311–320 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say it's not trusted and yet the most volume in crypto (around 46 billion) is being traded every day it. Are you sure you're not just in your own thought bubble?
Turkish Lira used daily after 75% inflation — maybe shit just isn't that simple?, when your daily workflows rely on (aforementioned) legacy systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You'd have been better off just buying bitcoin on margin (Since BTC is only down 53% YTD). It's also funny to note that you'd have been better off just buying Turkish Lyra, which is "only" down ~29%. Most fiats, at least in Europe, are down waaaaaay less than that, of course. So much for crypto as a store of value.
Yeah if you'd put $1000 into bitcoin five years ago, at current prices you'd only have $10,000 left. So much worse than leaving it in the bank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This only works if you use crypto as a store of value and even then it doesn't scale to any significant fraction of the population, for most coins. BTC and Eth, at least, are simply too slow for everyone to have their own wallet and do their own on-chain transactions, even if rarely, if we imagine they will ever reach some significant portion of the population. And LN doesn't solve this in any way, before anyone clai…
This flavor of criticism is odd to me, it seems to have a very rigid definition of "how many people" using as a measure of success and perhaps more perplexingly, presumes "the network will always be too slow," as if tech improvements on these networks isn't likely. It may not be BTC or ETH, but given fungibility (and perhaps, clever airdrops) it seems at least plausible, if not likely, that people will come up with "…
Also, unlike other technologies that can sit very comfortably in their niches, payment & more generally monetary technology needs to be used by the vast majority of people in order to be useful. I was pointing out that BTC or ETH will never be successful as a monetary technology, the way gold or fiat are, because they are impossible to access by the vast majority of people by their very design.
Can there be other designs of cryptocurrency that can solve this? Perhaps - time will tell.
If I read it correctly it's more like a 1.8 bn hole. They are counting 600m of their own token, which already had only 170m or whatever of market cap, which presumably now is absolutely worthless. I don't mean worthless in a conceptual sense like all crypto, but this specific brand of made up money is based on the trust of a bankrupt lender. Nobody is buying that and counting it as 600m of asset is absurd. It's like…
But why would anyone be buying it now?
The hope that a) Celsius comes out of bankruptcy and b) they continue to honour their existing CEL token, seems a bit far fetched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Layer 2's do solve it, and will reach 14M TPS by 2030 [0], which is more than enough for the world. He has explanations of how the different components work in different posts on the site. 0: https://polynya.medium.com/conjecture-how-far-can-rollups-da...
The problem is that you need at the very least 1 on-chain transaction for every human participant, to get money into one wallet that they control. But BTC barely manages 5 TPS and ETH maybe 20. This means that BTC would need about 115 days to add 50M new people onto the block chain, and ETH could manage it in a month - only to have 1 wallet with some amount of coins in it (of course, assuming nothing else whatsoever…
An L2 like zk-rollup - assuming the protocol is implemented correctly - has same security guarantees as Ethereum since the validity proof is posted to L1. Most of them include an escape hatch, a L1 function that lets users withdraw funds in a permissionless way.
Ethereum can certainly theoretically scale to millions of users and a far higher order of magnitude than VISA. It presents an open source, verifiable, and permissionless alternative with better programmability and cryptographic primitives. Regarding privacy: see zk proof based L2s such as Aztec.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currency exchange. P2P Lending. Money services.
But the problem is that it's not real currency and you can't do anything useful with it beyond trying to trade it to a bigger idiot.
Saying nobody wants ETH or USDC is like saying nobody wants AMZN or AAPL shares. What you really mean is that you are not interested in those assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US dollars are bits of paper you can exchange for stuff based on people's perception of their value. Cryptocurrency is virtual bits of paper that you can exchange for stuff based on people's perception of their value. There are some similarities there.
Actually not quite - dollars themselves are worth nothing, same way meters, or liters are worth nothing. They purely a convenience unit of measurement, so that a baker selling bread to a plumber doesn't first have to find flour mill that needs plumbing services to make the transaction. Crypto is by design made artificially scarce, largely because people don't understand the first point. This is also why no one beside…
The fact that the entire crypto market simply followed the public markets in the downturn, rather than being a haven for wealth that people flocked to for safety, means that "Crypto" is unambiguously just another speculative asset like Art (but worse).
Show me the IRL crypto party that rivals Art Basel. Speculation is one part of the art market, but at this point I really don’t think it’s as important as status. Plus, some of the art is really good as, you know, Art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get instant settlement of cash transfers in my country. No blockchain was required. Switching to blockchain isn't any easier than simply improving the existing system.
Really? Running open source software "isn't any easier" than convincing your government to overhaul their banking infrastructure?