building nuclear power plants at a drastic rate to meet supply.
>>Gaming rigs use upwards of a thousand watts, no practical value in gaming.
Humans have been playing games literally for thousands of years - there is a value in entertainment, especially with our busy lives of 21st century.
You can of course overdo it, turn it into an addiction and it can destroy your life - like many other things.
Crypto trading is as valuable as trading scraps of paper with a dollar sign scribbled on it - if it were done for fun or entertainment, then sure, whatever, but it's having major impact on our energy consumption and has to be curbed.
PS - also, a small side note - literally no gaming rig uses an "upwards of a thousands watts". Even fitted with the highest rated components currently available on the market(say a 12th gen i9 + RTX3090) you won't be using 1000W of power. Consoles use about 200-300W under full load, and that's a bigger gaming market than PC. And then the biggest gaming market is mobile - larger than PC and consoles combined, and the energy consumption there is tiny. So you're massively off base here.
>>Honestly I think providing an alternative financial system is more practical than most of the other energy intensive things we do these days.
And I honestly think that anyone who thinks crypto will become "an alternative financial system" and not just a pyramid scheme is lying to themselves.
Humans have been playing games literally for thousands of years - there is a value in entertainment, especially with our busy lives of 21st century.
You can of course overdo it, turn it into an addiction and it can destroy your life - like many other things.
Crypto trading is as valuable as trading scraps of paper with a dollar sign scribbled on it - if it were done for fun or entertainment, then sure, whatever, but it's having major impact on our energy consumption and has to be curbed.
PS - also, a small side note - literally no gaming rig uses an "upwards of a thousands watts". Even fitted with the highest rated components currently available on the market(say a 12th gen i9 + RTX3090) you won't be using 1000W of power. Consoles use about 200-300W under full load, and that's a bigger gaming market than PC. And then the biggest gaming market is mobile - larger than PC and consoles combined, and the energy consumption there is tiny. So you're massively off base here.
>>Honestly I think providing an alternative financial system is more practical than most of the other energy intensive things we do these days.
And I honestly think that anyone who thinks crypto will become "an alternative financial system" and not just a pyramid scheme is lying to themselves.
Humans have also been gambling for thousands of years (which is just playing games with the added component of money on the line), so by this logic there's value in it too. I would also be interested to see the worldwide energy consumption of all gaming devices in comparison to the worldwide energy consumption of all crypto mining, especially now that many have moved to proof of stake.
Considering the explosion in the gaming industry in recent years you may find that it outpaces crypto already, or is catching up very fast.
Considering the explosion in the gaming industry in recent years you may find that it outpaces crypto already, or is catching up very fast.
> especially now that many have moved to proof of stake.
For tiny values of many.
There is no major cryptocurrency using anything other than PoW. Ethereum has plans to start moving to PoS in 2022, but isn't there yet.
And related to gaming: Bitcoin alone consumes more power than entire European countries - including all the gaming, smelting, heating, industry, finance, data centers etc in those countries. There is no chance in hell gaming alone, for the entire world, is consuming more power than even Bitcoin - not to mention comparing it to all crypto combined.
For tiny values of many.
There is no major cryptocurrency using anything other than PoW. Ethereum has plans to start moving to PoS in 2022, but isn't there yet.
And related to gaming: Bitcoin alone consumes more power than entire European countries - including all the gaming, smelting, heating, industry, finance, data centers etc in those countries. There is no chance in hell gaming alone, for the entire world, is consuming more power than even Bitcoin - not to mention comparing it to all crypto combined.
> Bitcoin alone consumes more power than entire European countries - including all the gaming, smelting, heating, industry, finance, data centers etc in those countries.
EU nations may be a poor comparison, as it has many tiny nations as members as well as a few big ones.
The first Google hit I got said Bitcoin uses 80 TWh/year which puts it around Belgium (9th in EU) for pure electricity, the second said Bitcoin was using about 177 TWh/year (bit more than Poland, 5th in EU, again just for electricity).
I don’t have exact figures for game consoles or power usage per console or gaming PCs, so I will do a Fermi estimate: 1 billion active gaming devices (PCs and all consoles combined), 200 W per device, each used for 3 hours per day. This is 219 TWh/year. As a Fermi estimate, take with a grain of salt.
(I don’t accept the general claim that BTC actually has real value; conversely I think most gaming does, including gambling although for gambling the value is much less than the cost, but that’s not the focus of this comment).
EU nations may be a poor comparison, as it has many tiny nations as members as well as a few big ones.
The first Google hit I got said Bitcoin uses 80 TWh/year which puts it around Belgium (9th in EU) for pure electricity, the second said Bitcoin was using about 177 TWh/year (bit more than Poland, 5th in EU, again just for electricity).
I don’t have exact figures for game consoles or power usage per console or gaming PCs, so I will do a Fermi estimate: 1 billion active gaming devices (PCs and all consoles combined), 200 W per device, each used for 3 hours per day. This is 219 TWh/year. As a Fermi estimate, take with a grain of salt.
(I don’t accept the general claim that BTC actually has real value; conversely I think most gaming does, including gambling although for gambling the value is much less than the cost, but that’s not the focus of this comment).
1 billion devices each consuming 200W for 3h every day is waaaay over estimated. The PS4 has sold 115 million devices over its entire lifetime (2013-now), being the most popular modern console; and it consumes closer to 150W while gaming. Consoles are famously more popular than gaming PCs, so the total amount of high-power gaming devices is probably much closer to 300million than 1 billion.
So, let's say 300 million devices, running 3h/day at 150W, that's closer to 50TWh/year, less than even your smaller estimate for Bitcoin.
So, let's say 300 million devices, running 3h/day at 150W, that's closer to 50TWh/year, less than even your smaller estimate for Bitcoin.
Perhaps, perhaps not, this is an explicit limit of Femi estimates.
But you do also have to include the power cost of displays when the game machine doesn’t have one built in, adding 10-120W.
And the older consoles didn’t all vanish into the ether when new models arrived; my brother still has an original Xbox 360, and not for lack of money to upgrade. So I expect many of its contemporaries to also contribute to the total number of gaming units, not just total sales of most recent Xbox + most recent PlayStation + most recent Nintendo console.
But you do also have to include the power cost of displays when the game machine doesn’t have one built in, adding 10-120W.
And the older consoles didn’t all vanish into the ether when new models arrived; my brother still has an original Xbox 360, and not for lack of money to upgrade. So I expect many of its contemporaries to also contribute to the total number of gaming units, not just total sales of most recent Xbox + most recent PlayStation + most recent Nintendo console.
> There is no major cryptocurrency using anything other than PoW
7 of the 10 largest chains use PoS.
7 of the 10 largest chains use PoS.
By volume traded per day, there really are only two major cryptocurrency chains: Bitcoin and Ethereum. Both are PoW. As near as I can tell, the 3rd largest blockchain by volume is XRP and its an order of magnitude smaller than BTC or ETH.
Volume traded is admittedly an imperfect measure of activity, but its better than market cap.
Volume traded is admittedly an imperfect measure of activity, but its better than market cap.
Solana and Avalanche both process more transaction activity than Ethereum (and way more than Bitcoin).
And that’s not “fake activity” by any means. Both chains run essentially the same DeFi and NFT activity as Ethereum.
And that’s not “fake activity” by any means. Both chains run essentially the same DeFi and NFT activity as Ethereum.
> Humans have been playing games literally for thousands of years - there is a value in entertainment, especially with our busy lives of 21st century.
Who gets to decide that? You see value in entertainment derived from a gaming rig, a person in Argentina sees value in mining a unit of make-believe currency which they can then sell on a speculative market. Should we form a global committee to decide on which types of computation have value, and should therefore be allowed to execute?
Who gets to decide that? You see value in entertainment derived from a gaming rig, a person in Argentina sees value in mining a unit of make-believe currency which they can then sell on a speculative market. Should we form a global committee to decide on which types of computation have value, and should therefore be allowed to execute?
Having a committee decide what’s allowed is generally how law is made, and the need for such committees is that what’s good for any individual is often different for what’s good for groups of people even though the latter contains the former (tragedy of the commons, prisoner’s dilemma) so: yes.
It's true - crypto is bullshit. I've had a hard time shaking the realization that money is bullshit too.
I think there's a fundamental issue here that prevents us from reaching an understanding.
ANYTHING can be used as money. The systems that we currently have in place have lots of big problems, but "we" decided to use them and that's why they are popular. We could also decide to use a cryptocurrency as money, and it would be equally valid, and it would become our "money" - that bit is fine and I'm not arguing with it.
What I am commenting on, and what I am calling bullshit, is the cold hard reality of crypto - there hasn't been a coin invented yet that is anything but a ponzi scheme. Everything from bitcoin to ETH to dogecoin is just a scam to make some people rich, even if it started with good intentions(and I believe Bitcoin really was started with the intention to become a currency).
The second this changes, and we have a cryptocurrency that is actually used as money and not a plaything, I'll happily stop complaining about it.
ANYTHING can be used as money. The systems that we currently have in place have lots of big problems, but "we" decided to use them and that's why they are popular. We could also decide to use a cryptocurrency as money, and it would be equally valid, and it would become our "money" - that bit is fine and I'm not arguing with it.
What I am commenting on, and what I am calling bullshit, is the cold hard reality of crypto - there hasn't been a coin invented yet that is anything but a ponzi scheme. Everything from bitcoin to ETH to dogecoin is just a scam to make some people rich, even if it started with good intentions(and I believe Bitcoin really was started with the intention to become a currency).
