51–60 of 149 posts
Serious question for those of you who want to regulate Bitcoin out of existence: What do you propose to do with those of us who, despite your attestations of its uselessness, have deemed it useful and purchased it with our hard earned money? For example, MSTR has ~$4 billion in Bitcoin on its balance sheet. It purchased it on the free market for reasons that were valid to it. However, you disagree and want to step in…
Here's a prediction: Crypto is the next cancer from cigarettes, lead in fuel, climate change etc. The thing linking them is that even after it was widely acknowledged these were a net negative, they continued for a long, long time. Harming a wide group of people uneccesarily and massively profiting a select few. If I'm correct, the key indicator will be right wing governments around the globe being paid off to allow…
Proof of Work and Bitcoin may be generally trash, and unless they evolve they will eventually crash and burn, but "crypto" on the whole encompasses a wide range of good and bad applications. Here's a prediction: Over the next decade or two, scalable proof of stake crypto currency networks and blockchain-based systems will probably be used as base settlement layers for a growing portion of digital payments, disrupting…
The letter has some good and bad. Good because it advocates for more regulation and consumer protection, and points out some obvious concerns with crypto like energy expenditure in proof of work. Bad because the letter misrepresents the technology and paints privacy as a purely criminal behavior, and suggests the entire technology sector is useless. > Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a d…
Crypto has none.
It’s just an enabler and hotbed of a variety of scams.
Any use it may have can only possibly reveal itself after the crypto asset bubble/scams die.
So even if you’re a crypto enthusiast, you should be in favor of this whole disastrous phase for crypto ending so you can try again and actually make it useful this time.
Since crypto has become a completely speculation driven asset it’s become useless for anything other than buying and stuffing under the mattress.
Any value crypto may add to the world will only happen once that dynamic is eliminated.
Governments, worldwide, have clear goals: to become more powerful, omniscient and perpetual in power, and the basis for this is the money they hold. Crypto currencies attack precisely the money part and consequently affect the other objectives.
The currency digitization movement is global (e-dollar being proposed by the FED, e-Real in Brazil, the digitization of money in India, as well as the banning of cryptocurrencies mining in several countries, claiming: * put your ecological/anti-terrorist argument here *.
The truth is that governments do not tolerate the loss of control and the possibility of currency evasion that cryptocurrencies potentially allow. They also don't tolerate the possibility that when they do shit, they can't print money at will to try to cover it up. Neither do they tolerate not having control over all circulating money, especially with regard to taxation.
Laws like this will continue to be passed easily, worldwide, as it maintains the status quo that governments will do everything to maintain.
PS: I am PRAYING to be wrong on ALL of the above statements....
The letter has some good and bad. Good because it advocates for more regulation and consumer protection, and points out some obvious concerns with crypto like energy expenditure in proof of work. Bad because the letter misrepresents the technology and paints privacy as a purely criminal behavior, and suggests the entire technology sector is useless. > Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a d…
> imagine this argument being applied to End-to-End Encryption There's a stark line between encrypted communication and encrypted money. If someone can't see the difference between those bits they shouldn't be handling other peoples' money.
Serious question for those of you who want to regulate Bitcoin out of existence: What do you propose to do with those of us who, despite your attestations of its uselessness, have deemed it useful and purchased it with our hard earned money? For example, MSTR has ~$4 billion in Bitcoin on its balance sheet. It purchased it on the free market for reasons that were valid to it. However, you disagree and want to step in…
“What about this obscure enterprise software company that took billions of loans to buy Bitcoin? The company’s shareholders would be very sad if they had a margin call on those loans.”
MSTR would presumably have to go back to selling software instead of speculating on unrelated assets. And everybody else can keep their Bitcoins too, it might just not be as easy to convert them to cash.
Sorry to say, but the petition won´t make any difference. The reason is simple: the problem is not technical, but political. Governments, worldwide, have clear goals: to become more powerful, omniscient and perpetual in power, and the basis for this is the money they hold. Crypto currencies attack precisely the money part and consequently affect the other objectives. The currency digitization movement is global (e-do…
Plenty of countries have given up their currencies. Presently and throughout history [1][2]. In particular, your toy model of governance isn't terribly predictive of American politics.
> not having control over all circulating money, especially with regard to taxation
Non sequitur. I can invoice from New York in euros or Bitcoin and still pay my taxes on those earnings in dollars.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_board#Examples_in_rec...
Venezuelan emigrants have been using cryptocurrencies to get cash back to their families: https://www.reuters.com/technology/venezuelas-economy-regres...
Navalny's Foundation takes BTC and ETH donations and recommends them as the safest option: https://donate.fbk.world/?utm_campaign=10MAR22_fundraising_a...
Several Ukrainian humanitarian and military fundraisers are using crypto: https://nitter.net/kamilkazani/status/1533471887958986758#m
These are just the first three examples that come to my mind. When I see Americans crow about the uselessness of cryptocurrencies, I think of Marie Antoinette.
The letter has some good and bad. Good because it advocates for more regulation and consumer protection, and points out some obvious concerns with crypto like energy expenditure in proof of work. Bad because the letter misrepresents the technology and paints privacy as a purely criminal behavior, and suggests the entire technology sector is useless. > Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a d…
> imagine this argument being applied to End-to-End Encryption There's a stark line between encrypted communication and encrypted money. If someone can't see the difference between those bits they shouldn't be handling other peoples' money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> imagine this argument being applied to End-to-End Encryption There's a stark line between encrypted communication and encrypted money. If someone can't see the difference between those bits they shouldn't be handling other peoples' money.
Unless you are in the United States and your money is going to a super PAC, union, or other association. Then your transmission of funds is free speech and covered by the first amendment. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Political spending has been equated with political speech by the Supreme Court. That doesn't mean the government can't e.g. freeze a criminal's assets.