On Cryptocurrencies (2018)(jwmason.org)
jwmason.org
On Cryptocurrencies (2018)
http://jwmason.org/slackwire/on-cryptocurrencies/
64 comments
For me, the crypto scene is almost irreparably damaged by its vibe of greed, the rampant scams, the ridiculous inefficiency and complexity of doing transactions, and the environmental disaster that is "proof of work".
Not uniquely useful, not very interesting, full of hot air: primo bashing material.
Not uniquely useful, not very interesting, full of hot air: primo bashing material.
Exactly. I still find the „proof of work“ a total waste of computational energy. I mean I believe I understand why it’s required, but it just seems like such a waste. Someone please correct me if I talk jiberish.
"... I mean I believe I understand why it’s required". if you do understand why it is required, then you must understand the game theory incentives underpinning modern economics and the disaster in wasted productivity, wasted savings, livelihoods bought on by centralised monetary systems. You can think proof of work as the cost paid to eliminate all that and save money. If you think you can solve that problem (Decentralised trust) non-trivially without proof-of-work you are welcome to try.
The only thing I learned from your comment is that wishful thinking justifies wasteful technologies. Not cool.
it is more than wishful, it is pragmatic, as all attempts before it were shut down by very powerful forces. The purpose of PoW is to create anti-fragile, unstoppable signals using opportunity costs. How society decides to dictate those costs is up to them. Very cool.
What were those attempts and powerful forces? I’d be interested to learn about it.
Crypto enthusiasts have been trying to create alternative to fiat currencies. Search for “digital gold”. But they all suffer from having to trust an entity which eventually leads them to be shutdown by the governments .
Building a decentralised trust mechanism which can be used over the internet has been a hard problem till POW.
[deleted]
PoW is not like leaving the tap on. It's a deliberate use of energy with incentives that attempt to provide a benefit. That is a censorship resistant monetary base and payment network.
When you say you find it a waste, you are either saying:
a) There is a less resource intensive way of doing bitcoin
b) That the claimed benefits are not true or you don't value it
(a) has had plenty of tries without success.
In case of (b), you don't have to participate, it's an entirely voluntary system. There are plenty of energy use cases around the world which don't benefit everyone.
When you say you find it a waste, you are either saying:
a) There is a less resource intensive way of doing bitcoin
b) That the claimed benefits are not true or you don't value it
(a) has had plenty of tries without success.
In case of (b), you don't have to participate, it's an entirely voluntary system. There are plenty of energy use cases around the world which don't benefit everyone.
Thanks, this is quite well written. I agree about a) and b). You’re right.
c) That the environmental impact is too high. We need to stimulate people to not use Bitcoin if we want to lower the environmental impact. The amount of transactions where Bitcoin is both legal and necessary is very low.
Your argument is essentially (a) and (b) combined. That you don't find it valuable (however you choose to define "necessary") and you envision that the environmental impact could be lower and still provide the same function.
"Essentially", no. A and B are your own fabricated strawman arguments.
You say "you don't find valuable". Its not just me. People, in general, don't find cryptocurrency valuable. Nothing backs them up, and besides that you cannot widely use them in the clearnet/sneakernet.
What happened is it hasn't replaced the default currencies such as USD and EUR. Its been mainly adopted by criminals/crooks (e.g. drugs trafficking), tax evaders, people who live in banana republics (hyperinflation), speculators, and a bunch of libertarians/preppers.
So next time you say "you don't find it valuable", please realize you're talking to the vast majority of honest, casual people in the world. Of the above mentioned groups, the _only_ group I have respect for using cryptocurrency, is the people who live in banana republics (such as Venezuela).
You say "you don't find valuable". Its not just me. People, in general, don't find cryptocurrency valuable. Nothing backs them up, and besides that you cannot widely use them in the clearnet/sneakernet.
What happened is it hasn't replaced the default currencies such as USD and EUR. Its been mainly adopted by criminals/crooks (e.g. drugs trafficking), tax evaders, people who live in banana republics (hyperinflation), speculators, and a bunch of libertarians/preppers.
So next time you say "you don't find it valuable", please realize you're talking to the vast majority of honest, casual people in the world. Of the above mentioned groups, the _only_ group I have respect for using cryptocurrency, is the people who live in banana republics (such as Venezuela).