The second this changes, and we have a cryptocurrency that is actually used as money and not a plaything, I'll happily stop complaining about it.
I hold a decent chunk of change in stable coins most of which I lend out to earn interest. Sometimes I top up a VISA card with those stables and then buy groceries.
You might reply "you're just using a proxy of USD the original currency, its not new".
That's true my reply to that would be:
Having the USD be on chain allows very efficient lending. For eg. I can use a lending aggregator that is constantly polling many lending sources and moves my money to the best source of yield regularly. How would you do this with traditional banking?
I expect over time for the volatility to smooth out as more of the expectations are realised and we figure out a widely agreed fair price for most cryptos (for many this will be zero).
You might reply "you're just using a proxy of USD the original currency, its not new".
That's true my reply to that would be:
Having the USD be on chain allows very efficient lending. For eg. I can use a lending aggregator that is constantly polling many lending sources and moves my money to the best source of yield regularly. How would you do this with traditional banking?
I expect over time for the volatility to smooth out as more of the expectations are realised and we figure out a widely agreed fair price for most cryptos (for many this will be zero).
Yield is meaningless without knowing risk. What is the expected default rate under adverse economic conditions? Are borrower credit ratings available from independent sources? What is the counterparty risk for the lending aggregators and sources?
Chasing yield is a recipe for disaster.
Chasing yield is a recipe for disaster.
> Yield is meaningless without knowing risk. What is the expected default rate under adverse economic conditions? Are borrower credit ratings available from independent sources? What is the counterparty risk for the lending aggregators and sources?
100% agree, I hope my comment didn't paint it as if there is no risk. In terms of default, virtually all borrow lend dApps currently are overcollatoralized so if the borrower defaults, they are liquidated and I will be made whole.
> Chasing yield is a recipe for disaster.
Kind of a bizarre and baseless statement? Why should people not earn yield on their capital? We are all constantly losing purchasing power to inflation, it makes absolute sense to earn yield to negate this.
100% agree, I hope my comment didn't paint it as if there is no risk. In terms of default, virtually all borrow lend dApps currently are overcollatoralized so if the borrower defaults, they are liquidated and I will be made whole.
> Chasing yield is a recipe for disaster.
Kind of a bizarre and baseless statement? Why should people not earn yield on their capital? We are all constantly losing purchasing power to inflation, it makes absolute sense to earn yield to negate this.
> use a lending aggregator that is constantly polling many lending sources and moves my money to the best source of yield regularly
If you live somewhere where cryptocurrency gains are taxed as income, how do you handle the reporting of this at tax time? It seems like it would be tedious to keep track of every transaction across multiple defi platforms.
If you live somewhere where cryptocurrency gains are taxed as income, how do you handle the reporting of this at tax time? It seems like it would be tedious to keep track of every transaction across multiple defi platforms.
> If you live somewhere where cryptocurrency gains are taxed as income, how do you handle the reporting of this at tax time? It seems like it would be tedious to keep track of every transaction across multiple defi platforms.
It's so country by country right now due to how early we are. Tax rules will be more clearly defined assuming Web3 and DeFi continue to be adopted over time.
It's so country by country right now due to how early we are. Tax rules will be more clearly defined assuming Web3 and DeFi continue to be adopted over time.
Yes, efficiency matters, permissionlessness matters. Future us will be talking about today as the early days of robotic money.
> The second this changes, and we have a cryptocurrency that is actually used as money and not a plaything, I'll happily stop complaining about it.
I won't: we still have proof-of-work to get rid of (and generally, the unreasonable energy consumption and chip usage).
I won't: we still have proof-of-work to get rid of (and generally, the unreasonable energy consumption and chip usage).
Is there any other unreasonable use of energy consumption than proof of work? Solana (using proof of stake) uses similar energy as hosting a website. If this tiny energy usage is also problematic then we would need to start also shaming people for uploading Youtube videos or scrolling through Instagram.
If this low energy consumption confirms itself at scale, that will be a huge progress. Possibly not quite there (there’s still the Ponzi problem to contend with), but at least that’d get rid of most of the externalities.
Now we need to nuke the Bitcoin farms. (Half serious: I wonder whether launching tactical nukes on those farms would generate less pollution in the long term than letting those farms be.)
Now we need to nuke the Bitcoin farms. (Half serious: I wonder whether launching tactical nukes on those farms would generate less pollution in the long term than letting those farms be.)
Gaming and TV shows use a fraction of the energy to bring joy to far more people. Even if your enjoyment comes from watching numbers go up so you can get rich quick, it's literally burning through power and advanced components to do it at a rate like nothing else ever conceived. And it achieves basically nothing. Crypto is currently useless at doing anything other than making some people rich.
Your argument is completely valid against Ethereum and Bitcoin, I hope they will be used less to reduce the energy used by crypto. However the vast majority of others use Proof of Stake and a fraction of the energy. Take Solana, currently the 5th largest by MCAP, a tx uses a similar amount of energy as two Google searches. I am pointing this out as I see often the whole crypto market lumped together but crypto networks are not all created equally. Some are 10 years old and others are 2 years with vastly different implementations.
> https://solana.com/news/solana-energy-usage-report-november-...
> https://solana.com/news/solana-energy-usage-report-november-...
So entertainment matters more than censorship-resistance and self-sovereignty.
Remind me what did Wikileaks resort to using after it got banned from all payment networks?
Remind me what did Wikileaks resort to using after it got banned from all payment networks?
> Honestly I think providing an alternative financial system is more practical than most of the other energy intensive things we do these days.
About 25 % of energy expended today is to make people not freeze, which is the single biggest or second biggest energy consumer world wide. The other one is transporting stuff and people. The third one is making stuff (food, buildings etc. use a lot of energy).
About 25 % of energy expended today is to make people not freeze, which is the single biggest or second biggest energy consumer world wide. The other one is transporting stuff and people. The third one is making stuff (food, buildings etc. use a lot of energy).
> Serious question, where does this line of thinking end? Gaming rigs use upwards of a thousand watts, no practical value in gaming. Watching sitcoms on a television has no practical value. Phones capable of doing things other than making calls have no practical value, but we charge them all the time.
All of those things have practical value. Humans need relaxation and entertainment in order to be productive, which gaming and sitcoms provide. (I'm not going to explain how smartphones have practical value because I assume that was included due to some sort of editing buffer mix up or similar while you were simultaneously writing something else while commenting here).
> Honestly I think providing an alternative financial system is more practical than most of the other energy intensive things we do these days.
That can be done for orders of magnitude less energy. The high energy use of Bitcoin and similar is not due to its providing a financial system aspect. It is due to the particular implementation details of its ledger.
All of those things have practical value. Humans need relaxation and entertainment in order to be productive, which gaming and sitcoms provide. (I'm not going to explain how smartphones have practical value because I assume that was included due to some sort of editing buffer mix up or similar while you were simultaneously writing something else while commenting here).
> Honestly I think providing an alternative financial system is more practical than most of the other energy intensive things we do these days.
That can be done for orders of magnitude less energy. The high energy use of Bitcoin and similar is not due to its providing a financial system aspect. It is due to the particular implementation details of its ledger.
No, the problem with the line of thinking is not that gaming has no practical value, it is that some people think gaming has no practical value.
Our other uses (which may need to be curtailed, not arguing for or against that here) have comparatively fixed costs. Proof of work inherently increases energy consumption to keep difficulty up.
Yeah, people should pay for their externalities. Currently, emissions are not priced and everybody who is using a lot of power is stealing quality of life from future generations and the global poor. BTC mining is just one of those operations that is resistant to a carbon tax since the price of BTC and therefore the mining rewards can just rise to compensate.
> BTC mining is just one of those operations that is resistant to a carbon tax since the price of BTC and therefore the mining rewards can just rise to compensate.
I don't follow your logic, could you elaborate? One could say that about other things subject to carbon tax. Like all goods and services, the price is set by how much people are will to pay for it.
"the price people are willing to pay for short-haul flights could just increase, and therefore the airline profits are unaffected." "the price people are willing to pay for aluminium could just increase, and therefore the smelters are unaffected."
They don't really make sense. Carbon taxing would change miner behaviour, because greener energy would be more attractive (by virtue of being cheaper, especially with carbon taxing and reduced fossil fuel subsidies).
I don't follow your logic, could you elaborate? One could say that about other things subject to carbon tax. Like all goods and services, the price is set by how much people are will to pay for it.
"the price people are willing to pay for short-haul flights could just increase, and therefore the airline profits are unaffected." "the price people are willing to pay for aluminium could just increase, and therefore the smelters are unaffected."
They don't really make sense. Carbon taxing would change miner behaviour, because greener energy would be more attractive (by virtue of being cheaper, especially with carbon taxing and reduced fossil fuel subsidies).
> BTC mining is just one of those operations that is resistant to a carbon tax since the price of BTC and therefore the mining rewards can just rise to compensate.
But if it's still taxed proportionally to the generated emissions, does it matter how big the rewards are?
But if it's still taxed proportionally to the generated emissions, does it matter how big the rewards are?
>“Serious question, where does this line of thinking end?”
It ends at the last pyramid scheme.
It ends at the last pyramid scheme.
That line doesn't mean anything - should we make any type of computation that contributes to a pyramid scheme illegal? How do you even define a pyramid scheme in a way that doesn't also cover traditional financial institutions and academia?
> How do you even define a pyramid scheme in a way that doesn't also cover traditional financial institutions and academia?
