271–280 of 396 posts
I disagree with this, it seems to me that if you follow author's logic you can call US dollar scam too - a lot of it's value is same thin air called "debt"?. The problem with argumentation and particulary with church comparison is that in order for something to be called scam, as per definition provided in the article, someone must be there who planned it, who gets all the profits. But crypto has no central entity, n…
Some would go far as to say all fiat currency is a total scam. "Fake money", as I think Robert T. Kiyosaki, author of "Rich Dad Poor Dad" describes it.
Do you also have high praise for the book he wrote with Donald J Trump about "Why We Want You to Be Rich?"
Who you choose to worship and parrot says so much about you and the quality of your advice and beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Want_You_to_Be_Rich
>The Intercept wrote critically of the book's advice, including the recommendation by Trump and Kiyosaki to invest in multi-level marketing companies, asserting instead that these are harmful pyramid schemes.[1] The Intercept contrasted assertions in the book with promises by Trump during his 2016 campaign for president, writing Trump's later views were contradictory with the work.[1] San Antonio Express-News was critical of the contradictory advice imparted in the book, writing, "Trump and Kiyosaki argued that because they were already rich, they had no need to make more money, all the while cashing in on the very books that said so."[8] The paper marveled at the reaction among consumers, "Fans responded to this kind of contradiction by praising both the authors' earlier financial success and their shrewdness in taking advantage of the new opportunity to sell."[8]
https://thecollegeinvestor.com/4726/ultimate-hypocrite-rober...
>The Ultimate Hypocrite: Robert Kiyosaki and His Company’s Bankruptcy
>A story came across the news this weekend about Robert Kiyosaki, the author of Rich Dad, Poor Dad, and how his company went bankrupt last month. Basically, the company didn’t pay the proper royalties on its seminars, and when they lost in court, they didn’t have enough money to pay at all. It wasn’t a personal bankruptcy, rather, a corporate bankruptcy. However, a corporation with money should be able to pay up for a minor royalty dispute (only $23 million compared to $400+ million in revenues). And when your name is attached to a company, and your business is built around creating wealth, the word bankruptcy associated with it usually isn’t a good thing.
>However minor you may consider it, I find it appalling as a personal finance writer. This guy made a living on selling “his story” and encouraging others to fork out tons of money to hear it. In the end, the story crumbles, and it just makes him a hypocrite.
https://www.theroot.com/the-rich-dad-poor-dad-guy-is-a-racis...
>The Rich Dad Poor Dad Guy Is a Racist, Idiot Trump Supporter So Please STFU About That Shitty Book Forever
>People who pray at this altar are specifically susceptible to the sort of symbiotic grift that has made Robert Kiyosaki a rich man.
>If you’ve never heard of Robert Kiyosaki or his Rich Dad Poor Dad empire of financial advice, I want you to stop reading this, I want you to get on your knees, and I want you to thank God for granting you such luck. You are blessed. You are highly favored. Unfortunately, many of us are not as fortunate, as this book exists in the curricula of Shit Frequently Cited by Douchebags Who Say Dumb Shit Like “I’ll Sleep When I Die” and “Rise and Grind” and “We Need Black-Owned Prisons.”
>If you ask someone to name their favorite reads, and they list this or The Art of War or The 48 Laws of Power, it’s a foolproof tell of a money-centered morality—a devotion based on the belief that people with money are better than those without it. Not wealthier or more privileged or provided more opportunity to live a better life, but inherently smarter, harder-working, less impulsive, and more trustworthy. It doesn’t matter how you got the money, or who you stole from (or killed) to have it. If you have it, you’re God.
>People who pray at this altar are specifically susceptible to the sort of symbiotic grift that has made Robert Kiyosaki a rich man. (Well, rich-ish.) He convinces you to buy a book with Fisher-Price financial advice, and then encourages you to spread the gospel of grift to others—which creates the sort of following that allows him to charge tens of thousands for Matryoshka doll-constructed seminars where he delivers gems like “invest in things” and “dimes are worth twice as much as nickels.”
[...Kiyosaki's ranting racist anti-vax pro-trump plannedemic conspiracy theory tweets redacted...]
>THIS IS YOUR FINANCIAL ADVICE KING??? This guy??? Darth Dale Carnegie is your money mentor??? This is the guy who Danny Ocean steals shit from in movies. I wouldn’t trust this man to crack an egg.