What about the skyscrapers that finance companies build and the workers that burn fossil fuels to commute to them every day to spend their time doing basically nothing? Is that a waste of energy too?
It's required because of PoW.
I'd say every bank teller in the USA driving to work every day is a total waste of energy.
I'd say every bank teller in the USA driving to work every day is a total waste of energy.
Ever since working in a finance company myself, I've realised that existing finance basically is doing proof of work. It's very hard to put my finger on it and come up with a coherent thesis, but so much of what they do is utterly pointless, yet somehow necessary. Take a walk through the City and you'll see grand buildings, but there's nothing going on in them. It's all just an illusion. The company I worked for had drones in call centres in out of town business parks in other parts of the country. The people working in the city were engaged in just completely wasting their time. We could also see into the Swiss Re building from up there. Nobody was inside. It was practically empty every day (this was before lockdown).
But yet it all seems necessary to build trust. Is it proof of work?
But yet it all seems necessary to build trust. Is it proof of work?
This concern usually stems from the idea that the energy used by the Bitcoin network could be otherwise used for more productive functions. But if, like many, you believe that bitcoin can succeed in becoming a decentralized world currency, the reality is that there may be no greater, more important use of energy than to secure the integrity of a monetary network which coordinates economic activity at a global level.
I highly recommend this piece (which I'm paraphrasing here) if you're interested in the topic:
https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-does-not-waste-en...
I highly recommend this piece (which I'm paraphrasing here) if you're interested in the topic:
https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-does-not-waste-en...
Bitcoin fork (maintaining BTC balances) onto Algorand consensus, call it algoBTC, would solve 2/3 of these issues. Scalable as money and environmentally friendly pure proof of stake. The greed/scam aspect is human nature and the appeal of a 'trustless' store of value. Clear regulation would go a long way here and more opportunities for [high risk]-reward yield for retail investors would drive people away from scams (current accredited investor and private share-holder restrictions; us govt. intends to change definitions as of this year)
Who even cares, institutional investors are buying crypto, huge market making firms are trading crypto, etc.
I think a lot a people would be surprised about how much volume and demand there is from "traditional" investors in crypto.
Billions of dollars of volume and new exchanges popping up like wild fire.
Hell, you might have exposure to crypto through a pension fund, or fund of fund, or whatever.
It's here to stay.
I think a lot a people would be surprised about how much volume and demand there is from "traditional" investors in crypto.
Billions of dollars of volume and new exchanges popping up like wild fire.
Hell, you might have exposure to crypto through a pension fund, or fund of fund, or whatever.
It's here to stay.
> Is there a reason for the fervent crypto bashing on HN?
To prevent more ordinary people from getting scammed either by ICOs or otherwise?
To prevent more ordinary people from getting scammed either by ICOs or otherwise?
What actually useful things are coming out of the cryptocurrency space? All I see is illegal security offerings, ransomware, child pornography, assassination markets, illegal drug trade and ponzi schemes.
You are looking at a part of crypto, it's not crypto if it doesn't enable illegal activities. Whether this double-edged sword is net positive is the real question!
It's an inevitable side effect. The day before the knife was discovered to slice animal flesh, someone had already killed their enemies with it.
I buy a few totally legal things from sellers on the other side of the world who can't (be bothered to) get to transact with visa/mastercard. A lot of people can't get into a traditional bank, a lot of people are fed up with how complicated it had become to simply receive money in a timely manner, and reliably.
That's whats coming out of the crypto space: a borderless payment system.
It's often criminals, porn businesses, then gamer, then teens, and then the rest who adopt new good tech. It's okay,it takes some time, those who don't see the value in crypto will eventually pass away.
That's whats coming out of the crypto space: a borderless payment system.
It's often criminals, porn businesses, then gamer, then teens, and then the rest who adopt new good tech. It's okay,it takes some time, those who don't see the value in crypto will eventually pass away.
Look at people being fed in Venezuela and South Sudan: https://eatbch.org/
Also in Venezuela there are people surviving thanks to cryptocurrencies protecting them from hyperinflation and capital controls.
Also in Venezuela there are people surviving thanks to cryptocurrencies protecting them from hyperinflation and capital controls.
DIDs are probably the most relevant. See https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/.
Some cryptocurrencies can only send funds to a receiver by interacting with the receiver wallet. Those at least are somewhat ransom-resistant.
