121–130 of 218 posts
Besides, tech experts aren't really the ones we should be asking about crypto. The ramifications of the technology blockchain has allowed us to build actually creates new paradigms in finance and human coordination, As a result, economists, sociologists and political scientists who are educated on web 3 technology are probably best placed to evaluate what crypto has to offer society.
Quoted post unavailable.
As far as I can tell, crypto is no more cancerous than existing systems. It's just that all you see out of crypto as an outsider is all the bad stuff because anything creating real value is too heads down building to make a fuss or too complex for the average joe to comprehend yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seems to be going great for Stripe [0] and Moneygram [1] and FIDE Online Arena [2], but obviously crypto-skeptics and crypto-maximalists will not tell you that. It must be going disastrously when your 3 examples of things going grate are a start of a pilot project, an announcement of a project and what seems to amount to a sponsorship deal. And you wonder why people don't speak more widely about it.
So those 3 projects I linked to have all been scrapped, abandoned or cancelled?, which would qualify your claim as what you described as 'going disastrously' assuming you have read the whole article and its links then? Can you at least backup your claims on them 'going disastrously' and being cancelled, scrapped or abandoned rather than making very unsubstantiated and baseless claims? Since I have already backed up m…
No you did not. You provided a link to a closed pilot project that started a month ago, technically not alive and no way for you to know if it is going great. A link to an announcement of starting a project in the future, so not alive and no way for you to know that it is going great. Finally you provided a link to a "project" that amounts to nothing more than a sponsorship deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all blockchain is bad because 99.9% of tokens fail, why wouldn’t all startups be bad since a similar number fail as well?
There's a reason random startups aren't allowed to make IPOs directly to the public, and attempts to circumvent this with ICOs got the hammer brought down on them.
[0] https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-reso...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is this arguing both for and against the need for financial privacy at the same time? No. It's a perfectly reasonable position to take. I want my transactions to be private to the world but it's reasonable that law enforcement has a method to investigate criminal behavior.
> I want my transactions to be private to the world but it's reasonable that law enforcement has a method to investigate criminal behavior. If law enforcement has a method to investigate your behavior, its not private. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either you enjoy privacy (and so do criminals) or criminals do not (and neither do you).
That doesn't seem to reflect how the world has worked up until now.
There are plenty of things that are private except with a legal warrant. There's an entire legal history of wiretap laws and circumstances under which law enforcement can open mail I'd invite you to look at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. You may dislike the way central banks control and manipulate the money supply, but the reality is that an unmanaged currency is generally a disaster for everyone. To fulfill its role as a stable store of value, a currency has to be managed. The notion that an inherently deflationary unit of accounting (such as Bitcoin), or a completely unmanaged one, or o…
The hard money standard (e.g. precious metals) is older and has outlived nearly all fiat currencies and will likely outlive the existing currencies. What do you think will be worth more in 100 years from now? 1 US dollar or the equivalent of gold? How about 500 years? 1000 years? My money is on the gold. Every fiat will be stable until it blows up. It will necessarily be mismanaged in a long enough time line, and bas…
The only limits on the gold supply are technological ones. If one takes an optimistic view of the future where we become a space-faring species the future supply of gold is effectively unlimited.
Edit: As much as I'm a huge crypto detractor, at least Bitcoin's supply is limited mathematically, not just circumstantially. I would argue this is a bad thing, but if you're looking for something that will hold its value due to scarcity a durable commodity we dig out of the ground seems like a bad long-term bet. What if we discover a massive gold deposit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hard money standard (e.g. precious metals) is older and has outlived nearly all fiat currencies and will likely outlive the existing currencies. What do you think will be worth more in 100 years from now? 1 US dollar or the equivalent of gold? How about 500 years? 1000 years? My money is on the gold. Every fiat will be stable until it blows up. It will necessarily be mismanaged in a long enough time line, and bas…
I really don't get this line of thought. There's nothing "special" about precious metals in this regard and they only have value as long as people agree they have value. If we found an asteroid rich in gold and managed to capture it, would gold still hold its value? How is gold different than other rare earth metals with a (currently) limited exploitable supply like neodymium? The only limits on the gold supply are t…
Right, there's nothing special about it besides the technical limitations. But what's the alternative? With fiat you still have those technical limitations (someone could create indistinguishable counterfeit money and dump it on the market). But there's also the political risk. Someone can get power at the Fed and decide to double the money supply over night. In fact, this has happened time and time again with many fiat currencies so its not exactly an unfounded risk. That's why the precious metal standard is lower risk for arbitrary manipulation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Bitcoin automagically fixes that? How? Due to it being a PoW system? Suddenly fraud is no longer possible? (It still is) Money laundering is no longer possible? (It still is) Inflation/Deflation save? (It still is) So tell me, what is crypto fixing? That instead of experts in the central bank the market itself just does what? Definitely nothing pro consumer. There are reasons why banks get requirements from the s…
In the least Bitcoin provides an option to opt-out, an alternative that puts some pressure on central banks to have sane monetary policy. It allows people in Lebanon (~200% inflation), Zimbabwe (~700% inflation) and Turkey (70% inflation) to maintain the purchasing power of their wealth and to protect it from confiscation. There are many other advantages of Bitcoin, but these are already significant.
Nothing new here.
And yes sanctions against north Korea or Russia are more important than the inflation of Lebanon, Zimbabwe or Turkey.
And I still bet that the people in Zimbabwe in avg have more from less co2 than from bitcoin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You bet I think those people act with my interests in mind, since I elected the people who appointed them (unlike random scammers in croin space). The panopticon you refer to is called "human society", by the way. You cannot participate in one and maintain unlimited freedom. If you are an evil jerk who kidnaps my child or steals life savings from my mom I want to be sure your assets can be seized. If you want to buil…
> You bet I think those people act with my interests in mind, since I elected the people who appointed them (unlike random scammers in croin space). I want to live in this wonderland too, where are you?