These places have already got laws against pyramid schemes, so I’d start by asking a lawyer to explain the various existing laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramid_Scheme_Illegal_Ma...
These places have already got laws against pyramid schemes, so I’d start by asking a lawyer to explain the various existing laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramid_Scheme_Illegal_Ma...
Crypto isn't entertainment, it's greed pure and simple. It's a pyramid scheme where once you join, you have to sell the idea to others to increase your value.
Crypto isn't the first of this kind, nor will it be the last. But it does use obscene amounts of energy to make the scam work. And the energy requirements become greater year after year. It is not sustainable in our civilization.
Crypto isn't the first of this kind, nor will it be the last. But it does use obscene amounts of energy to make the scam work. And the energy requirements become greater year after year. It is not sustainable in our civilization.
Afaik most % of mining happens close to the energy source where it can't even be transported or where it's already being wasted. At least that would be the most economically viable solution; hence hopefully what everyone will eventually be doing (doing otherwise would not be rewardable).
Actually in a way the market price is not only defined by speculation but also how much "paying for energy" compares to "getting the bitcoin reward". So in a way the market price tells us how much people are willing to pay for energy (globally).
But yeah I agree it all sucks that it's going to mess up our planet even more.
Actually in a way the market price is not only defined by speculation but also how much "paying for energy" compares to "getting the bitcoin reward". So in a way the market price tells us how much people are willing to pay for energy (globally).
But yeah I agree it all sucks that it's going to mess up our planet even more.
You're assuming that miners are paying the full cost of the energy they're using, which is not the case - see all the mining operations in places with subsidized energy, i.e. everyone else is paying some of the price, not to mention the externalities.
There's been quite a few reports of unused coal burning power stations being revived and dedicated to mining crypto.
Miners are securing the only censorship-resistant, permissionless hard money we have. The only people who don't see any practical value in this either don't understand Bitcoin or hate freedom.
Cryptocurrency has essentially reminded us that "a censorship-resistant, permissionless hard money" is a far greater enabler of "the bad guys who would take away our freedom" than it is an enabler of "the little guy trying to secure his own freedom".
This is the bitter lesson every anarchist learns — by tearing down the establishment, you're not creating "actual anarchic freedom" — you're creating a utopia for pimps and thieves. It provides a huge raft of new freedoms for organized crime, being a massive catalyst for money laundering and the like. It provides surprisingly few freedoms for the little guy, since nothing's protecting you from theft by the same mobsters. Seriously — if your BTC wallet gets stolen/exchange gets hacked, you're basically fucked. And it's at its worst in exactly those countries we'd naively think would be helped by some underground currency, because there's nothing to stop the mob from robbing the little guy in a place like Russia. We moved away from gold for the exact same reason.
This is to say nothing of all the scams, ponzi schemes, environmental damage, etc, etc, which are several additional shitshows on top of what I just described.
---
Anarchy is always a more powerful tool for the bad guys than it is for the good guys. It's an iron law of history. The bad guys will always capitalize on the inherent power-differential of organized groups versus a disorganized group of individuals. As soon as the good guys try to fight back by banding together —— then they've violated the principles of anarchy. At that point they've simply created a new government, with censorship and granting of permissions.
Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi.
This is the bitter lesson every anarchist learns — by tearing down the establishment, you're not creating "actual anarchic freedom" — you're creating a utopia for pimps and thieves. It provides a huge raft of new freedoms for organized crime, being a massive catalyst for money laundering and the like. It provides surprisingly few freedoms for the little guy, since nothing's protecting you from theft by the same mobsters. Seriously — if your BTC wallet gets stolen/exchange gets hacked, you're basically fucked. And it's at its worst in exactly those countries we'd naively think would be helped by some underground currency, because there's nothing to stop the mob from robbing the little guy in a place like Russia. We moved away from gold for the exact same reason.
This is to say nothing of all the scams, ponzi schemes, environmental damage, etc, etc, which are several additional shitshows on top of what I just described.
---
Anarchy is always a more powerful tool for the bad guys than it is for the good guys. It's an iron law of history. The bad guys will always capitalize on the inherent power-differential of organized groups versus a disorganized group of individuals. As soon as the good guys try to fight back by banding together —— then they've violated the principles of anarchy. At that point they've simply created a new government, with censorship and granting of permissions.
Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi.
Or realize Bitcoin just can't be used as money, by design. It couldn't even handle the volume of transactions of a small town, because the miners and developers are not interested in that, and have chosen to keep block sizes small for their own interests.
Miners and exchanges were proponents of big blocks, since that would have centralized power in their hands and reduced decentralization. Bitmain, Coinbase, many others.
This makes sense to anyone with a tech background. You don't want to use censorship-resistant, decentralized currency which is used every day to settle billions to buy coffee. That would be an overkill.
Instead, you use LN which allows to trustlessly instantly transfer small amounts of Bitcoin for extremely low fees.
This makes sense to anyone with a tech background. You don't want to use censorship-resistant, decentralized currency which is used every day to settle billions to buy coffee. That would be an overkill.
Instead, you use LN which allows to trustlessly instantly transfer small amounts of Bitcoin for extremely low fees.
LN doesn't really work either - it can't really guarantee that funds have been transferred until you close a channel (you commit the transaction on the Bitcoin chain). So, unless you trust the other end of the channel not to fraudulently close the channel, you can't actually consider the transaction settled. And of course, in the case of routes, there has to basically be end-to-end trust for this to work, or someone will be left holding the bag.
It also can't scale the way it's usually promised, in part due to Bitcoin's horribly low transaction rate (you can't open LN channels fast enough, given Bitcoin's transaction rate), in part because of limits on the number of transactions in a live channel.
And in practice, it seems it's highly centralized [0].
0: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aba062
It also can't scale the way it's usually promised, in part due to Bitcoin's horribly low transaction rate (you can't open LN channels fast enough, given Bitcoin's transaction rate), in part because of limits on the number of transactions in a live channel.
And in practice, it seems it's highly centralized [0].
0: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aba062
No, that's not how LN works. If the other party suddenly closes the channel at an old state that is beneficial to them, the funds will get locked for 2 weeks and you will have enough time to publish a transaction with a more recent state, which will reward you with whole balance of the channel [0].
[0] https://blog.bitmex.com/lightning-network-justice/
[0] https://blog.bitmex.com/lightning-network-justice/
As that article explains, that only works if the non-closing node notices the problem in time to contest this. And, according to your article, this period is 24h, not 2 weeks.
I'd also note that this seems to make DoS much worse of a problem. If I have a transaction with a node that has gone offline and can't be reached, and I initiate a forced closure, what's to stop the other node from taking all the money in the channel, especially if I am not constantly online and the channel state I can't know for sure if the other node may have made some transactions while I was away?
I'd also note that this seems to make DoS much worse of a problem. If I have a transaction with a node that has gone offline and can't be reached, and I initiate a forced closure, what's to stop the other node from taking all the money in the channel, especially if I am not constantly online and the channel state I can't know for sure if the other node may have made some transactions while I was away?
There are many different cryptos that offer the same attributes without the energy cost. If Bitcoin was created today, no one would even bother to look at it.
Nope, there aren't. Even Ethereum is centralized to the point that it's founders were able to revert the blockchain to rescue their friends funds.
If you're using solar, you're still wasting energy that could go into replacing coal or gas elsewhere. Fully green bitcoin mining is still hampering our efforts to tackle climate change.
That's only true if the miners didn't buy the solar panels themselves.
Those panels could still be deployed elsewhere and produce power for the grid.
Manufacturing them is not environmentally neutral either.
Manufacturing them is not environmentally neutral either.
I can also argue increased demand for solar panels increases manufacturing and lowers prices over time making solar more competitive. It's not clear that it's a net negative.
This has been the effect we saw when Germany started investing so heavily into solar.
This has been the effect we saw when Germany started investing so heavily into solar.
Economics are fully at work in every market, including renewables. If it's more profitable to... I'm not even sure what your alternative would be but I'll say feeding the energy back into the grid, then miners would do it. It's definitely not up to you to decide what people can and can't do with their energy, especially off-grid renewables, just because you perceive their use to be "wasteful"
> It's definitely not up to you to decide what people can and can't do with their energy
It absolutely will need to be if we are going to avoid frying the fucking planet. The free market is the enemy of humanity.
It absolutely will need to be if we are going to avoid frying the fucking planet. The free market is the enemy of humanity.
We're talking about renewables? How is that frying the planet?
We are talking about energy. Most of it is not produced by renewables. Any renewable energy that is being wasted on cryptocurrency bullshit is not going into displacing coal and gas, which are currently frying the planet.
[deleted]
Maybe it’s be like the dotcom bubble. It’ll burst in a big way, leaving many people broke, then from the aftermath good projects will emerge and will come to redefine the world.
Even before the dot com bubble burst, we saw businesses with practical value producing applications of the Internet.
Today it’s over 10 years of crypto. I have only observed one application of crypto that touches the real economy - with a relatively obscure token.
Everything else, seems to be just be playing financial games inside of crypto, money laundering, side-stepping regulations, speculative meme assets and of course scams.
Can you point to an actual application of crypto that touches the real economy? I will be very interested!
Today it’s over 10 years of crypto. I have only observed one application of crypto that touches the real economy - with a relatively obscure token.
Everything else, seems to be just be playing financial games inside of crypto, money laundering, side-stepping regulations, speculative meme assets and of course scams.
Can you point to an actual application of crypto that touches the real economy? I will be very interested!