The real projects are being built in the background. You cannot find them right now but they will rise to the surface eventually and they will help to drive Bitcoin's value as a reserve cryptocurrency.
What cryptographic standards have come from cryptocurrencies?
Also, instead of complaining that you don't like what's being submitted, submit good articles about what you see as positive things? Good non-marketing-fluff submissions are dearly needed.
Also, instead of complaining that you don't like what's being submitted, submit good articles about what you see as positive things? Good non-marketing-fluff submissions are dearly needed.
>What cryptographic standards have come from cryptocurrencies?
Zk-STARKS, which are fairly revolutionary and completely unknown outside magic internet money dudes. Non-trusted setup ceremonies and the newer Zk-SNARKs are also pretty much crypto-only. Bulletproofs arguably as well. Maybe verifiable delay functions; not sure of the history there. Most cryptocurrency engineering is evolutionary, and it's the combination of things (Mimble-wimble etc) that makes it worth something.
On the non crypto side, there are novel consensus algorithms, interesting data structures and contributions to distributed computation in general.
There's lots of social problems with blockchains, including carnival barker types overhyping things they don't understand. You could have said the same things about the internet in the 90s. The technology is pretty interesting, and making the things do useful work is one of the few actually innovative areas in software engineering right now.
There's lots of obvious places for this sort of distributed, trustless database that aren't just magic internet money. DNS is an obvious one. Identity is another one. Provenance of food/wine/art is another. Pretty much any place where database disintermediation is desirable, which is almost everywhere.
Zk-STARKS, which are fairly revolutionary and completely unknown outside magic internet money dudes. Non-trusted setup ceremonies and the newer Zk-SNARKs are also pretty much crypto-only. Bulletproofs arguably as well. Maybe verifiable delay functions; not sure of the history there. Most cryptocurrency engineering is evolutionary, and it's the combination of things (Mimble-wimble etc) that makes it worth something.
On the non crypto side, there are novel consensus algorithms, interesting data structures and contributions to distributed computation in general.
There's lots of social problems with blockchains, including carnival barker types overhyping things they don't understand. You could have said the same things about the internet in the 90s. The technology is pretty interesting, and making the things do useful work is one of the few actually innovative areas in software engineering right now.
There's lots of obvious places for this sort of distributed, trustless database that aren't just magic internet money. DNS is an obvious one. Identity is another one. Provenance of food/wine/art is another. Pretty much any place where database disintermediation is desirable, which is almost everywhere.
When most people think Bitcoin, they think of a) the scary dark web, and b) the energy used to mine bitcoin is 3 countries put together which is killing us through global warming.
Cryptocurrencies have moved on from 2009
Cryptocurrencies have moved on from 2009
Well, if you're free to pick countries with low energy demands, then I'm sure it's many more than 3 countries put together.
Yep, exactly.
Wow... the Tromp. I’m blushing
Wow... the Tromp. I’m blushing
Here's the final paragraph for those who want to know if this is worth reading:
> The real solution, as I have argued elsewhere (and as many people have argued, back to Keynes at least) is for central banks to intervene at many more points in financial system. They have to set prices of many assets, not just one overnight interest rate, and they have to direct credit to specific classes of borrowers. They have to accept their role as central planner. It is the need for much more conscious planning of finance, and not crypto currencies, that, I think, is the great challenge and opportunity for central banks today.
> The real solution, as I have argued elsewhere (and as many people have argued, back to Keynes at least) is for central banks to intervene at many more points in financial system. They have to set prices of many assets, not just one overnight interest rate, and they have to direct credit to specific classes of borrowers. They have to accept their role as central planner. It is the need for much more conscious planning of finance, and not crypto currencies, that, I think, is the great challenge and opportunity for central banks today.
When it comes to Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies HN community seems to become the church of central bankers, where the same old (debunked millions of times) BSs are repeated over and over as a mantra.
You may not agree with a sound money economy, and you may like the idea of a central bank that manipulate the market to encourage spending and discourage savings.
But thankfully nobody is forcing you to use Bitcoin, and that's alone one of the main interesting point of it, it's completely and absolutely an open and voluntary economy.
You may not agree with a sound money economy, and you may like the idea of a central bank that manipulate the market to encourage spending and discourage savings.
But thankfully nobody is forcing you to use Bitcoin, and that's alone one of the main interesting point of it, it's completely and absolutely an open and voluntary economy.
