71–80 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PoW already brought us to huge wealth concentration so it is not the solution either. This is one of the hard-not-so-talked problems of cryptos at the moment, and I can't see how to solve it.
The problem is capitalism, but at least with Bitcoin there is no central authority to unilaterally alter monetary policy to benefit one specific group (those closest to supply of new money i.e. Gresham's Law).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PoW already brought us to huge wealth concentration so it is not the solution either. This is one of the hard-not-so-talked problems of cryptos at the moment, and I can't see how to solve it.
The problem is capitalism, but at least with Bitcoin there is no central authority to unilaterally alter monetary policy to benefit one specific group (those closest to supply of new money i.e. Gresham's Law).
Bitcoin has _mostly_ avoided it, but not fully, as evidenced by the coins claiming to be the One True Bitcoin, forks driven largely by a small group of people who want to force some policy onto the blockchain, and not entirely unsuccessfully.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PoW already brought us to huge wealth concentration so it is not the solution either. This is one of the hard-not-so-talked problems of cryptos at the moment, and I can't see how to solve it.
PoW tries to minimizes wealth concentration by imposing a competitive cost on obtaining coins. Of course it cannot reduce the wealth concentration already present in fiat. It can at best not make it much worse (as PoS does). PoW still suffers from wealth concentration due to varying block subsidies over time, which is why I'm a strong supporter of uncapped emissions like 1 coin per second forever, which gives no adva…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well of course it will when enough people (globally) decide to have a literal revolution (including the crime and punishment that entails) after realizing that neo-libertarian ideals are _obviously_ the only plausible way to maintain a society. /s I see an argument like this in every crypto thread. Come on. You should know that this is a political argument and that, in the US at least, we're pretty damn divided. Talk…
I never said anything about regulation. My only issue is that investment in the traditional markets is subject to government-caused inflation. This was only the case since Nixon. I would love to go back to stricter regulation such as the gold standard. It is a simple way to enforce financial sustainability. The US never reverted the "temporarily" suspended convertibilty of the USD to gold. Bitcoin is a reaction to th…
Really though my main point is that you seem tone-deaf. like - "money hasn't been real since we got off the gold standard" is just old libertarian rhetoric. Are you not aware that there are views on this, mainstream ones even, that disagree? Anyone taught Keynesian economics in high school is going to have a view on this and simply saying "oh yeah all the economists were wrong actually but the crypto people got it right" just isn't convincing anyone except for those who are entrenched and/or uneducated.
Yeah, no thank you, I don't come to Hacker News for crypto talk, the bias is comical and the talking points are recycled as a new article every week (scams!, speculation!, hype!, wasted electricity!, tether!) All of those have rebuttals, but I don't want to get into the politics of it, there's plenty of that already. Can we please talk about the fucking tech here? I'm talking about what's made with it, not some sort…
I wish I could be this positive and resourceful on this topic. It just gives me the urge to write a passive-aggressive tirade against the unfounded (almost manufactured) hate against this powerful technology. Nobody is putting it back in the box, no matter how many years they spend whining on their ironically named "dunning-kruger" blogs. Dammit, there I go again. I could go on for 12 more paragraphs but I'll cut it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the bias is comical and the talking points are recycled as a new article every week (scams!, speculation!, hype!, wasted electricity!, tether!) There is a very strong bias towards the truth, yes.
That's the equivalent of "yes-huh". Your truth is not reality. If you really want to argue this, please at least have something of substance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the equivalent of "yes-huh". Your truth is not reality. If you really want to argue this, please at least have something of substance.
Unfortunately, my truth is reality. It is not really my problem that you have yet to realise this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cryptocurrency trading is not the same as a regular market. None of the things that make a regular stock market not a zero-sum game do not apply to cryptocurrency markets. And cryptocurrencies are actually negative sum, due to miners and fees.
> Cryptocurrency trading is not the same as a regular market. Could you substantiate what you see here with a concrete difference? Particularly in terms of my argument that an asset price can move without actual trades being made. If positive news comes out about bitcoin, the price can immediately move without any trading, or at least without every bitcoin needing to realize a gain through trading. This would be an e…
I mean, it can't? The "price" is literally defined as the price of the latest trade.
The mistake you are making here is the assumption that there is a "value" in a bitcoin that can change. This is true for a stock - it represent a fraction of ownership of a company, and a company has real value. That value can go up and down for a number of reasons. The price of the stock may not be the same as its actual value for various reasons, but that value exists independently of the stock price.
This is not true for bitcoins. They do not represent anything, there is no ownership of anything but the bitcoin itself. It only has value inasmuch as it can be traded. Bitcoiners like to claim that the technology represented by bitcoin has "value", but a bitcoin itself does not represent a share of that value.
A bitcoin is a game token, that can be used to play a game where you win or lose money. The game is negative sum, because the only value you can gain is value being put in by other players, and there are cuts being taken by various parties for playing the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, my truth is reality. It is not really my problem that you have yet to realise this.
Okay, when you have a reality you can put into words please feel free bring it to the table.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, when you have a reality you can put into words please feel free bring it to the table.
Why? People are doing it all the time, and you are rejecting them outright. Why should I bother to do the same when the last hundred times, you would not listen?
I cannot prove a negative, or in this case an undefined, you need to present an issue to debate.