Crypto made producing ransomware a viable business model. Touching real economy in real ways!
Ransomware was a viable business model before cryptocurrency. The beginning of the winlocker boom slightly predates cryptocurrencies, ransomware was already the hottest thing on cybercrime forums before cryptocurrency appeared.
Crypto as in cryptography? Maybe.
Crypto as in cryptography? Maybe.
Ubisoft is adding NFT in its new games. Ubisoft is a real company producing real games with real players all around the world.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/7/22822410/ubisoft-nfts-qua...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/7/22822410/ubisoft-nfts-qua...
Is this just protifing on a topical craze or does this have staying power? What experience does in-game NFTs offer to players that they otherwise cannot find in traditional database backed assets?
> Is this just protifing on a topical craze
Of course.
> What experience does in-game NFTs offer to players
The warm glow of feeling they're the trendiest kids.
Of course.
> What experience does in-game NFTs offer to players
The warm glow of feeling they're the trendiest kids.
And literally every single thing they are doing could be achieved with a simple database shared across games, as they already do. The only thing NFTs achieve here is just being used for marketing.
Yes, it's a "real" use in a "real" company, but that's like trying to argue that Bitcoins are useful and totally absolutely not a scam because a few real world companies decided to accept them as payment. Like, "sure, wink wink".
Yes, it's a "real" use in a "real" company, but that's like trying to argue that Bitcoins are useful and totally absolutely not a scam because a few real world companies decided to accept them as payment. Like, "sure, wink wink".
But is it actually adding anything? Even the article says what they are doing (reselling digital goods) doesn't require any blockchain technology at all.
It does make the ability to resell inalienable.
Of course it's worthless when the game will be shut down in only a few years.
Of course it's worthless when the game will be shut down in only a few years.
Sort of. You can sell it but Ubi can just as easily blacklist any ID it feels like, preventing you from actually using anything you bought.
Which will probably happen the first time some high profile streamer gets scammed out of his special shirt or whatever.
Which will probably happen the first time some high profile streamer gets scammed out of his special shirt or whatever.
I'm not surprised - people want to buy them, so they'll happily sell them.
I think institutions will adopt it for real-time security settlement. T+3 caused the Robinhood debacle of shutting down retail GME purchasing. As far as I can tell from the congressional hearings, T+3 is because the incumbents feel secure that they have a monopoly on security settlement tech.
Fascinating. Hope someone here with experience in settlement and clearing houses could shed some light.
I wonder if any new solutions would need to use any existing crypto network or if they can just spin off their own.
I wonder if any new solutions would need to use any existing crypto network or if they can just spin off their own.
I like two projects: One offering decentralized computation and the other one offers the most efficient/cheap transfer of value ever created. I expect both projects or some incarnation of their UVP to radically change the world.
The black market for pharmaceuticals are greatly touched by cryptocurrency, and that's certainly the "real economy".
It's deeply harmful, but it is part of the real economy
It's deeply harmful, but it is part of the real economy
This is a good point. Black markets are indeed part of the real economy, whether governments and people like it or not. That being said, regulation is inevitible.
You can see the glass half full or half empty. I see it half full.
>Can you point to an actual application of crypto that touches the real economy? I will be very interested!
Yeah, cryptocurrency effectively replaced Liberty Reserve & co.
Yeah, cryptocurrency effectively replaced Liberty Reserve & co.
Since when have you been waiting? What will you do in twenty years if it hasn't burst by then? And in forty? Continue to wait?
There's not a single problem it solves. A technical solution in search of a problem is a hilariously poor investment, esp when any distributed system will do the same work - but better. And all the "value" stuff on it like NFTs is just a giant ponzi scheme from any way you look at it.
I do think there is at least one problem that crypto currencies solve better than the status-quo: sending money internationally.
It has less regulation than the official channels. Can have better privacy. Can be cheaper. Can be faster. Compared to Western Union, international wire transfers and the likes, sending money home for foreign workers (remittance), seems to be much better with Stellar, or other low-fee crypto currencies.
Maybe one more problem that it solves: I bought some crypto early on as a hedge against global politics going to shit (US, Russia or China going into proxy wars) or economics taking a dive (and governments/central banks deciding to devaluate, ...).
I totally agree with you on NFT's though. And I don't like the speculation/gambling aspect of crypto currencies.
It has less regulation than the official channels. Can have better privacy. Can be cheaper. Can be faster. Compared to Western Union, international wire transfers and the likes, sending money home for foreign workers (remittance), seems to be much better with Stellar, or other low-fee crypto currencies.
Maybe one more problem that it solves: I bought some crypto early on as a hedge against global politics going to shit (US, Russia or China going into proxy wars) or economics taking a dive (and governments/central banks deciding to devaluate, ...).
I totally agree with you on NFT's though. And I don't like the speculation/gambling aspect of crypto currencies.
The reason it's "better" for international transfers is because it has decided to ditch all legal and financial safeguards that have been introduced, often with good reason, in regular banking. From a technical standpoint, crypto adds nothing to the process that a centralized system can't provide cheaper, faster and safer.
Additionally, a hedge is only as good as its performance in case of a worst-case scenario. If the stock market takes a dive or war breaks out, crypto will dive just as hard - same as it had done in the past.
Additionally, a hedge is only as good as its performance in case of a worst-case scenario. If the stock market takes a dive or war breaks out, crypto will dive just as hard - same as it had done in the past.
During the Cyprus financial crisis, on 25 March 2013, bank account balances over €100K were seized. BTC surged 87% that day, and 700% that month. [0,1,3]
When Greece was freezing / slowing bank withdrawals during its financial crisis in 2015, BTC price climbed.
IIRC BTC also jumped when Russia was getting involved in Ukraine in 2014.
It's not a perfect hedge, but I do believe bitcoin could be valuable if the world/governments go (partly) to shit.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012–2013_Cypriot_financial_cr...
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/28/investing/bitcoin-cyprus/in...
[2] https://www.in2013dollars.com/bitcoin-price-in-2013
When Greece was freezing / slowing bank withdrawals during its financial crisis in 2015, BTC price climbed.
IIRC BTC also jumped when Russia was getting involved in Ukraine in 2014.
It's not a perfect hedge, but I do believe bitcoin could be valuable if the world/governments go (partly) to shit.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012–2013_Cypriot_financial_cr...
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/28/investing/bitcoin-cyprus/in...
[2] https://www.in2013dollars.com/bitcoin-price-in-2013
Thing is, your quality judgement is questionable by society as a whole.
Less regulation -> more crime.
Better privacy -> more crime.
Cheaper -> more unstable currency markets.
Faster -> more unstable currency markets.
There is a balance to be found, but at the moment most cryptocurrencies are a nightmare from the perspective of people who value stability and order in social arrangements. And none of the current players seem particularly interested in finding that balance, because they know very well that most of their customers are interested in keeping it wild.
Less regulation -> more crime.
Better privacy -> more crime.
Cheaper -> more unstable currency markets.
Faster -> more unstable currency markets.
There is a balance to be found, but at the moment most cryptocurrencies are a nightmare from the perspective of people who value stability and order in social arrangements. And none of the current players seem particularly interested in finding that balance, because they know very well that most of their customers are interested in keeping it wild.
Crime is what the government says is a crime. E.g. Wikileaks.
Bitcoin is permissionless money. You might not value that, but others do.
Bitcoin is permissionless money. You might not value that, but others do.
In democratic societies, in theory and largely in practice, crime is what society as a whole decided is a crime.
Bitcoin is indeed permissionless, which means you can use it for things society might find nefarious: tax evasion, drug trade, uncontrolled arms trade, human trafficking, money laundering, etc etc. You might not value that, but society as a whole does.
Bitcoin is indeed permissionless, which means you can use it for things society might find nefarious: tax evasion, drug trade, uncontrolled arms trade, human trafficking, money laundering, etc etc. You might not value that, but society as a whole does.
Bitcoin is probably one of the worst asset to use for crimes, since all transactions are publicly available on the blockchain, with no privacy.
Bitcoin is one of many cryptocurrencies, one that becomes increasingly less relevant with each day.
[deleted]
I see you're using the word "can" a lot to cover up the fact that it is not actually doing those things.
And less regulation means more crime - the only reason the ransomware epidemic exists is cryptocurrency. Remittance is also not actually cheaper with cryptocurrency if you actually count all the fees, but most likely more expensive than Western Union.
Cryptocurrency delivers none of what it promises. It only delivers crime and ecological destruction.
And less regulation means more crime - the only reason the ransomware epidemic exists is cryptocurrency. Remittance is also not actually cheaper with cryptocurrency if you actually count all the fees, but most likely more expensive than Western Union.
Cryptocurrency delivers none of what it promises. It only delivers crime and ecological destruction.
I'm just careful not to make any absolute statements. I'm not a crypto advocate.
I also tried not to pass judgement. I understand that less regulation leads to more crime (and I think we are seeing evidence of that). What I'm trying to say is that this solves a problem for people who want less regulation.
With respect to simplicity and fees; If I want to send money to a family member in Botswana, I can do that in about a minute with something like Stellar. The transaction fees are negligible (<1 cent). Converting to fiat to actually use it, does carry some fees (roughly 2 x 0.1% on Binance). I couldn't get an exact quote from Western Union, but I remember it being a lot more expensive and a lot more hassle (granted, it's been over a decade since I last used them)
I also tried not to pass judgement. I understand that less regulation leads to more crime (and I think we are seeing evidence of that). What I'm trying to say is that this solves a problem for people who want less regulation.