This article is promoted by HN itself.
I've never seen someone here make the claim that they're being forced to use Bitcoin, but here you are arguing against that claim anyway.
> but here you are arguing against that claim anyway.
where exactly?
where exactly?
"nobody is forcing you to use Bitcoin"
> You may not agree with a sound money economy, and you may like the idea of a central bank that manipulate the market to encourage spending and discourage savings.
For me its actually the opposite: I feel like crypto markets are much easier to manipulate- so its done more often. I would also expext that a currency is used in daily life and not saved as form of high risk investment
So while I don't think that Banks operate for the benefit of mankind, I don't see where Cryptocurrencies would help, either. And to be fair the most real-world contact I had with Bitcoin are All of criminal nature - So there is definitely a certain negative bias
For me its actually the opposite: I feel like crypto markets are much easier to manipulate- so its done more often. I would also expext that a currency is used in daily life and not saved as form of high risk investment
So while I don't think that Banks operate for the benefit of mankind, I don't see where Cryptocurrencies would help, either. And to be fair the most real-world contact I had with Bitcoin are All of criminal nature - So there is definitely a certain negative bias
The real world contact you see has a negative bias because you probably live in “first world country”.
What do you think it feels like you lived in Venezuela where the currency is devaluated faster you can look and you are being foreced (!!) to use that currency!
Would you have the same bias?
Sure you can say “that not happening to me”. But how do you know it won’t ever happen to you or your country (every super power country has had it down turn at some point (and with that often monetary crisis). Might change some time, but history won’t make you feel sure about that.
And Venezuela is not alone. There has been hyperinflation on average evey 2 year in some country around the world (until one day it reaches you).
What do you think it feels like you lived in Venezuela where the currency is devaluated faster you can look and you are being foreced (!!) to use that currency!
Would you have the same bias?
Sure you can say “that not happening to me”. But how do you know it won’t ever happen to you or your country (every super power country has had it down turn at some point (and with that often monetary crisis). Might change some time, but history won’t make you feel sure about that.
And Venezuela is not alone. There has been hyperinflation on average evey 2 year in some country around the world (until one day it reaches you).
The definition of sound money is that it's backed by a tangible asset. Cryptocurrencies do not meet this definition apart from stable coins which then don't meet your definition of "can't be manipulated".
Stable coins are not really tangible assets either, because they are backed (usually) by USD, which is in turn itself not backed by tangible assets.
the church of central bankers
That's not a HN thing, that's the mainstream view. The last time hard/sound money was in vogue was long ago, and even when it was based on physics and not software it came with a host of ultimately intractable problems for society. The current system is no utopia either, but poor returns on savings are not the fault of central banks but the symptoms of prevailing economic conditions. There are of course limits to monetary policy, but "sorry there's just no more money available for some arbitrary reason" shouldn't be one of them.
From a technology perspective, Bitcoin is an interesting invention, but from a monetary point of view it's a backward step. That's partly why there are so many skeptical voices about the prospects of basing the money system on cryptocurrencies here.
I say this as an early adopter and friend of the technology.
That's not a HN thing, that's the mainstream view. The last time hard/sound money was in vogue was long ago, and even when it was based on physics and not software it came with a host of ultimately intractable problems for society. The current system is no utopia either, but poor returns on savings are not the fault of central banks but the symptoms of prevailing economic conditions. There are of course limits to monetary policy, but "sorry there's just no more money available for some arbitrary reason" shouldn't be one of them.
From a technology perspective, Bitcoin is an interesting invention, but from a monetary point of view it's a backward step. That's partly why there are so many skeptical voices about the prospects of basing the money system on cryptocurrencies here.
I say this as an early adopter and friend of the technology.
> ultimately intractable problems for society
So sayth the people who want to borrow lots of money and not pay it back. The economists may have evidence to back the idea up, but that evidence isn't what is driving the political discourse.
The political discourse is driven because voters with loans go ballistic when rates go up. And so do wealthy businessmen who can't afford to repay their debts.
So sayth the people who want to borrow lots of money and not pay it back. The economists may have evidence to back the idea up, but that evidence isn't what is driving the political discourse.
The political discourse is driven because voters with loans go ballistic when rates go up. And so do wealthy businessmen who can't afford to repay their debts.
The people who want to borrow lots of money and not pay it back don’t care about monetary policy, they just borrow lots of money and then default on it. One can do that in fiat currency, gold, Bitcoin, or cigarettes.
