21–30 of 278 posts
The result is that the number 1 way people get into Bitcoin is through a mechanism that has none of the attributes of Bitcoin.
Any article that uses the sentence "mostly men" in the first paragraph is highly likely not worth reading.
The social commentary angle can't justify that line either: Bitcoin is a pseudonynous digital currency, that started trading at $0.10, and required nothing more than having a basic windows machine, and downloading the node software, to hold from the start. Very early on, downloading the standard wallet software was also all it took to mine bitcoin. If mostly men own it, it's because mostly men were interested in the concept early on.
In any case, despite containing that line, this was a good article and worth reading.
Any article that uses the sentence "mostly men" in the first paragraph is highly likely not worth reading.
But as is becoming clear to many, you cant please everyone all of the time, and, especially these days, there are some people you cant please any of the time.
What phrasing would you prefer? "Humans" or just "men"?
It is kind of funny that exchanges have become so successful for Bitcoin- since they lose 100% of the stuff that made BTC attractive in the first place. They’re centralised, regulated and transactions don’t even go on the blockchain. The result is that the number 1 way people get into Bitcoin is through a mechanism that has none of the attributes of Bitcoin.
Of course. All of that is kind of unavoidable if you want to interface with fiat.
Blockchain technology is doomed, and somebody will be, eventually, the last link of the ponzi scheme.
I don't get why people's thinking swings to these wild extremes. Why does it have to be either a societal disruptor that changes everything or a doomed ponzi scheme? Can't it be something like "oh we tried to have cool internet money, turned out that it's not that great, some people are still into it I guess".
Any article that uses the sentence "mostly men" in the first paragraph is highly likely not worth reading.
I agree. It goes without saying that most of the capital is owned by men. In which industry is that not the case? The social commentary angle can't justify that line either: Bitcoin is a pseudonynous digital currency, that started trading at $0.10, and required nothing more than having a basic windows machine, and downloading the node software, to hold from the start. Very early on, downloading the standard wallet so…
It is kind of funny that exchanges have become so successful for Bitcoin- since they lose 100% of the stuff that made BTC attractive in the first place. They’re centralised, regulated and transactions don’t even go on the blockchain. The result is that the number 1 way people get into Bitcoin is through a mechanism that has none of the attributes of Bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure about this, but does every person using an exchange get their own address? My impression was that they don't and that a lot of transactions are actually settled within the exchange using good ol' relational databases and not the blockchain. If that's the case, then all of these people will get lumped into just a few exchange controlled adresses, which will give an exaggerated impression of concentration.
> I'm not sure about this, but does every person using an exchange get their own address? Definitely not. Exchanges that aren't stupid keep the vast majority of their funds in cold storage, which is held in a small number of addresses. Most people store their bitcoin on exchanges, even though that's a pretty bad idea. Not your keys not your coins. The article is massively misleading. It should say "95% of bitcoin is…
Yeah, that's exactly what I felt as well. Thanks for clarifying.
Any article that uses the sentence "mostly men" in the first paragraph is highly likely not worth reading.
These says, if you write "men" instead of "mostly men", you get attacked my SJWs. My favorite form is when they write "men (and they are almost entirely men)." But as is becoming clear to many, you cant please everyone all of the time, and, especially these days, there are some people you cant please any of the time. What phrasing would you prefer? "Humans" or just "men"?
Not that it matters, but, expecting the whole world to share the same perversion is a bit too much..
It is kind of funny that exchanges have become so successful for Bitcoin- since they lose 100% of the stuff that made BTC attractive in the first place. They’re centralised, regulated and transactions don’t even go on the blockchain. The result is that the number 1 way people get into Bitcoin is through a mechanism that has none of the attributes of Bitcoin.
Not so. They still allow speculation on BTC price volatility and "get rich quick" gambles is what drove most of Bitcoin growth in the past few years. If anything, the big exchanges make Bitcoin even more suitable for speculation than if it was on the blockchain, since you can trade way more if you don't have to wait several blocks for your trade to be confirmed.