161–170 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, Keynes was wrong and he is responsible with all the boom and bust cycles and inflationary theft.
Serious question, Keynes was born in the late 1880 and didnt publish anything until 1900s... we had boom and bust cycles long before this. How do you explain that?
At its core, the current cryptocurrency craze is simply an unprecedented wealth transfer to China from the rest of the world. Until the end of 2013, Bitcoin was predominantly traded for US dollars. However, after the crash of 2013, miners consolidated in China and Bitcoin mostly traded for Chinese yuan[1]. At the start of 2017, regulators in China cracked down on digital currency exchanges[2] and trading quickly move…
Actually it's a wealth transfer from china to the US. The chinese are using bitcoins as a means to evade CCP capital controls.
There's a reason why china cracked down on bitcoin. Do you think china would stop wealth transfer to china? Of course not. They are trying to stop wealth transfer from china to the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it is far easier to transfer 10 million dollars wworth of bitcoin than it is 10 million of gold. this comparisons are _not_ doing either bitcoin nor gold justice. bitcoin is far more liquid, accessible and usable than gold ever will be. I will start calling it Internet Liquid Gold... because while the transactions might be slow, being able to transfer it across continents multiple times back and forth is possible bef…
People don't move gold around. They trade gold IOU's which can be transferred faster than bitcoin, with far lower fees.
Is it speculation or is it individuals trying to secure their wealth?
If you think Bitcoin is overvalued, fine. Pour yourself a stiff drink and accept some people might lose some money.
The sort of emotional hyperbole on here about "cryptocurrencies need to be banned by the loving, paternal, incorruptible government to save the world from ourselves" is not just getting old, its absurd.
Having a censorship-resistant, globally-accepted asset would grant an unparalleled financial opportunity. Even if Bitcoin falls short in practice – it’s closer to the mark than any non-crypto asset.
Being able to send money around the world with real-time market-based fees that are often lower than many alternatives is useful. Having a place to park value when banking is not available is also useful. The list goes on…
Do you trust the government and the financial institutions that much that you're willing to hand them back the reigns of your financial future?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hundreds of years ago, you could transfer money across the world just like you can now. It would just take having the right connections and a lot of time. Does that mean our global banking system is unnecessary? Bitcoin et al unlock a potential economic powerhouse the likes of which can be comparable to the internet. Just because you can do mostly everything that blockchain tech provides without one, doesn't mean it…
>Just because you can do mostly everything that blockchain tech provides without one, doesn't mean it isn't incredibly valuable. If you can already do everything that it provides that's pretty much the definition of not having any extra value. This is just extending the hand waving. What transactions will you be able to do with cryptocurrencies you can't already do with the modern financial system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto is changing the world. I've made money off of bitcoin, but I've done so responsibly, like I suspect must people on HN have, by only betting what I could easily afford to lose. By going mainstream that sort of reasonable/safe approach has ended, and people are now happily risking their entire savings. This will certainly be great for some people, but it also has the potential to be absolutely devastating. In Am…
Nothing of value is being created, at least not of the magnitude of the apparent “value” of the bubble, so making money off bitcoin is by definition getting money from someone else. Clearly it cannot work forever, and those who are left holding the bag won’t be happy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
National currencies are not really in risk. Suppose that bitcoin or similar are used as currency in practice (that it's very far of happening, by the way). Even if you are able to do all your operations in a cryptocurrency, you will need to pay taxes. Governments only accept their own currency, so, you need to get it to pay taxes, so, demand of national currency is going to exist always. >> "economic vessels like nat…
The people of Zimbabwe and Venezuela appear to disagree with your sentiment that national currencies aren't risky. Your notion that crypto fans can't separate economy from politics doesn't seem right. Re-read the Bitcoin genesis block. Bitcoin began because of bullshit by bankers and barristers. Politics is the reason for Bitcoins existence.
Never mind the currency, crypto or not, you can expect inflation when real resources are reduced and you have to grow the monetary base to keep the economy working. See (1) for more details.
I didn't say anything about risk.
I didn't say that crypto fans can't separate economy from politics, quite the opposite, I said that, it seems to me, crypto fans think, erroneously, that economics can be separated from politics.
This thread reminds me that even on HN most comments on the internet are from people with very little understanding. I expected the "bubble", "tulip", "no value" arguments to come from the chicken littles on Forbes. If you think Bitcoin is overvalued, fine. Pour yourself a stiff drink and accept some people might lose some money. The sort of emotional hyperbole on here about "cryptocurrencies need to be banned by the…
Why is it "getting old"? It's a fair concern that something so volatile should be examined critically and relentlessly. People don't just "get a stiff drink and accept they'll lose money" if it goes down---they jump out of windows.
I'm hesitant to jump in cryptocurrency discussions because 1) I know too little about them, even at a technical level and 2) they're consistently filled with "emotional hyperbole" (that we agree on) from both ends.
I think governments/regulators should have some say the same way you'd want them to regulate any financial instrument and punish Ponzi schemers and pump-and-dumpers.
I'd like to think about the motives of both sides from being so passionate. For naysayers, I imagine it's a bit of sour grapes. For yaysayers, it's a bit more obvious---once the hype dies, they'll stop making money.