With respect to simplicity and fees; If I want to send money to a family member in Botswana, I can do that in about a minute with something like Stellar. The transaction fees are negligible (<1 cent). Converting to fiat to actually use it, does carry some fees (roughly 2 x 0.1% on Binance). I couldn't get an exact quote from Western Union, but I remember it being a lot more expensive and a lot more hassle (granted, it's been over a decade since I last used them)
Definitely not seeing any 0.1% fees on https://www.binance.com/en/fee/fiatFee.
I was thinking about trading commission to convert XLM to EUR. Those are 0.1%. Withdrawing via SEPA was €1.0~1.5, but I see that's suspended now. If you were transferring €1000~1500, that would have been 0.1%.
Withdrawing to GBP is only £0.5.
Withdrawing to GBP is only £0.5.
And the fees at the other end?
> It has less regulation than the official channels.
If the way it "solves the problem" is by not following the regulations that everybody else has to follow, I don't know if it's actually solving a problem so much as cheating the system.
If the way it "solves the problem" is by not following the regulations that everybody else has to follow, I don't know if it's actually solving a problem so much as cheating the system.
>I bought some crypto early on as a hedge against global politics going to shit (US, Russia or China going into proxy wars) or economics taking a dive (and governments/central banks deciding to devaluate, ...).
Genuinely asking as a newbie to this kind of thing, what's the advantage of using crypto over assets more traditionally used for this purpose such as gold?
Genuinely asking as a newbie to this kind of thing, what's the advantage of using crypto over assets more traditionally used for this purpose such as gold?
I think gold is also a reasonable hedge against certain instabilities.
I don't own any gold because I'd be worried about securing it. While I do have some valuables in my house, most of it is easily replaceable.
I don't own any gold because I'd be worried about securing it. While I do have some valuables in my house, most of it is easily replaceable.
Much easier to buy, transfer, secure, etc.
I don't think it has much use other than speculation either, but it does have advantages over gold.
I don't think it has much use other than speculation either, but it does have advantages over gold.
Crypto is something you can "physically control" like gold (through being the only person who knows the key). Unlike gold it can't be physically stolen or confiscated. It can be easily authenticated (no counterfeiting). Unlike land or shares, or other paper assets it can't be transferred without the owner's consent. You can be 100% sure you actually do hold the asset.
In a stable, law-abiding society these advantages are a bit pointless, but enough people either see the future as unstable and lawless, or currently live in unstable and lawless places, that there is market demand for crypto as a store of value.
In a stable, law-abiding society these advantages are a bit pointless, but enough people either see the future as unstable and lawless, or currently live in unstable and lawless places, that there is market demand for crypto as a store of value.
Is it cheaper factoring in the cost of transferring to crypto and then back again from a currency you can actually use most places?
It depends on how limited the international payments are for your particular country.
Bank payment from Spain to Poland is cheaper than cryptocurrency; bank payment from Nigeria to Peru is likely to be more expensive than cryptocurrency; and a bank payment from USA to Iran is effectively impossible while cryptocurrency can work.
Bank payment from Spain to Poland is cheaper than cryptocurrency; bank payment from Nigeria to Peru is likely to be more expensive than cryptocurrency; and a bank payment from USA to Iran is effectively impossible while cryptocurrency can work.
"Likely"?
Go find out what the actual numbers are, then make the argument. Wishful thinking gets you nowhere.
Go find out what the actual numbers are, then make the argument. Wishful thinking gets you nowhere.
You're trolling, right? Everyone knows that there are generally no "actual numbers" available for this kind of transfers unless you're a BigCo or a private banking customer.
You'll send $1000 from your Nigerian bank to the Peruvian bank, $937.65 will arrive after a week+. Most likely nobody will be able to explain where the money went.
You'll send $1000 from your Nigerian bank to the Peruvian bank, $937.65 will arrive after a week+. Most likely nobody will be able to explain where the money went.
No, I really am asking a person to provide facts to back up their claims. I was not aware this was considered trolling.
There are no useful facts to provide, outside of strictly regulated markets banks pull these fees out of their asses. The receiving bank might charge various mystery fees, so even if your bank is playing nice they won't be able to tell you how much will actually arrive.
It's just almost impossible to know the answer to the fee question beyond "probably a lot"
It's just almost impossible to know the answer to the fee question beyond "probably a lot"
"Likely" because for the scenarios/markets where international payments work poorly there's no "actual numbers" in this situation, the pricing is highly dependent on circumstances, the specific institutions involved, the currencies involved (there may be multiple, and for some countries a currency conversion may be mandatory), the payment scheme involved (depending on the country/bank pair there likely will be multiple payment channels with different price/speed/reliability tradeoffs) and who is paying (which affects a lot the prices you may get). For such deals the sending institution will generally refuse to quote a fixed generic price, because the price will be different depending on all kinds of factors that, in some cases, will be revealed only after the payment is delivered or returned.
An bank payment from Nigeria to Peru might reasonably cost $20-$100, and I wouldn't be that surprised if in a particular situation it would come out to $10 or $300 (like, making a typo in some field of a non-validated foreign payment, or having an unclear tax situation on the goods for which the payment is held - that can easily cause e.g. a $100 extra unexpected processing fee for the payment). Also, you may get amount-proportional fees, and a 0.5% fee can potentially be huge for larger payments. On the other hand of the comparison there is also significant variability for the extra costs of the cryptocurrency payment - as the original question stated, including the cost and exchange rate variation of buying crypto for fiat in the sending country and selling crypto in the receiving country.
So it's likely but not certain that it's more expensive than an equivalent crypto payment + the to-crypto and from-crypto conversion, it depends on unknowable circumstances, and the variability and unpredictability of such fees is a big drawback on those types of international payments - unlike e.g. the intra-EU case where the fees would be predictable and low - perhaps zero, depending on your bank.
An bank payment from Nigeria to Peru might reasonably cost $20-$100, and I wouldn't be that surprised if in a particular situation it would come out to $10 or $300 (like, making a typo in some field of a non-validated foreign payment, or having an unclear tax situation on the goods for which the payment is held - that can easily cause e.g. a $100 extra unexpected processing fee for the payment). Also, you may get amount-proportional fees, and a 0.5% fee can potentially be huge for larger payments. On the other hand of the comparison there is also significant variability for the extra costs of the cryptocurrency payment - as the original question stated, including the cost and exchange rate variation of buying crypto for fiat in the sending country and selling crypto in the receiving country.
So it's likely but not certain that it's more expensive than an equivalent crypto payment + the to-crypto and from-crypto conversion, it depends on unknowable circumstances, and the variability and unpredictability of such fees is a big drawback on those types of international payments - unlike e.g. the intra-EU case where the fees would be predictable and low - perhaps zero, depending on your bank.
> sending money internationally.
The volatility of cryptocurrency prices alone makes them a pretty bad fit for any transaction whose value needs to be agreed upon within reasonable limits.
For stuff like blackmail, where profit margins are high and payments are highly negotiable, the benefits of anonymity outweigh this drawback, but for most honest business, it matters to a recipient whether they get $100k or $75k.
> economics taking a dive
And your bet is that when society collapses, the power grid and the internet will keep operating to keep cryptocurrencies cranking on. Not sure that is a safe bet.
The volatility of cryptocurrency prices alone makes them a pretty bad fit for any transaction whose value needs to be agreed upon within reasonable limits.
For stuff like blackmail, where profit margins are high and payments are highly negotiable, the benefits of anonymity outweigh this drawback, but for most honest business, it matters to a recipient whether they get $100k or $75k.
> economics taking a dive
And your bet is that when society collapses, the power grid and the internet will keep operating to keep cryptocurrencies cranking on. Not sure that is a safe bet.
It's not a hedge against society collapsing. In that case nothing will help, perhaps owning land to farm your own food (if you can protect it).
The (tiny) investment I keep in crypto is a hedge when economies tank, or governments/central banks intervene. Eg, when bank withdrawals were frozen/slowed in Greece 2015, or when bank balances over 100K were seized in Cyprus 2013.
The (tiny) investment I keep in crypto is a hedge when economies tank, or governments/central banks intervene. Eg, when bank withdrawals were frozen/slowed in Greece 2015, or when bank balances over 100K were seized in Cyprus 2013.
That's why a product like Quant Networks is going to survive the bubble which is surely on the horizon.
NFT's like offered by NBA Topshots (basically replacing physical collectibles in a digital form factor) have their appeal if your into collecting sports stuff). 20 pixel unicorns for 1 ETH? Not so much..
NFT's like offered by NBA Topshots (basically replacing physical collectibles in a digital form factor) have their appeal if your into collecting sports stuff). 20 pixel unicorns for 1 ETH? Not so much..
I think the only problem it tries to solve is skipping the potential middle man. And "freeing" the people. To be honest, even though i'm mostly a non believer (but invested) I think there's a chance it shakes some of the practice of the current financial system and may allow for some organic useful flow between parties. It might also very well lead to nothing :)
>There's not a single problem it solves.
Start thinking of crypto as luxury goods, then a lot of what happens (has happened) makes sense. It started out with practical problems it was trying to solve, but clearly morphed into something else entirely.
Start thinking of crypto as luxury goods, then a lot of what happens (has happened) makes sense. It started out with practical problems it was trying to solve, but clearly morphed into something else entirely.
Bitcoin solves the Cantillon effect, which is much more important for humanity than any consumer startup solving a problem only the most privileged have.
