241–250 of 734 posts
Unfortunately, given: "How can we create a more equitable financial system, where everyone has access to banking services? How can we reduce the power that a small few currently hold over the web? How can we improve data privacy and ensure that people have control over their personal information? How can we create reasonable privacy in the financial system? How can we make information more available to everyone? How…
In my view it is quite difficult to find insightful and civilized long-form discussion on the topic of crypto, compared to most other "controversial" topics I'm personally intersted in (e.g. geopolitics or economics). I might be mistaken – but it is my impression that the blockchain-space is fast growing and attracts a ton of intelligent people. Surely there must be a lot to talk about? On reddit, the crypto-themed s…
This is completely tone deaf. Crypto exists because markets are too regulated. Look at PayPal's fees and understand that they exist due to regulatory compliance.
Want to pay users fractions of a cent for killing monsters in a game? Not possible with PayPal. The regulatory overhead is too high for microtransactions.
If you want to participate in heavily regulated markets because you feel that is the safe or morally correct way to transact, then stick with the existing infrastructure. Why prohibit others and force your views upon them?
I expect the paternalist response to go along the lines of, "Well, the plebs are being taken advantage of. They aren't as smart as us. We need to step in and protect them from spending their money incorrectly"
Meanwhile, those magical regulators the author loves so well have centrally planned interest rates. Savings accounts have negative real interest rates. "Stimulus" is repeatedly injected into the economy by the wise, all knowing regulators. Don't blame the regulators though, demand more regulation instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to accept though that just saying "ah, the government will fix it" when historically governments have been a major contributor to wealth inequality, is somewhat glib. There's a reason NGOs and private charity exist. I think this approach is just as wrong as saying "crypto is the answer".
On the other hand, what would the world look like without democratic governments? Look at history, and you will notice that it is rarely better. Those who seek wealth and power aren't created by governments, nor will they magically disappear if governments disappear (or if their power is neutered). At least democracies have some checks and balances, even if they are nowhere near as effective as we need them to be.
Why would one look at history? Democracy is a modern phenomenon, and many modern states are republics, designed not to be full-blown democracies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are new blockchains based on technology a million times more efficient than Bitcoin. Ethereum is trying to upgrade. Bitcoin is terrible, but this is fixable by using things other than bitcoin.
> a million times more efficient than Bitcoin That is still a million times less efficient than existing solution and still horrifyingly wasteful. Blockchain principle is that if you have as many people as possible waste an astounding amount of computation and energy, you make over-ruling most of them too wasteful to be possible. You are not solving anything that way, just showing off that you have never heard of Kwa…
There are blockchains now that are designed to be optimal for what they provide.
The bigger issue is that there are applications running on chains that clearly don’t need the features of the chain.
I'm afraid crypto will become a tool to launder money, escape taxes and do all sorts of things that are illegal with normal money.
It might already be the case and be full of corrupt practices, but I can clearly see people defend it on a political premise of libertarian ideology.
By the way, I wonder if Russia is involved a lot with crypto.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the issue, even Bitcoin can’t really be used as currency anymore. I used bitcoin when it was still new. In our friend circle, we paid each other with thousands of bitcoins for a single pizza back then. And yet it was still more usable as currency back then than it is nowadays.
You can use the Lightning Network to send Bitcoins instantly.
Even if you set aside the transaction costs and the staggering environmental toll of Bitcoin, it just doesn't function well as a currency because it has been used, and is being used, as a speculative investment vehicle by so many.
You absolutely do not want your currency to be rising and falling by double-digit percentages in value even over the course of a few years, let alone a few days the way Bitcoin frequently does. Furthermore, people accepting currency don't want that. This is one of the major reasons so few people do, in fact, accept Bitcoin as a means of payment. (Yes, I know some do. It's still very few, and always will be.)
It's unfortunate that Bitcoin has become so mired in partisan politics. For me its purpose is simple. If my money is a representation of my time and effort, why should I accept the central banks' inflation "target" of even 2%, due to money printing? I don't see why anyone should be okay with that, particularly given that central banks rarely meet that target for long and more often than not overshoot by a significant…
Because I can’t make 99% of my transactions with Bitcoin. Sure there’s a handful of vendors online that take BTC and a BTC ATM in the gas station in the shady part of town, but for majority of pitches, money is probably going to have to be converted to USD and go through a bank.
I don't think I am ever going to get used to "crypto" meaning "cryptocurrency" and not "cryptography". Can't we just keep calling it "cryptocurrency"? I thought this article would be about the various misguided governments' attempts to outlaw cryptography.