The intractable problems come when there’s a mismatch between economic activity and the money supply. In the case of shiny metal money, that’s usually deflationary, but not always: see the Spanish Price Revolution of the 15th Century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution
The intractable problems come when there’s a mismatch between economic activity and the money supply. In the case of shiny metal money, that’s usually deflationary, but not always: see the Spanish Price Revolution of the 15th Century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution
> they just borrow lots of money and then default on it.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the US government is going to do a straight default on their debts. If anything troubles them they will use monetary policy.
> In the case of shiny metal money, that’s usually deflationary, but not always: see the Spanish Price Revolution of the 15th Century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution
I'm not going to see anything useful to me an economic event from 500 years ago in a language I don't speak, enmeshed in a foreign legal system, totally different technological and social conditions and potentially questionable record keeping with uncertain customs around law enforcement.
Even the frame there is incomparable; Wikipedia is quoting 1–1.5% inflation as 'high'. I wish that was considered high these days, I think low inflation leads to good results.
Honestly that just looks like supply and demand. Lots of new metal -> price changes. Hardly a problem.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the US government is going to do a straight default on their debts. If anything troubles them they will use monetary policy.
> In the case of shiny metal money, that’s usually deflationary, but not always: see the Spanish Price Revolution of the 15th Century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution
I'm not going to see anything useful to me an economic event from 500 years ago in a language I don't speak, enmeshed in a foreign legal system, totally different technological and social conditions and potentially questionable record keeping with uncertain customs around law enforcement.
Even the frame there is incomparable; Wikipedia is quoting 1–1.5% inflation as 'high'. I wish that was considered high these days, I think low inflation leads to good results.
Honestly that just looks like supply and demand. Lots of new metal -> price changes. Hardly a problem.
Yes, spot on. HN mostly hates crypto but for all the wrong reasons. I learned a lot about the community here when I first realized that.
leaving the ponzis, illegal markets aside I think there is some interesting stuff happening in crypto right now.
Publicly traded companies[1] are starting to consider BTC as a reserve asset. MSTR converted 85% of cash reserves to Bitcoin(38,250 BTC).
AMMs[2], a novel idea in market making is growing popular.
[1] https://bitcointreasuries.org/
[2] https://medium.com/dragonfly-research/what-explains-the-rise...
Publicly traded companies[1] are starting to consider BTC as a reserve asset. MSTR converted 85% of cash reserves to Bitcoin(38,250 BTC).
AMMs[2], a novel idea in market making is growing popular.
[1] https://bitcointreasuries.org/
[2] https://medium.com/dragonfly-research/what-explains-the-rise...
The chairman of the CFTC, Heath P. Tarbert, praised Ethereum this week, saying:
"Let me just say how impressed I am with Ethereum...If Bitcoin is email ––a one-trick pony, so to speak, but obviously revolutionary–– Ethereum goes far beyond that; it's more like the internet."
"Let me just say how impressed I am with Ethereum...If Bitcoin is email ––a one-trick pony, so to speak, but obviously revolutionary–– Ethereum goes far beyond that; it's more like the internet."
It's not a bubble because bubbles need a reason to pop. People who bought Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies have no misconceptions about what they bought. It's a scarcity-driven store of value just like gold or silver.
Crypto feeds on opportunity asymmetries and financial asymmetries in society. There are people in our society who can earn millions of dollars without lifting a finger, while others have to struggle the extreme just to make ends meet. Is a dollar worth the same to both of these people? No.
A dollar is worth much more to someone who has to struggle to earn it. If you get a passive fiat income for free, then your dollar is worth hardly anything because it didn't cost you anything to get it... If there was once a struggle, then it is likely far behind you.
If a human gets a lot of anything for free and they can't figure out a good use for it, then it's basically trash to them. They may as well put it into crypto, gold, silver or other scarce assets which are known to soak up other people's surplus fiat currency.
The fact that crypto is a store of surplus currency is what makes it much more valuable and resilient than stocks.
Crypto feeds on opportunity asymmetries and financial asymmetries in society. There are people in our society who can earn millions of dollars without lifting a finger, while others have to struggle the extreme just to make ends meet. Is a dollar worth the same to both of these people? No.