Can we please stop with the "existing tech can do it better" that sometime technologists have convinced themselves of for some reason.
The whole point of these systems is to be permissionless and censorship-resistant. Simple yard stick: If your proposed alternate "distributed system" is harder to use successfully for extorting ransomware payments, then it does not do the same work, and it does not do it better.
The whole point of these systems is to be permissionless and censorship-resistant. Simple yard stick: If your proposed alternate "distributed system" is harder to use successfully for extorting ransomware payments, then it does not do the same work, and it does not do it better.
Corrupt or semi corrupt governments? (more than 50% of the world is impacted).
In my case, probably, yeah. The market can be irrational for longer than you can stay solvent, they say. But it has to give eventually, and I’d rather have no stake in either its long term success or its demise.
It’s hard to know what happens when the hype dies. I don’t suspect cryptocurrency will cease to exist, but for the good of cryptocurrency’s long term future, you might hope for such a bubble burst, too.
It’s hard to know what happens when the hype dies. I don’t suspect cryptocurrency will cease to exist, but for the good of cryptocurrency’s long term future, you might hope for such a bubble burst, too.
About half as long as I've had to wait for the "NoSQL" fad to die.
The value of bitcoin has only been high for about 4 years, it isn't that long.
Some bubbles last decades. Still bubbles.
Or centuries. Back in late 17th century, people thought the Ottoman Empire will fall apart any moment now, but the "falling apart" took like 200+ years.
[deleted]
Hundreds of years after the tulip bubble, tulips are still a big part of Dutch tourism with flower markets being a big attraction in Amsterdam. Because culture doesn’t disappear.
So good look with that.
So good look with that.
Crypto bubble bursting just means that all investors leave, not that crypto currencies disappear. So bitcoin would go back to levels it was at before the investment craze 4 years ago, so about 5 years ago? At that point you could buy stuff with it and send people money, but people didn't view it as an investment vehicle.
The blockchain is an append-only structure; it can only grow. The longer the blockchain, the more it costs to process a transaction.
So if people divest from bitcoin and the price drops, that won't make bitcoin more suitable for buying stuff. Nothing can make the blockchain shorter.
So if people divest from bitcoin and the price drops, that won't make bitcoin more suitable for buying stuff. Nothing can make the blockchain shorter.
You can truncate it at any point you want. If in 2060, the community collectively decides that the chain is too long, they can just decide that a block from 2040 is the new genesis block.
By 2060 I'll have been dead for about 15 years.
The altcoin bubble will certainly pop.
Bitcoin isn't going anywhere though, so if you include that under your definition of a "tulip", I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Bitcoin isn't going anywhere though, so if you include that under your definition of a "tulip", I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
I guess it'll never go to zero without legislation... but the Internet's power to make communities from far-flung people mean nowadays we have a community of flat-earthers, as well as a community of rubes, and they'll continue to believe in it as it bubbles up and bursts again and again.
The number of rubes you could convince about tulips in Amsterdam was finite, but on the Internet...
The number of rubes you could convince about tulips in Amsterdam was finite, but on the Internet...
> The number of rubes you could convince about tulips in Amsterdam was finite, but on the Internet...
I think a lot of "investors" (gamblers) know it is mostly a scam, but are hoping they're not going to be the ones left without a chair when the music stops.
I think a lot of "investors" (gamblers) know it is mostly a scam, but are hoping they're not going to be the ones left without a chair when the music stops.
[deleted]
Bitcoin have to be worth something in the same sense that a leaf of toilet paper isn't actually free - just very cheap. We don't know what the long term fair price of a bitcoin is and it isn't at all obvious that we are in a bubble.
For all the naysayers and the evangelists, at this point it is clear that cryptocurrencies have staying power and the broader market (not going to pick out bitcoin specifically) seems likely outlive the US dollar. Decentralised protocols are more reliable than the US government.
For all the naysayers and the evangelists, at this point it is clear that cryptocurrencies have staying power and the broader market (not going to pick out bitcoin specifically) seems likely outlive the US dollar. Decentralised protocols are more reliable than the US government.
> For all the naysayers and the evangelists, at this point it is clear that cryptocurrencies have staying power and the broader market (not going to pick out bitcoin specifically) seems likely outlive the US dollar. Decentralised protocols are more reliable than the US government.
By what logic do you expect a ~10 year old technology reliant on massive amounts of power in a global warming world, that only started seeing adoption ~5 years ago, will beat the US dollar's ~200 year old lifetime?
Not to mention, USD and the US are such a central part of all finance and technology worldwide that it's absurd to imagine Bitcoin would survive a collapse of the US government.
By what logic do you expect a ~10 year old technology reliant on massive amounts of power in a global warming world, that only started seeing adoption ~5 years ago, will beat the US dollar's ~200 year old lifetime?
Not to mention, USD and the US are such a central part of all finance and technology worldwide that it's absurd to imagine Bitcoin would survive a collapse of the US government.
Are decentralised protocols really more reliable? I highly doubt it.
The reason the dollar is so strong is because it is backed by a goverment which will use its power to guarantee the dollar does not collapse. The same goes for the Euro, yen, RMB etc.
When hyperinflation kicks in, will a decentralised protocol step up and try to curtail it?
The reason the dollar is so strong is because it is backed by a goverment which will use its power to guarantee the dollar does not collapse. The same goes for the Euro, yen, RMB etc.
When hyperinflation kicks in, will a decentralised protocol step up and try to curtail it?
When hyperinflation kicks in, will the United States military step up and try to curtail it?
If so how?
If so how?
The dollar is strong? Against what? It and all the other fiat currencies were losing their worth for decades.
Hasn't it "burst" a handful of times already?
May I offer a solution to your problem? Just buy some bitcoin to hedge your feelings. You win if it goes up. You win if it goes down.
I'm enlightened by you expressing your feelings.
A huge thanks to those who don’t hesitate and post archive.org or outline.com links to the partially readable articles.
My typical workflow on HN when I see the paid content block/popup on a destination website: 1) Go back 2) Open HN comments 3) Find archive.org or outline.com link 4) Read the content
My typical workflow on HN when I see the paid content block/popup on a destination website: 1) Go back 2) Open HN comments 3) Find archive.org or outline.com link 4) Read the content
The entire point of cryptocurrency is to bypass this stuff.
If you're using a regulated exchange, just go and buy Apple shares or use a bank instead. It really is almost completely pointless.
If you're using a regulated exchange, just go and buy Apple shares or use a bank instead. It really is almost completely pointless.
Who's point?
The whole point of Google, to some people at Google, might have been "don't be evil" at one point in time. Decentralisation was the whole point of the WWW.
Different people have different goals. Largely, it's just about making money.
The whole point of Google, to some people at Google, might have been "don't be evil" at one point in time. Decentralisation was the whole point of the WWW.
Different people have different goals. Largely, it's just about making money.
Google is a company, it's not comparable. Companies almost by definition seek to gain at the expense of others, if not initially then a few years in after the honeymoon.
I agree that decentralisation is the whole point of the WWW and I use it in that manner, I think people who spend all of their time on one or two centralised platforms are bizarre.
I agree that decentralisation is the whole point of the WWW and I use it in that manner, I think people who spend all of their time on one or two centralised platforms are bizarre.
>>I think people who spend all of their time on one or two centralised platforms are bizarre.
I think you are missing the point. The rhetorical does not dictate what will actually happen. Crypto is a step ahead of regulators, in much the same way that uber was ahead of regulators. That allowed uber to blast through a global complex of taxi regulations. Crypto has/is similarly able to innovate outside of a handful of institutions.
That does not mean that it's unregulatable. Also, if both regulated and unregulated options exist... there's no reason to think that the unregulated one wins.
I think you are missing the point. The rhetorical does not dictate what will actually happen. Crypto is a step ahead of regulators, in much the same way that uber was ahead of regulators. That allowed uber to blast through a global complex of taxi regulations. Crypto has/is similarly able to innovate outside of a handful of institutions.
That does not mean that it's unregulatable. Also, if both regulated and unregulated options exist... there's no reason to think that the unregulated one wins.
Exactly. Since making money is the real point, someone bypassed all the bullshit about purpose and literally made a new form of money with properties different from any form of money before. You can like it or not, but it is not going to just stop existing.
Sure. That wasn't a criticism of crypto.
Whether one of those properties is "freedom from regulation" is yet to be seen. I personally quite doubt it.
Whether one of those properties is "freedom from regulation" is yet to be seen. I personally quite doubt it.
I think it is less about not having regulations and more about bypassing the current establishment of banks and exchanges.
It feels more like a union of those shunned by the current establishment, trying to get a piece of the money pie.
It feels more like a union of those shunned by the current establishment, trying to get a piece of the money pie.
My biggest fear is that institutions & governments jumping into this pyramid scheme, throwing our hard earned money to make billionaires out of snake oil men.
Bitcoin was fine as long as it was a small geeky fun currency with actual small transactions. It became a pyramid scheme once speculators jumped in.
I am open to government or industry backed crypto or digital currency.
Bitcoin was fine as long as it was a small geeky fun currency with actual small transactions. It became a pyramid scheme once speculators jumped in.
I am open to government or industry backed crypto or digital currency.
> I am open to government or industry backed crypto or digital currency
Then you don't understand the point of Bitcoin.
Any "government backed" crypto (also known as Central Bank Digital Currencies, or CBDCs) will be under the complete control of bureaucrats, much like how money currently is.
That means they can create as much of that money as they like to fund whatever they want.
