MasterCard to open up network to cryptocurrencies

> First part of your argument - Isn’t this literally the argument against every new anything?

Oh, that wasn't meant to be an argument against something new. As I said repeatedly, it's an argument against BTC as it exists now and as it will be for the foreseeable future. The expectations for a stable "national" currency are incompatible with the pillars of BTC. That was my original point.

The Fed, the ECB, the Central Bank of China all have price stability and inflation as a mandate, of course for their own currency. And this should already hint that they want control over their national currency. Gold and other countries' currencies are explicitly things that are regulated by the respective countries and/or "relatively" stable. I'm not aware of any national currency as volatile as BTC. They're all substantially more more resilient to outside manipulation because they're regulated and traceable. Governments and Central Banks don't want their country or citizens to rely on a currency they don't have any control over especially in places like US, EU, China, Japan. Just think of the UK refusing to give up the GBP to adopt the EUR because it involved losing control of the currency. So while I can imagine a bank (central or commercial) holding BTC one day as an asset, I'm having a really hard time seeing the "unregulated currency BTC" being used as a "national currency" in any place that matters.

> If you think a central bank is going to hesitate to hold a useful asset for international exchange purposes if a ‘ceo or worse your enemy’ could send it spinning, you’re not paying attention?

If you were to ask Mario Draghi or Christine Lagarde they would tell you no CB should hold BTC. I'm not saying I can see the future but I'm trying to understand what you know and they don't.

When China deliberately weakened the yuan to gain an advantage in the trade war with US (to boost exports) it was immediately noticed and attributed and that could be (was?) used as justification for sanctions and tariffs. Bitcoin is decentralized and pseudo-anonymous.

> I’m saying Zimbabwe and many other places don’t really run on their local currency, they run on what people use (currently dollars in most cases, but some places BTC is getting traction) - because their gov’ts destroy the utility of the their local currencies and people can’t trust it.

So they rely on a well regulated currency like the USD. How would BTC improve on this? The USD is stable enough for Zimbabwe to use because it's under central control.

Taking more practical approach for the regular person, at the absolute minimum a currency is supposed to come with consumer protections that are derived from regulation. BTC was specifically designed to curtail regulations. This won't be fixed by faster or more efficient networks. That can't be "fixed" at all because it's one of BTC's tenets: stay unregulated and out of gov't control. So your citizens are not only using an unregulated currency that offers them no protections, they're also extremely vulnerable to outside manipulation.

BTC is an unstable coin, that cannot be regulated to offer consumer protections or complying with anti money laundering laws. In theory this recommends it to speculators and people who are looking to be shielded from the law. The reality just happens to match the theory to a T.

Some e-currency will surely fit the bill one day though but I'm not entirely sure if there's one to be both regulated and unregulated at the same time, to make everyone happy.

One reason I dislike inflation is that I don't want my currency -- a utility object -- having opinions about my financial life. Inflationary monetary policy and its consistent 'nudge' to spend is the economic equivalent of the pop-up.

Of course, you could argue that a hard cap is equally opinionated. But I think it's a much more 'neutral' position, where it deflates because of real economic growth, and you spend it because of your own time preference.

You're right to distinguish between currencies with exogenous demand (like USD) and those like BTC. But the "bank run" comment makes no sense, even for beanie babies.

Bank runs exist in a fractional reserve context -- because banks lend out their deposits (which stimulates growth), your listed balance is actually an IOU. That is, an obligation to "cover" deposit balances, which can be met or not.

Now think of people trading beanie babies. One person sells a beanie baby, the other person parts with $10k. What is there to "cover"? Who is keeping what in reserve? The answer is nothing and nobody --- in a world where beanie babies were currency, this would be perfectly fine.

tl;dr you actually need (fractional-reserve) banks for a "run on the bank"

A currency bind as in, they have no reserves to pay for their expenses / debt. This specific sort of problem no country that can print their own currency has but that doesnt mean that such recourse does not cause problem on its own. But thats not my point.

I dont argue for printed currency. We are actually in agreement there. I'm responding to parent halukakin who said

"Strong currencies are not the solution to poor governance. Good governance and democracy makes a country and its currency strong. Not vice versa. "

I contend that ecuador could prove that statement wrong. The 2008 crisis caught everyone off guard. Once Ecuador comes out of this crisis, we will really see if this experience will be enough to institute good governance reforms which were elusive during the constant ups downs of local currency inflation.

Hmm, i think we have different thoughts about what a DEX is. Decentralized exchange allows me to conduct exchanges anonymously. I can convert back and forth between many different coins and wallets. Although it still goes on the ledger each time it's transacted, verifying who it went to, who is came from, and how it was traded is impossible. I can use a VPN to connect to the DEX, I can push my trade through a mining firm and many other ways. Any government 'Banning Bitcoin' is just a giant advertisement for bitcoin and will only lead to that nations fall as other nations take the cue to 'Stick it' to the nation that banned it by investing.