281–290 of 539 posts
> Claim 2: Blockchain technology has no non-monetary applications (Confidence: High) I would replace "non-monetery" with "non-financial". I think it's a perfectly reasonable (albeit, imperfect) solution as a ledger and exchange mechanism for new financial assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats because nobody refutes those points. Yes, transactions in crypto are irreversible. It might be bad for those number of factors. But even given those cons we see benefits in things mentioned above. E.g. my colleague can send bitcoin to his brother in russia. Tell me what other options to transfer value there are at the moment between west and russia. Very similar for ukraine.
Is it really your selling point that crypto is good because Russians can wage war while circumventing sanctions? The whole point of sanctions is to pressure bad actors to change. You've invented a technology that allows them to continue doing evil? Hurrah?
No, this is a person sending money to their brother, who is presumably not engaged in "waging war."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People could send Bitcoin to Wikileaks in 2011 because there were mechanisms to turn that Bitcoin back into real money. A point that's been raised multiple times elsewhere on this page is that Bitcoin has no backup strategy for when exchanges start getting targeted. It's not a good anti-authoritarian tool because the ability for it to be converted into a usable form exists at the pleasure of governments, who are incr…
Transfer mechanism are all that any currencies are. All currencies are dependent on being spendable. Thats just a question of adaptation, as in somebody else accepting it in the expectation that it will hold value and be spendable in the future. Involuntary adaptation historically leads to drastic inflation with the trust in the purchasing power degrading. If you are forced to accept it despite low trust, you are mot…
Right, and the issue here is that Bitcoin is not spendable without first being converted to a better currency that normal merchants like your grocer will accept. That's Bitcoin's weak point, you clamp down on exchanges and suddenly it can't be used with most merchants.
> Involuntary adaptation historically leads to drastic inflation with the trust in the purchasing power degrading.
I don't mean to jump between threads here, but didn't you just finish telling me elsewhere that Bitcoin would be accepted once people had no better choice of other currencies to use, and that's why it didn't matter whether or not it was a currently attractive currency for my local grocer?
That sounds a lot like involuntary adoption to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not that big of a deal, just move BTC into a stable coin first and then use that for the transaction. Bitcoin is more akin to a gold like store of value than a currency.
I know that this thread jumps around a lot and you might be responding to multiple people, but quick reminder of the specific comment thread I'm responding to: ---- > You just need to control the onramps and offramps. > Bitcoin is of no use if you can't exchange it for anything tangible. ---- > All that's required for people to exchange it for something tangible, is for people to start. ---- The need to move BTC over…
This is a good question and I think there’s a two part answer.
Part one is stable coins still have smart contract risk in the arbitrage style version, and fraud/authority risk in the custodial version.
Stable coins that peg a government currency are also vulnerable to all the same issues fiat currencies are vulnerable to.
Bitcoin is a better store of value than fiat (which is a bad store of value - we store wealth in assets primarily because of this).
So you’re better off storing value in BTC like gold and then moving pieces of it to transact in small amounts if you must. If you can’t (exchanges are locked) you’ll need to find someone willing to transact in BTC despite volatility (or someone willing to trade you fiat in person).
Is this optimal? No, but it’s about degrees of control. Wealth locked up in banks controlled by authoritarian governments give you fewer options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have a story which with you justify forcing people around. I repeat: that’s the definition of the social contract. You are forced, by threat of violence, not to engage in harmful activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
You just repeated the wording of your story while ignoring my post entirely. 1) Contract implies consenting parties. Using the word in another capacity is a frame. It being a popular one doesnt change that. 2) Your actions entailing a lot more then just your declared intentions. As in your definition of harmful being quite broad. Or differently put, you have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
As an example, if you enter into a legal contract, that contract is backed up by the threat of litigation (and by extension, force). If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any incentive to obey it.
And yes, I do believe that the consensus is that activities with an outsized climate impact are harmful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They view it as a feature, but for all the reasons this poster pointed out, the rest of us view it as an anti-feature.
Thieves also consider the analogous irreversibility of cash transactions to be a feature. The rest of us probably actually want an anonymous, "like cash" crypto currency that is resilient against theft (which basically implies some sort of non-repudiation and compensating transactions). But, such a currency probably wouldn't be great for speculation or black market transactions, which are the killer use cases for bit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And among other things a price that's stable enough that you can actually cost goods without the value spiking upwards or downwards under your feet. Zoom out to the "all" range on https://www.bitcoinprice.com/ and try to tell me with a straight face that you're looking at a graph that belongs to a stable currency. Heck, even just look at the last two years. Part of the problem with Bitcoin in specific among all of th…
That’s not that big of a deal, just move BTC into a stable coin first and then use that for the transaction. Bitcoin is more akin to a gold like store of value than a currency.
If you think your currency might be worth a lot more if you just hold on to it, you don't want to spend it for FOMO. Stablecoins don't change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats because nobody refutes those points. Yes, transactions in crypto are irreversible. It might be bad for those number of factors. But even given those cons we see benefits in things mentioned above. E.g. my colleague can send bitcoin to his brother in russia. Tell me what other options to transfer value there are at the moment between west and russia. Very similar for ukraine.
> Banks won’t protect you from wire fraud either. This is half-true. A wire transfer can't be reversed due to end-user error, which can be abused by fraudsters. However, Incorrect input on the bank's behalf does warrant a reversal. I'd compare my bank screwing up vs a crypto exchange screwing up (Like getting hacked). I'm still not protected if the exchange gets hacked and my coin is exfiltrated. I am protected if my…
Exchange risk is tempered somewhat by Coinbase which is more comparable to a standard bank in terms of risk (imo).
The true value and capability that’s distinct with crypto is self-custody and that is the important part of my comment.