831–839 of 839 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're the same, but when your government does it, it's not really opt-in, unlike with all the crypto frauds.
I've never once been forced into anything resembling a pump and dump, ponzi scheme or exit scam by the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“First they think you're crazy, then they fight you, then you change the world.” - Elizabeth Holmes
I don't think she is the original author of this quote. Going to share another quote, which I think is relative here - “Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world usually do.” - Steve Jobs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Say I live in a country which mandates that all business ventures with returns less than 2% a year will have their profits stolen (read: inflation) I can use bitcoin to escape that oppression. The moment Bitcoin becomes a viable way to subvert the state, they'll just change the laws. And if people actually start using it to smuggle money internationally the feds will get involved. The entire idea that Bitcoin can s…
>The moment [cryptography] becomes a viable way to subvert the state, they'll just change the laws. Does that sentence make much sense? Government decrees don't eradicate goods, they create make black markets. >if people actually start using it to smuggle money If? People already use bitcoin to evade capital controls in China, Venezuela etc >the 1% will use it to hide their wealth from wealth redistribution policies…
> Does that sentence make much sense? Government decrees don't eradicate goods, they create make black markets.
Your argument is that Bitcoin will let you subvert existing state monetary policy and other regulations. My argument is that once that happens on a significant scale, states will change their policies and enforce them more or less with state violence.
A good example is anonymous payments via a tumbler. As soon as these payments start seriously foiling law enforcement, states will outlaw tumbler services. If that doesn't solve the problem, and the problem is severe enough, they'll outlaw Bitcoin. The way they would do that is to outlaw exchanges and pursue them over Tor the same way the pursue dark web markets, by enlisting banks, employing cyberwarfare and other espionage, and ultimately with on the ground law enforcement.
It's very, very hard (maybe impossible) to solve a political problem with technology, unless that technology is weapons. It's immoral in a democracy because it by definition subverts the will of the people.
>> if people actually start using it to smuggle money
> If? People already use bitcoin to evade capital controls in China, Venezuela etc
I mean "on a significant level minus state actors".
> equity vs. equality.
I think if you're a "taxes are theft" person then we have deeper disagreements, because I'm a "property is theft" person. But those antipodes aside, Bitcoin no more promotes equality than regular currency does, in fact there are lots of services that only let you do certain things with certain account balance amounts.
Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean about a "neutral rights network". Do I get to vote on things because I hold Bitcoin? Did I miss the votes on various forks? Does my vote count equal to one of the Winklevoss'?
I think the exact opposite is true. Not only is there no voting, but holders of lots of Bitcoin (which you can only accrue with actual currency or mining, which you need to spend actual currency to get the equipment for) have far more power over the Bitcoin network than I do. I have no idea what "rights" you think I get through Bitcoin, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "none".
EDIT:
Also, come on, I'm fine with "crypto" meaning "cryptocurrency" now, but it absolutely doesn't mean that "cryptography" means "cryptocurrency" now. This is a hill I am willing to die on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, cryptocurrency mining serves an environmentally-friendly function in energy markets because it absorbs excess capacity in the geographic regions where mining is done (i.e. where electricity is cheap) and allows it to be “exported” rather than go to waste. Interesting stuff.
Did you know that some governments subsidize energy prices to make it easier for their populace to pay the bills and to encourage businesses to come to their country? If cryptocurrency mining goes to countries with subsidized energy and they become part of maxing out that country's energy output, the country may be forced to create new energy sources to provide to the population (aka, higher environmental impact + co…
Do you have any evidence that this is happening and, if so, that its costs outweigh the utility of energy exported to the rest of the world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a completely arbitrary and absolutely biased place to draw a line. Why Bitcoin and not luxury cars or Hello Kitty backpacks? How about we shut down Six Flags and Disneyland? This sounds very much like you've decided that you don't like Bitcoin (and that's fine, with good reasons) but you have rationalized it with an argument that is almost certainly inconsistent with the rest of your worldview. Bitcoi…
Perhaps orthecreedence would also support shutting down all kinds of other useless services. I know I would, but since we're commenting on an article about cryptocoins, the discussion about Bitcoin is more relevant than a discussion about luxury cars.
Either we have a fully managed economy (which I'm pretty sure the historical consensus is clear on) or it has to be guided by attaching costs to externalities.
All this is doing is just picking on Bitcoin because people don't like it. There is no principled economic or environmental argument here, just a biased rationalization applied inconsistently.
I'm shocked and disheartened by how infrequently environmental concerns are brought up when discussing crypto. Proof of Work vs Proof of Stake, security, storage size - these are problems for the network and those that want to see it become a real part of our economy. (I am one of those) But the amount of energy being used to mine bitcoin is a real problem - it's not just a technical challenge (like the problems abov…
Most* Bitcoin mining is done with renewables. Mostly hydro. Hydro power is often remote from cities and other main electricity consumers, and too weak to transfer over long distances. So they’re a natural place to set up Google data centers and cryptocurrency mining operations on-site, which is pretty much what’s happened with Bitcoin. *Don’t have a citation but there may be some research on this being published soon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't compare a company to a tech. As an example of a tech, if someone asked me would you want self driving cars to succeed if you could not profit off of them, I would say that's a resounding success. A lot of people are excited about this tech because of the improvement in their daily lives, not because of a profit motive. Compare that to crypto
Tech: would you use git if it wasn't popular?
Until the 51% attack problem is "solved" I can't take any cryptocurrency for serious. You can't use the word "secure" with this attack vector being possible.
What do you believe about the "51% attack problem"? It's a very overblown concept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Couldn't get started on what? On owning them. > Anyone can buy in at market value and start using coins for their stored value Not everybody can, that's the point. Almost nobody can, expanding the first point. It's not really a democratic and open process. It involves a lot of prerequisites that are usually not met by the general population. > Look at Venezela's attitude towards Bitcoin. You mean Maduro's? AFAIK Ma…
> Almost nobody can, expanding the first point. Now expand on this point. What about crypto is preventing people from owning some that isn't also preventing them from owning regular money? > You mean Maduro's? It's pedantic to differentiate between a State and its actors when discussing policy like this. I mean Venezuela. I'm talking the Petro Coin, the raids, everything. The whole policy was a response to fears of i…
No, it was a scam.