That kind of monetary expansion is not possible with Bitcoin, which is entirely the point.
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts." - Satoshi Nakamoto
Then you don't understand the point of Bitcoin.
Any "government backed" crypto (also known as Central Bank Digital Currencies, or CBDCs) will be under the complete control of bureaucrats, much like how money currently is.
That means they can create as much of that money as they like to fund whatever they want.
That kind of monetary expansion is not possible with Bitcoin, which is entirely the point.
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts." - Satoshi Nakamoto
> That kind of monetary expansion is not possible with Bitcoin, which is entirely the point.
Yes, which is (one reason) why all of these new projects and initiatives skip Bitcoin altogether and instead invent new tokens and coins for each new project.
Bitcoin may not be expanding the Bitcoin supply, but the overall coin supply in the cryptocurrency world is absolutely exploding.
New cryptocurrencies pop up every day and each new project mints new coins for arbitrary reasons (so their founders can keep most of them, usually). Why can’t I just pay for a Web3 service using existing Ethereum? Why must we first trade some coin for arbitrary tokens and then pay for the service? The answer is because the founders and early adopters want to cash out as much as possible as quickly as possible, and the fastest way to do that is by minting new coins.
Yes, which is (one reason) why all of these new projects and initiatives skip Bitcoin altogether and instead invent new tokens and coins for each new project.
Bitcoin may not be expanding the Bitcoin supply, but the overall coin supply in the cryptocurrency world is absolutely exploding.
New cryptocurrencies pop up every day and each new project mints new coins for arbitrary reasons (so their founders can keep most of them, usually). Why can’t I just pay for a Web3 service using existing Ethereum? Why must we first trade some coin for arbitrary tokens and then pay for the service? The answer is because the founders and early adopters want to cash out as much as possible as quickly as possible, and the fastest way to do that is by minting new coins.
I understand that bitcoin is decentralised, but decentralised what?
Currencies need to have an underlying useful asset or guarantee.
Yes governments used to have gold backed currencies but our economic growth is exponential, so it is now the job of the state. Incase they act irresponsibly it does go into hyper inflation, so they are forced to act responsibly.
In case they do print more, it does go into public good like roads & bridges which adds to the public assets and hence adds to the assets backing the currency.
Currencies need to have an underlying useful asset or guarantee.
Yes governments used to have gold backed currencies but our economic growth is exponential, so it is now the job of the state. Incase they act irresponsibly it does go into hyper inflation, so they are forced to act responsibly.
In case they do print more, it does go into public good like roads & bridges which adds to the public assets and hence adds to the assets backing the currency.
I think government backed is not government controlled, right? For example now in El Salvador bitcoin is government backed. You can pay your taxes in it and I think eventually you can settle contracts with it.
> government or industry backed digital currency
That's your bank account and credit cards etc..
The whole point of cryptocurrency is to not to be backed or controlled by any single entity.
That's your bank account and credit cards etc..
The whole point of cryptocurrency is to not to be backed or controlled by any single entity.
Your bank account and credit cards are not programmable money. They don't have smart contracts where third parties can verify the fairness of the financial instruments you are purchasing. All you have is trust in financial institutions.
The only reason why they aren't programmable, is because banks choose not to expose an API. In fact, even that's not completely true: Starling offers programmable bank accounts in the UK, and there is at least one programmable credit card provider in the US.
These are good steps yes. But still, you're at the mercy of fintechs. Also, for this stuff to be really useful, it needs to be standardised worldwide. E.g. Algerian traders should be able to trade with Japanese counterparties by interacting with the same smart contracts.
That I agree with. I just disagree with the assertion that legacy banking is not programmable, because there's nothing that inherently prevents it from working that way (other than bank policy).
Currencies need to be backed by an asset or an entity.
Bitcoin is meaningful only as long as it is a temporary token for transaction like an IOU note. The day it became a "store of value" or asset to be speculated on it is meaningless.
Bitcoin is meaningful only as long as it is a temporary token for transaction like an IOU note. The day it became a "store of value" or asset to be speculated on it is meaningless.
I think it's a bait and switch scenario where the institutions build something bitcoin like infrastructure but in reality it's just centralized infrastructure for credit cards 2.0.
Since this seems to be yet another HN comment thread filled with people who feel really smart for dismissing the potential of cryptographic digital currencies and the emerging liquid market for these digital assets, I'll just copy and paste my thoughts (which I might end up having to do often, since these sort of crypto-hate-fests are now popping up on HN at a rate of several per day):
> Money moves fast in the crypto world. It’s “minted.” It’s “burned.” It’s earned. It’s hacked. It’s fundraised. It’s parked into a failed DAO. It’s gambled away. It’s up on a 100x leveraged return. It’s wiped out in a margin call. It’s up 20% — oh wait, now it’s flash-crashed down 30%. It’s unstable, risky, prone to failure — and it’s exactly what the global economy needs. We need ways to convince capital to move around in new and weird ways. We need to get money into the hands of different sets of hands way more often than we’ve been doing. We need to experiment, to be right, to be wrong, to be doing things with money. That’s what capital productivity is all about. Money isn’t supposed to sit in a bank feeling “safe;” it’s supposed to be running around, acting young and risky, learning new things and creating new opportunities.
https://numair.medium.com/the-intelligent-case-for-crypto-43...
> Money moves fast in the crypto world. It’s “minted.” It’s “burned.” It’s earned. It’s hacked. It’s fundraised. It’s parked into a failed DAO. It’s gambled away. It’s up on a 100x leveraged return. It’s wiped out in a margin call. It’s up 20% — oh wait, now it’s flash-crashed down 30%. It’s unstable, risky, prone to failure — and it’s exactly what the global economy needs. We need ways to convince capital to move around in new and weird ways. We need to get money into the hands of different sets of hands way more often than we’ve been doing. We need to experiment, to be right, to be wrong, to be doing things with money. That’s what capital productivity is all about. Money isn’t supposed to sit in a bank feeling “safe;” it’s supposed to be running around, acting young and risky, learning new things and creating new opportunities.
https://numair.medium.com/the-intelligent-case-for-crypto-43...
> Money isn’t supposed to sit in a bank feeling “safe;” it’s supposed to be running around, acting young and risky, learning new things and creating new opportunities.
But how is this different for crypto currencies compared to fiat currencies? From what I understand by far most crypto capital does not move at all?
But how is this different for crypto currencies compared to fiat currencies? From what I understand by far most crypto capital does not move at all?
Quite the opposite. Check the moves on the exchanges, and you’ll see that the velocity of capital is truly unmatched. This is exactly why lots of very serious asset managers and quant shops have jumped in — crypto is becoming the major leagues, and making TradFi look like a minor league game, scary-fast.
That’s what capital productivity is all about.
No, it's about investing money (and other resources) into endeavors that create actual goods and and services. The crypto world is (absent a few marginal use cases) almost entirely about derivatives and speculation - and of course money laundering and ransomware.
That is to to say: the very opposite of the intrinsic purpose (to the extent that it has one) of capital.
It’s unstable, risky, prone to failure — and it’s exactly what the global economy needs.
I have an even better catchphrase for you:
"It’s unstable, risky, prone to failure — in other words, pure nihilism, baby! And it’s exactly what the global economy needs."
No, it's about investing money (and other resources) into endeavors that create actual goods and and services. The crypto world is (absent a few marginal use cases) almost entirely about derivatives and speculation - and of course money laundering and ransomware.
That is to to say: the very opposite of the intrinsic purpose (to the extent that it has one) of capital.
It’s unstable, risky, prone to failure — and it’s exactly what the global economy needs.
I have an even better catchphrase for you:
"It’s unstable, risky, prone to failure — in other words, pure nihilism, baby! And it’s exactly what the global economy needs."
That is a very simplistic view of a large, rapidly evolving asset class. Your “few marginal use cases” will grow into the most important use cases of the entire economy — and no, we don’t yet know exactly what those are. Surely you understand how compounding growth works, right?
> Money isn’t supposed to sit in a bank feeling “safe;” it’s supposed to be running around, acting young and risky, learning new things and creating new opportunities.
Money is supposed to go into Capex and Opex - those are proof that people are producing things. When money is put into a bank, or stock, or a Blockchain, the company who put it there is not doing anything useful with it. Sure, it's possible that someone lending, or selling shares, or selling crypto, is going to do something with that money, but those are already second-order effects. And of course, the ones on the other side of the transaction may well be putting it back again into banking, stocks, or crypto speculation - money spinning endlessly around, going nowhere.
Money is supposed to go into Capex and Opex - those are proof that people are producing things. When money is put into a bank, or stock, or a Blockchain, the company who put it there is not doing anything useful with it. Sure, it's possible that someone lending, or selling shares, or selling crypto, is going to do something with that money, but those are already second-order effects. And of course, the ones on the other side of the transaction may well be putting it back again into banking, stocks, or crypto speculation - money spinning endlessly around, going nowhere.
Unless you have a birds’-eye view of the entire global economy and all uses of crypto in the market right now, there is no way you can make such a blanket statement with such certainty.
The same is true for the original claim.
Unless we have a bird's eye view of the entire economy, the only direct measure of money getting converted to useful economic activity is Capex (and Opex).
The volume of BTC, or bank deposits/lending, or stock markets - they are all hard to correlate with economic activity.
Unless we have a bird's eye view of the entire economy, the only direct measure of money getting converted to useful economic activity is Capex (and Opex).
The volume of BTC, or bank deposits/lending, or stock markets - they are all hard to correlate with economic activity.
