601–610 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bitcoin is technologically obsolete but that doesn't matter. Which just underlines how much of this whole phenomenon is brand and hype.
Says someone who is using 1970s technology called ACH and SWIFT to send money over. At least be aware of what is happening around you before attacking other technologies.
Talk about a step backward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been saying the same damn thing about automobiles man, horses already have self driving even! and they don't pollute like cars. Look at the mess we're in now! who's laughing?? Cars pollute and need roads, we had to build so many roads and gas stations. We even had to go to war to make sure we have enough oil.
I almost typed a snarky remark, but then realized that you make a valid point with that analogy. However the analogy feels a little weak to me: > We even had to go to war to make sure we have enough oil I don't see countries going to war over BTC (or the mining pool) as they already have cornered all the fiat currencies in a tight system. All they could do is sabotage the BTC system and make it less lucrative for nor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice, I just want you to keep going in that line of thought and be consistent everywhere. Fingers crossed.
I think I know where you want to go with this, but I'm not falling for it. Bitcoin is not progress towards the future, but a regression to the past. Pegging our economy to a finite (potentially volatile) asset has led to boom-bust cycles in the past, whether it is physical like gold or digital like Bitcoin. People crave financial stability. Bitcoin will not give it to them. I'm not averse to the idea of a distributed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do people even fall for this? According to OP's comment, it has received 76 - 11 = 65 karma as of now.
Haha. We need to spread awareness man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"accidentally" Do you always feel superior to other people? or is it just today?
I liked your first comment. This one: not so much. It’s not HN like.
Besides, I don't care about these fake points. You can keep them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or, preferably, ONE big exchange, where all settlements can take place off-chain and the blockchain sits in a big vault and everyone just trusts you can redeem your account balance for Bitcoin if you ever want it, but you won't want it, because the balance is more valuable than the actual Bitcoin. That's an important point, because it prompts the question: what is the problem that Bitcoin is solving if the preferab…
I would say first read the article, which goes in detail what it solves. I'm not doing a TL;DR for you here but the post title does have a lot to do with it. You're stuck on speculation side. There are other parts to the problem which also needed a solution. As the time progresses the reward is smaller and then becomes negligible if bitcoin ever fulfilled it's ultimate goal. This is the reward for early adoption.
What the article doesn't explain is why decentralized consensus and ledgers matter for a system that is increasingly obviously designed to be centralized and used in a centralized manner.
Yes, Bitcoin allows transaction resolution in a distributed ledger. The problem is that everything else around Bitcoin's design, implementation, and community is ill-suited for creating a decentralized currency. There are a hundred coins out there that use a blockchain to "create time". The article does not explain why Bitcoin in specific is worth paying attention to, other than because speculators are currently already paying attention to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin solved the double spending problem in a decentralized system . This has numerous consequences, among them the possibility of creating a currency that doesn't rely on a centralized authority, trust minimization, immutability, etc. To me this has the potential to automate many jobs.
Not relying on a centralized authority, trust minimalization, and immutability are all bad things for a monetary system. The ability to dispute and undo transactions and track fraud is a crucial feature of banking systems that blockchain eliminates by design. Blockchain will not automate any jobs because it is technologically no different from a database. The fact that transactions are recorded digitally is not a new…
The need of not relying on a centralized entity or third parties in the digital space does exist.
A few questions I need help with - If bitcoin becomes a store of value / digital gold and people increasingly hold their wealth in Bitcoin countries will lose the ability control and regulate their own economy. 1) Why would any country hand over the reins of its economy to others ? India is already thinking of banning cryptocurrencies, China has similar thoughts too, if many large countries ban it how would Bitcoin s…
2. This is the same question as 1, isn’t it? Again, Bitcoin is people voting with their feet (so to speak) to take power away from governments.
3. Economic sanctions punish the common folk more than the evil governments. Bitcoin simultaneously takes power away from evil governments (see 1 and 2) and gives power to common folk.
4. I think you are alluding to one way governments can try to fight what is happening in 1, 2, and 3. If governments really try and crack down on exchanges, people will simply transact directly in Bitcoin. Those who have accumulated it pre-crackdown will purchase goods and services using Bitcoin, people who did not obtain any pre-crackdown and want it will offer goods and services to those who are offering Bitcoin.
In all honesty, these extreme scenarios are far fetched. Governments all ultimately get their authority from the people. If the people are choosing Bitcoin, the governments won’t fight it for long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is accidentally a good analogy. Because yes, cars have made the world materially worse, not because horses are better, but because dense urban development, public transit, walking, and cycling is better. Cars are enormously wasteful, much like bitcoin is, not only because it uses way more energy than is necessary for the task it is performing (~90% of the energy used by cars is spent to move the car, not the car…
What happens if you have the same amount of horses like cars? Aren't they wasteful and need a lot of space and at night a heated parking spot? :)
Opposition to cars, like opposition to bitcoin, isn't rustic ludditism. There are modern solutions to transportation that are superior to cars, like rail, frequent busses, and bike infrastructure, but lose out in funding and hype because they're not prestigious and utopian like cars are.
Likewise, Bitcoin does not solve any problem that any other transaction network technology can't solve, but it gets all the attention because it's flashy and new and utopian.
And if you think cars aren't utopian, tell me the last time you've seen an automobile ad that showed somebody being stuck in gridlocked traffic in the lincoln tunnel inhaling gas fumes for over half an hour. I will contend that there does not exist a single automobile advertisement that shows the average car owner's typical experience of driving, certainly never in an urban setting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"accidentally" Do you always feel superior to other people? or is it just today?
Accidentally because opposition to bitcoin, like opposition to cars, isn't luddite rustic anti-industrialism, it's common sense advocacy for equally modern but different solutions to the problem. Bitcoin doesn't do anything that electronic banking can't do better, and it causes a lot of harm in wasted energy and space. Cars don't do anything that busses, trains, and bicycles can't do better, and they cause a lot of h…
When you see the entire stock market move because the Fed chairperson makes an offhand comment about when they'll start or stop doing xyz policy, you realize having such a highly centralized system is dangerous.