71–80 of 234 posts
Given it's April Fools day, I think this may be GPT-3 trained on crypto subreddits and rationalist blogs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think crypto is a pyramid scheme and your statement is an opinion not a fact.
Literally the only way you can profit with crypto is if people keep buying in at higher prices. It's the perfect instantiation of a pyramid scheme.
How does that differ from other commodities trading? The only way to profit in the futures market is to buy low and sell high, too, for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
~22% of the US population if you equate being unbanked or underbanked with holding your wealth in cash. Worldwide, the percentage is similar. Of course being unbanked isn’t equivalent but it’s likely very nearly so. Not to mention, the chances of being unbanked are higher for vulnerable populations, especially those who might benefit from uncensorable money.
Given the required internet access, transaction fees, and general tech sophistication required to use crypto (even more to use it safely), does it seem like it would be a good fit for those people?
I'm seriously considering a career pivot to being a freelance editor for cryptocurrency bloggers as not-having one appears to be one of the few things crypto millionaires can no longer afford. Given it's April Fools day, I think this may be GPT-3 trained on crypto subreddits and rationalist blogs.
They're wrong. The future is smart contracts, and moving off blockchains in favor of other distributed systems. Blockchains is what's holding the entire space back.
These are the three things that need to be done to make crypto go mainstream: https://intercoin.org/proposal.pdf
Why is uncensorable money worth the risk of permanently losing your money because you forgot a password or lost a thumb drive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My rule of thumb for tech companies is they're all a mess under the covers so every company looks bad from the inside compared to the outside. > I would trust Google, Apple, and many other tech companies with my money. When I have a problem and need to call my bank I can usually get an actual person or even go to a branch where I can annoy someone in person, where as Google acts like categorically opposed to support…
Not to mention, if you protest an extensively corrupt government, they could just call up and say "Hey, shut 'em down." And they'd happily oblige. That doesn't happen as easily on the blockchain. You are fully in control of your funds with cryptocurrency. There is no middleman that can say "no, sorry, you can't use your money today."
Don't blockchains rely entirely on transaction processors, i.e. middlemen, to process transactions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
correct me if I'm wrong but people using bitcoin in oppressed countries will basically be rendered penniless by simply cutting off network access. source: https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/the-technological-case-ag...
As long as you know your private key and / or seed phrase, you will always have access to your wallet's funds. As soon as you get network access, you can transact. You literally have to cut off the internet to stop crypto - that is part of what makes it so compelling.
> Crypto-assets like Bitcoin have real cultural and structural advantages that make them powerful assets worth holding and using. Not for me. Why would an asset, which I can lose, have no direct control over it or even better, whose storage places are hacked on a weekly basis, earn my trust? And no, I am not even starting about the energy waste most crypto-assets are.
You don't like it because it's possible to lose? Are all of your other physical possessions immune from being lost?
My money right now is (mostly) not a physical possession either. It exists as a non-blockchain ledger entry in bank's computer system, and cannot be lost as easily as crypto currency, even if I make a mistake like forgetting my password.