It's about doing things for money, not with the money itself. Moving cash around does not benefit anyone. My biggest fear is tax avoidance with crypto. You lose the main way to continuously return the money into the "people money pool". People say governments waste and steal money, but it's a people problem and this is the best mechanism we have
The article focuses on three areas
1. stopping crypto assets from being used to launder money
2. taxation of crypto investments.
3. financial regulation: protecting consumers from fraud, reducing systemic risk and ensuring fair competition
All of these seem like fair measures. How successful they will be? Exchanges like Coinbase are a key point of regulation.
Also regarding the lobbing, "The Economist calculates that crypto firms spent around $5m lobbying the American Senate in the first nine months of 2021".
For those more experienced in lobbying, is that a lot?
1. stopping crypto assets from being used to launder money
2. taxation of crypto investments.
3. financial regulation: protecting consumers from fraud, reducing systemic risk and ensuring fair competition
All of these seem like fair measures. How successful they will be? Exchanges like Coinbase are a key point of regulation.
Also regarding the lobbing, "The Economist calculates that crypto firms spent around $5m lobbying the American Senate in the first nine months of 2021".
For those more experienced in lobbying, is that a lot?
Great, all the campaign funds should be auditable on the blockchain for full transparency.
> The industry has gained political capital, too. In America, the congressional Blockchain Caucus counts 35 lawmakers as members. Cynthia Lummis, a senator from Wyoming, has received a big chunk of her 2026 campaign contributions from individuals linked to crypto firms. Last month she said she opposed Jerome Powell’s reappointment as head of the Federal Reserve because of the central bank’s “political approach to digital assets”. In October 2020 the Chamber of Digital Commerce’s political-action committee gave $50 worth of bitcoin to every member of Congress.
A constant refrain from those heavily invested in the financial system is that governments will "make Bitcoin illegal."
What's missing from this perspective is the possibility that as Bitcoin becomes more widely-recognized and doesn't vaporize in a puff of schadenfreude, it gains powerful supporters who can ensure that the clampdown never happens.
Ironically, there are those using Bitcoin who would like to see nothing less than a total ban of Bitcoin use in the US. They see this as final proof of the utility, value proposition, and when the ban fails to work, vindication.
A constant refrain from those heavily invested in the financial system is that governments will "make Bitcoin illegal."
What's missing from this perspective is the possibility that as Bitcoin becomes more widely-recognized and doesn't vaporize in a puff of schadenfreude, it gains powerful supporters who can ensure that the clampdown never happens.
Ironically, there are those using Bitcoin who would like to see nothing less than a total ban of Bitcoin use in the US. They see this as final proof of the utility, value proposition, and when the ban fails to work, vindication.
This was unavoidable.
We need good regulation to weed out the… weeds.
The more focus on actual projects with actually useful products the better for humanity.
The more focus on actual projects with actually useful products the better for humanity.
Reading the top comments in this thread we are still hilariously early.
We're going to see the "tulips" line dragged out for years to come.
How long do people think "bubbles" last?
How long do people think "bubbles" last?
Depends on the bubble, some have dragged on for decades ( e.g. railways in multiple countries or the Canal Mania in the UK)
The answer to that of always: Until there aren't any more "greater fools"
Adoption rate at this point is about 0.5%. I guess things will start to change here on HN at 10% global adoption rate (5 more years)
Adoption as what? To do anything useful with Crypto you still need to change it to a real currency on a bank account.
I just bought 3 plane tickets with Bitcoin yesterday on cheapair.com. Just because it's not used by everybody, it can be useful for some people. Bitcoin has never failed me while travelling.
I don't doubt that you can pay in Crypto by exchanging BTC against USD. But prices are still denominated in USD and the reciever most likely has to hedge against potential losses due to quickly fluctuating exchange rates.
Not really. They were in Mexican pesos, but it didn't matter, I didn't have to exchange anything.
Let me guess, you're from US.
Let me guess, you're from US.
revolving doors between government / regulatory roles and private entities that stand to gain massively if they influence the legal regime to legitimize the "minted" wealth.
corruption at work, in plain sight. stark analogies with the voucher privatization [0] of the collapsing Soviet Union that created the ruling kleptocracy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voucher_privatization
corruption at work, in plain sight. stark analogies with the voucher privatization [0] of the collapsing Soviet Union that created the ruling kleptocracy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voucher_privatization
total privatisation of the money system, sold as democratization
Bitcoin isn't "private".
It's probably the most open and public money that has ever existed.
There's no company behind it, no CEO, no marketing team... it's just a protocol for a p2p network.
All the other "cryptos"? Sure, regulate them to death. I don't care. Good luck doing that with Bitcoin though.
It's probably the most open and public money that has ever existed.
There's no company behind it, no CEO, no marketing team... it's just a protocol for a p2p network.
All the other "cryptos"? Sure, regulate them to death. I don't care. Good luck doing that with Bitcoin though.
the technology is not private, but the coin ownership is. As there is no government institution that can print/create coins and use that as to control inflation, adjust for GDP etc. and set rules on how the newly create money should be used. This leaves supply of coins in the market to people or private institutions that have a lot of them and thus money supply is privatised.
And yes banks are private but the money supply is ultimately controlled by the Fed and thus the democratic system is responsible for the money supplies as it appoints the governing body.
the p2p network is free to all, just like handing cash money is free to all.
Individual freedom is not the same thing as democracy, to much individual freedom is ultimately anti democratic. Because this will always favour the rich and powerful.
And yes banks are private but the money supply is ultimately controlled by the Fed and thus the democratic system is responsible for the money supplies as it appoints the governing body.
the p2p network is free to all, just like handing cash money is free to all.
Individual freedom is not the same thing as democracy, to much individual freedom is ultimately anti democratic. Because this will always favour the rich and powerful.
The monetary system in many places was already mostly private, most money is created by commercial banks and we have institutions like central banks with private ownership in many countries.
State controlled violence backed money
vs opt in p2p networks.
vs opt in p2p networks.
It would be an interesting experiment if commenting on all crypto related articles required you to disclose how many dollars(/euros/whatever) you have invested in crypto.
I feel like HN as a whole has a lot of people who are sad they weren’t in crypto in 2012 and take a strong stance against it now since they missed the train. Oh, mining is a big waste of electricity, but your SaaS/PaaS/IaaS cloud whatever isn’t. Come on.
After replacing word "lobby" with "bribe" text becomes easier to understand :)
[deleted]
History rhymes, therefore, one can predict the future. To quote myself:
Greed is the elephant in the room. Whether it's cash, gold, or an NFT of Elon Musk's flatulence, no matter the currency, as long as humans can't evolve beyond their greedy nature nothing will change. All bitcoin has done is strengthen this vice and make yet another group of rich people, who, as usual, will do anything to preserve and increase their wealth. For example Max Keiser ripping a ten dollar bill saying he will just buy politicians [21]. Or the next quote by some bitcoin millionaire on an online forum I used to frequent:
“I've always used Bitcoin as an insurance against corrupted governments by private companies. The tip is to move to a country where the government is corrupted by crypto holders! ... and you don't have to move to small island to do that. There is plenty of rich country doing so.” —Name-I-won't-mention, living in France, 2021.
That doesn't spell confidence nor competence for the next “elite”, does it. Neither did I for that matter. As soon as I felt being rich was within my grasp I began to think selfishly: “No way I'm giving any of this to governments.” Which is fine in truly oppressed countries. But if one inhabits a developed country, chances are that being able to afford crypto“currencies” to begin with is the result of the fortunate circumstances that you or your parents enjoyed because of, among other things, good governance. Whether your ego likes it or not, most success is due to luck [22][23]. In the end, governments aren't inherently bad, but the people in it can be. And if they can be corrupted by bitcoin then we are merely running uphill on the Titanic.
“Strong currencies are not the solution to poor governance. Good governance and democracy makes a country and its currency strong. Not vice versa.” —halukakin, HackerNews, 2021. —https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html
Greed is the elephant in the room. Whether it's cash, gold, or an NFT of Elon Musk's flatulence, no matter the currency, as long as humans can't evolve beyond their greedy nature nothing will change. All bitcoin has done is strengthen this vice and make yet another group of rich people, who, as usual, will do anything to preserve and increase their wealth. For example Max Keiser ripping a ten dollar bill saying he will just buy politicians [21]. Or the next quote by some bitcoin millionaire on an online forum I used to frequent:
“I've always used Bitcoin as an insurance against corrupted governments by private companies. The tip is to move to a country where the government is corrupted by crypto holders! ... and you don't have to move to small island to do that. There is plenty of rich country doing so.” —Name-I-won't-mention, living in France, 2021.
That doesn't spell confidence nor competence for the next “elite”, does it. Neither did I for that matter. As soon as I felt being rich was within my grasp I began to think selfishly: “No way I'm giving any of this to governments.” Which is fine in truly oppressed countries. But if one inhabits a developed country, chances are that being able to afford crypto“currencies” to begin with is the result of the fortunate circumstances that you or your parents enjoyed because of, among other things, good governance. Whether your ego likes it or not, most success is due to luck [22][23]. In the end, governments aren't inherently bad, but the people in it can be. And if they can be corrupted by bitcoin then we are merely running uphill on the Titanic.
“Strong currencies are not the solution to poor governance. Good governance and democracy makes a country and its currency strong. Not vice versa.” —halukakin, HackerNews, 2021. —https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html
In this thread, ignorance…..is going ballistic.