191–200 of 699 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say that cash transactions are less transparent than BTC's public ledger.
I'm not saying I agree, but GP didn't say the converse - the framing was 'cash is going ['on its deathbed'], and I'm not happy with the mainstream replacements'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning exchanges and banning use are two different things.
Financial institutions cant deal with it, no exchanges, no ICO's. They shut all the doors a while back. How do you use or own something when all legal avenues are closed unless you just do it illegally which is probably what some are doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is plenty of profit being made from selling hardware and software services in the space. Also, are you suggesting banning all assets whose volatility crosses a certain threshold? As for energy consumption, does this also apply to Proof of Stake networks?
Only those that challenge existing economic power structures.
> A statement posted on the Central Bank’s website today says that “virtual currency does not have the same legal status as legal currency.” China has "banned Bitcoin" dozens of times over the last decade. I mean, this is an ancient and well-known meme involving a certain South Park clip after all. Maybe this time is for real, but all of these media announcements have one thing in common. They always conflate the con…
This is a false narrative pushed by the Bitcoin cult. It's supposed to create an impression that nothing has changed, so the price should not change.
I hope the rest of world follows. There is nothing more volatile than a decentralised crypto currency. The amount of people making a profit from it is less than 5% and energy consumption is beyond acceptable. Crypto as a tech to serve something different is totally fine of course.
You probably live in the first world and had never to worry about inflation or politicians/bureaucrats just straight destroying the fiat currency and your wealth in the process. That's why crypto sounds so "wasteful" to you. BTW, if we give the government the power to judge what is a waste of energy and what's not, I can assure you life would be 100% more miserable, to everyone.
In fact some countries, e.g. Kosovo and Montenegro, in the Balkans, use the euro as a de facto domestic currency since 2002, even though they have no agreements with the EU.
For those of you keeping track, this is about the 20th time China has declared to have banned Bitcoin or crypto. The only thing they've done is demonstrated that crypto is a threat to their all-reaching power grab and that they are mostly powerless to control it.
Can you provide a source for some previous crypto ban? AFAIK this is the first time they've made crypto transactions illegal.
2015: https://archive.is/Higoz
2017: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-china-idUSKCN1BJ1...
2018: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-eliminates-all-cryptoc...
2021: https://archive.is/s7nbw
"China Has Banned Bitcoin 13 Times Since 2012":
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-great-bitcoin-mining-mi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only PoW cryptos need extensive electricity and hardware. Dont make crypto just bitcoins. If you really want to help make a dent in the energy consumption then people need to move away from PoW coins not from crypto in general.
How exactly do you incentivize anyone ever to abandon PoW coins rather than just adding non-PoW on the side? How exactly do you think you could dethrone Bitcoin, overcoming its gigantic first-mover advantage? I believe BTC could only come down with the rest of that "economy".
Side-chains dont solve the problem no matter how many and how performant they are. On the main-chain the fees need to eventually cover the cost of running the network i.e. the whole energy, hardware and human labor. Currently this is still mostly paid by the block reward (aka paid by inflation). This pays about a quarter million USD every 10 minutes. It doesn't need much common sense to figure out that if the combined fees of all peoples transaction need to result in a quarter million USD every 10 minute then transaction can not be cheap. Bitcoin is currently running on subsidy by its own block reward that pays about as much as google pays for operation.
The average Tx fee is currently a few dollar but a subsidy of about 140 dollar is added form the block reward. Non-PoW based systems have outperformed bitcoin in terms of transaction for years with average Tx fees of less than a cent. Shouldn't this be enough incentivize? Surely it is for thous who actuality want to use the system. The gamblers and maxis will probably hodl their bag forever but once it loses market relevant it will sharply become insecure as well and the whole thing should collapse. Might take another 10 years, who knows but it eventually has to fail. Its like ICE cars vs. EVs it was always just a matter of time but it felt like it took forever.
>How exactly do you think you could dethrone Bitcoin, overcoming its gigantic first-mover advantage?
If you look at the bigger picture BTC loses market share and there is no sign that this will change. The gains are below average so people who only gamble have an incentive to gamble with something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won't downplay the environmental consequences of PoW, but the actual reason so many governments are speeding the push against crypto might be related to a future of high inflation and high gov debt. It would be the perfect storm for mainstream crypto adoption.
> the actual reason so many governments are speeding the push against crypto might be related to a future of high inflation and high gov debt The reason why we have inflation and debt is to keep the value of our currencies stable. IE, if people want to use dollars, the US government can print more dollars to satisfy the demand. (And thus keep the value stable.) Cryptocurrency's volatile value is a result of its inabi…
A stable currency would have an inflation rate of 0%. Inflation does not cause currency stability, it decreases the value of the currency.
By definition, its value is changing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yours is the top comment on this thread and it's a bit surprising. When you say less than 5%, what are you talk about? Can you point to any sources that back that up?
Maybe if he meant less than 5% of miners make money. I could potentially believe this, given the competitive nature of mining. However, as an investment, as of right now, there is only a span of a few months where if you bought Bitcoin you would not be in the green right now.
I hope the rest of world follows. There is nothing more volatile than a decentralised crypto currency. The amount of people making a profit from it is less than 5% and energy consumption is beyond acceptable. Crypto as a tech to serve something different is totally fine of course.
Do you really want to ban holding 12 words in your head? Or maybe you meant private keys to remain legal but let's ban cryptographic signatures? What exactly do you want to make illegal?