61–70 of 176 posts
Great, let’s all accelerate climate change even faster.
There's a finite volume of the things now, so presumably (fiat equivalent) value per Lumen will slowly increase.
Either way, 'they don't cause climate change'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was having this discussion with a friend recently, arguing over what the actual use cases are for crypto, and I came to a similar conclusion. In terms of facilitating payments , cryptocurrencies are worse in almost every way I can think of compared to existing systems. They are (currently) slow, have high transaction fees, but most importantly the non-refundability of crypto transactions is a bug, not the feature c…
> Yes, is obviously currently extremely volatile, but it's not hard to imagine that volatility lessening over time. I feel like I’ve heard this every year since 2015. I think it’s going to be hard to shake the majority perspective that it’s a speculative asset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was having this discussion with a friend recently, arguing over what the actual use cases are for crypto, and I came to a similar conclusion. In terms of facilitating payments , cryptocurrencies are worse in almost every way I can think of compared to existing systems. They are (currently) slow, have high transaction fees, but most importantly the non-refundability of crypto transactions is a bug, not the feature c…
> Yes, is obviously currently extremely volatile, but it's not hard to imagine that volatility lessening over time. I feel like I’ve heard this every year since 2015. I think it’s going to be hard to shake the majority perspective that it’s a speculative asset.
5 years is a pretty short window in the grand scheme of things when talking about the adoption of technologies.
Cryptocurrency continues to gain more ground but I still have my reservations about it being the currency of the future. If by design, cryptocurrency has a finite volume of transferrable currency, do early adopters have an unfair advantage that could potentially make the currency unusable? I don’t see how it could possibly be fair when earlier mining yielded currency more quickly.
Fiat currencies will probably always exist. Digital crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ethereum will exist alongside them. Bitcoin can be an asset like gold, of which users keep a portion of their networth to protect from economic uncertainty. Its deflationary policy may make it less usable as a currency, but at least crypto gives people choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Visa is in the payments business. The US Federal Reserve ("The Fed") is going live with an instant payments service in 2023-2024 [1] [2]. What does that leave Visa with? Hence, the existential crisis (first, trying to buy Plaid, and now "Crypto!"). [1] https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/index.... [2] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/08/31/fednow-the-federa...
I dug into the frbservices page and unfortunately many of the links are broken. Is the fed offering an alternative to consumers or banks (both?) I couldn't find anything about what the proposal was
Cryptocurrency continues to gain more ground but I still have my reservations about it being the currency of the future. If by design, cryptocurrency has a finite volume of transferrable currency, do early adopters have an unfair advantage that could potentially make the currency unusable? I don’t see how it could possibly be fair when earlier mining yielded currency more quickly.
Cryptocurrency continues to gain more ground but I still have my reservations about it being the currency of the future. If by design, cryptocurrency has a finite volume of transferrable currency, do early adopters have an unfair advantage that could potentially make the currency unusable? I don’t see how it could possibly be fair when earlier mining yielded currency more quickly.
Cryptocurrency continues to gain more ground but I still have my reservations about it being the currency of the future. If by design, cryptocurrency has a finite volume of transferrable currency, do early adopters have an unfair advantage that could potentially make the currency unusable? I don’t see how it could possibly be fair when earlier mining yielded currency more quickly.
Isn't that true of everything? If you were an early adopter of America you could get free land that today could be worth hundreds of millions.
Cryptocurrency continues to gain more ground but I still have my reservations about it being the currency of the future. If by design, cryptocurrency has a finite volume of transferrable currency, do early adopters have an unfair advantage that could potentially make the currency unusable? I don’t see how it could possibly be fair when earlier mining yielded currency more quickly.
Bitcoin was the first fair currency, where everybody who had a computer could get it.
There wasn't any currency created a more fair way.
Even now everybody can look at it and evaluate how well its design resonates with his or her philosophy.