Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a greater than zero percent chance the person you trust will very you.
We've already been over that. There is no security system which exists which has a zero percent chance of failure. It's clear you're more interested in winning an argument here than in discussing real-world security, so I won't be responding further.
Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
91–95 of 95 posts
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the cost of having multiple secure storage locations? Is it greater than zero? Then I win the point.
Well, you don't win the point. But the bigger question is, why would anyone want to talk to someone who just wants to win the conversation?
If we can't even start by correcting it, "Holding Bitcoin is inexpensive," then how can we have any kind of technical conversation about it?
I think in technical conversations, we should avoid hyperbole, and try to be literal. Call it pedantic if you want to, but I don't know how to build logical arguments out of pleasant sounding falsehoods.
It's up to you whom you talk to, people who exaggerate, or people who ask for simple concessions for correctness.
And please note, I was responding to the sarcastic, "If only you could store things in multiple locations." If you enjoy talking to people who are sarcastic, that's also your choice.
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Can you post a link to an overview of these positive local effects? 2. Are there enough of these local effects to counter-weigh the global negative effects? AFAICT the answer to (2.) is negative, but I suppose I could be mistaken, since I don't follow BitCoin use closely.
> 1. Can you post a link to an overview of these positive local effects? To be clear what I mean by "local" in this case, is "within a sub-economy" not necessarily local geographically. There are a few examples already in this thread, but I'll add a few of my own: 1. Workers in the US often send money back to families in third-world countries. Doing this with BTC is less expensive and faster than with wire transfers.…
How high are those fees, these days? IIUC, in recent years, several companies have enabled regular-money-based transfers over the Internet at lower fees than in the past. Some quick searching indicates players include Zelle, PayPal, CashApp and Venmo For example, I just checked the PayPal (ugh) fee for transferring 1,000 USD to a Mexican bank account. If you have a US bank account linked to PayPal, the fee is zero. I've heard Zelle is also free (?)
Even if for some countries its probably more expensive - I wonder if it's that high. Plus, on the BTC side, you need to factor in the fees for converting to and from BTC.
About the illegal drug trade: I don't see how BTC improves product quality. As for the violence - world states, primarily the US, control the level of violence, and it isn't really about the method of payment. As for the risk of drug-runners being caught - most of these are small-time businessmen rather than workers. So I feel this is a bit of a forced example. If anything, the benefit here is possibly reducing state involvement in drug trafficking and bringing us closer to de-criminalization.
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#94A lot of this presumes a scenario in which Bitcoin replaces fiat and become the world's sole currency. It's hard to imagine why that would happen. What we seem to actually be getting is multiple cryptocurrencies, in addition to fiat. Under these conditions, if the world falls into depression, where money is too scarce, then an easy solution is to launch new currencies. On blockchains that support smart contracts, thi…
"Money is too scarce" is not ever going to be a problem. If the monenatry supply, as a multiple of the economy is experiencing contraction, central banks can always print more. Bitcoin, in this sense, is once again solving a problem that nobody has.
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#95Bitcoin presumes (1) everyone owns a computer (or a smartphone/similar) and (2) everyone has network connectivity all the time. Without these two things, one cannot transact. There are huge swaths of the world where this isn't true. Short of making computing devices and internet connectivity human rights, these assumptions compound existing inequalities.