A dollar is worth much more to someone who has to struggle to earn it. If you get a passive fiat income for free, then your dollar is worth hardly anything because it didn't cost you anything to get it... If there was once a struggle, then it is likely far behind you.
If a human gets a lot of anything for free and they can't figure out a good use for it, then it's basically trash to them. They may as well put it into crypto, gold, silver or other scarce assets which are known to soak up other people's surplus fiat currency.
The fact that crypto is a store of surplus currency is what makes it much more valuable and resilient than stocks.
Has anyone done an economic analysis on how much electricity may ultimately be used by crypto mining? What are the factors that lead to and limit crypto mining? (Before anyone chimes in to say that traditional finance is also wasteful, let's hypothetically imagine crypto took up 70% of the earth's energy production. It is at least a somewhat plausible problem.) Why, or why not, can this happen?
It would be nice to put together a strong argument with numbers behind it.
It would be nice to put together a strong argument with numbers behind it.
This was true in 2018, but the cryptocurrency world has moved beyond bitcoin being an easy way to make transactions. That was just the beginning and Bitcoin doesn't do a good job compared to the newer Blockchains.
Right now you can buy Bitcoin via bank transfers which the fee for it can be easily low as you as 5 USD depending on the provider, I buy with fee of 0.1% normally. So the transaction fee in the article is not true anymore.
You can also use bitcoin as a collateral for a loan. If you have bitcoin savings and suddenly you need to cash out temporary you can already do that.
And if you look into news you can see banks and trust funds holding bitcoin as an asset.
The cryptocurrency and decentralised market has to grow, it has a lot of problems, but there's a crazy amount of investments on it so problems are being solved and new things come out every week.
Right now you can buy Bitcoin via bank transfers which the fee for it can be easily low as you as 5 USD depending on the provider, I buy with fee of 0.1% normally. So the transaction fee in the article is not true anymore.
You can also use bitcoin as a collateral for a loan. If you have bitcoin savings and suddenly you need to cash out temporary you can already do that.
And if you look into news you can see banks and trust funds holding bitcoin as an asset.
The cryptocurrency and decentralised market has to grow, it has a lot of problems, but there's a crazy amount of investments on it so problems are being solved and new things come out every week.
Could everybody commenting on this article please first read it and then provide some actual arguments? The noise level with pure ideology, "crypto" promotion or just pure rambling is shockingly high.
The article presented a well-structured argument. You may not agree, but then please at least try to respond properly. You are better than that.
The article presented a well-structured argument. You may not agree, but then please at least try to respond properly. You are better than that.
> They have to accept their role as central planner.
That's the whole argument. Since everything that central bankers were doing is not working and falling apart, we need to take the dial to 11, and introduce a full central planing. A proper enlightened communism, for the people, by our omniscient leaders, who by precise control of asset prices and such will make sure everybody has exactly as much money as they should, according to their position in The Party, and prices of everything are "fair".
That's the whole argument. Since everything that central bankers were doing is not working and falling apart, we need to take the dial to 11, and introduce a full central planing. A proper enlightened communism, for the people, by our omniscient leaders, who by precise control of asset prices and such will make sure everybody has exactly as much money as they should, according to their position in The Party, and prices of everything are "fair".
Sorry, that's just incorrect. Neither is that the whole argument nor is this about communism.
As long as people scream "communism" when they see anything related to planning and ignore the rest of the argument, you're never going to have a balanced or even nuanced debate and instead just dumb black-and-white rambling. Like your post.
As long as people scream "communism" when they see anything related to planning and ignore the rest of the argument, you're never going to have a balanced or even nuanced debate and instead just dumb black-and-white rambling. Like your post.
You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that it calls for these intelectuals-yet-idiots who are unaccountable, unelected, who couldn't tell a bubble even after it already hit them, and can't even admit what ridiculous mess they made out of the financial system and economy, to have more power and more or less directly tell everyone what to do, how can they can or can not accumulate and store their wealth, invest and pretty much live their lives.
No, thank you. You can keep it if you like. It's not Bitcoin people forcing their shit on anyone.
No, thank you. You can keep it if you like. It's not Bitcoin people forcing their shit on anyone.
Posting an article from 2018 with many rehashed arguments is fine, I guess, but there are many interesting (if not useful) things coming out of the cryptocurrency space. Of these, the standardization and development of cryptographic standards and libraries is perhaps the most applicable for the rest of the computing world.