>If this information upsets you, and you find yourself in dire need of a new source for surefire financial advice, don’t fret! I got you! It even remixes Rich Dad Poor Dad. You ready for it? Ok, here it comes:
>1. Have a rich dad.
>Thank you for attending my seminar. That will be $17,000. I take Cash App and Venmo.
I don't really understand people trying to defend absurd positions like this. What's even the point? It doesn't seem like it's necessary for this to be true if you want to argue that crypto "should" be eliminated, all you need to do is argue that it's decisively more bad than good. When somebody makes weak arguments like this I'm just going to ignore their thoughts in the future because they've demonstrated that they…
"could genuinely work under certain circumstances" Ok I will be that guy. Not trolling. But after more than a decade, isn't it clear that crypto as a whole has failed to live upto the promise. The idea of decentralization is awesome but doesn't work in practice especially for payments. I am not necessarily dismissive of crypto but increasingly, it is becoming difficult to see any real practical applications. Almost e…
I disagree with this, it seems to me that if you follow author's logic you can call US dollar scam too - a lot of it's value is same thin air called "debt"?. The problem with argumentation and particulary with church comparison is that in order for something to be called scam, as per definition provided in the article, someone must be there who planned it, who gets all the profits. But crypto has no central entity, n…
Houses are not nothing. You don't just get into debt without anything on the other side
It shouldn't happen if you really don't get into debt without anything on the other side, yet, it happens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The killer app for crypto is "KYC-less" which usually means "I can evade taxes or sell illicit goods". Otherwise, real money is faster, more scalable, and more resilient to users making mistakes. Nothing I do is illegal; I pay my taxes; sometimes I make mistakes. Why would I ever want to use crypto over real money?
Didn't think I'd see a "I've got nothing to hide" argument on HN. Are you also against E2E messaging apps for the same reason? Being able to anonymously transfer value should be a fundamental right, as part of our fundamental right to privacy. In the past, cash could be used for that, but with society going increasingly cashless and some governments trying to make large cash transfers illegal, crypto is now the only…
It’s like saying money laundering should be a right or evading taxes should be a right.
Cash transactions and commerce has been regulated for most of human history, whether it’s been for tax collection purposes or to regulate certain types of transactions.
People who work in cash businesses have never had a right to anonymity. They’ve always had to report sales receipts and earnings so they can pay income, sales taxes or value added taxes.
If you want to buy things with cash, you can. If they don’t take paper currency, use a gift card.
Keep in mind, you’re on camera everywhere and your phone is always tracking you. Practically speaking, it’s very unlikely you’ve been anonymous for some time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The killer app for crypto is "KYC-less" which usually means "I can evade taxes or sell illicit goods". Otherwise, real money is faster, more scalable, and more resilient to users making mistakes. Nothing I do is illegal; I pay my taxes; sometimes I make mistakes. Why would I ever want to use crypto over real money?
Didn't think I'd see a "I've got nothing to hide" argument on HN. Are you also against E2E messaging apps for the same reason? Being able to anonymously transfer value should be a fundamental right, as part of our fundamental right to privacy. In the past, cash could be used for that, but with society going increasingly cashless and some governments trying to make large cash transfers illegal, crypto is now the only…
Why? That doesn't seem like that would produce good outcomes. It's not a 'fundamental right' to transfer unlimited amounts of money with no oversight.
Money is not speech. If you care at all about governments being able to function from taxes, financial regulation, and myriad other things, you don't want people to be able to anonymously transfer as much money as they want.
Even cash has regulations about reporting, especially over certain amounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin as practised is a Ponzi scheme (I say it's valued $5 and if you want to join my cool buddies you need to pay $5 and we paid $0, the next person needs to pay $10 and so on and the value disappears if we don't get new people to our cool clique). The way it works (place data in a file, distribute file to everyone, use cryptography to verify that data in file placed by $someone is valid) is great.
If Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, then fiat currencies are even worse. The central bank plainly admits a 2.5% inflation target. That means they capture all progress in technology that allows daily life to be cheaper, and on top of that dilutes the purchasing power a further 2.5% per year. Ever since the fiat system was implemented, the gap between the rich and poor has been increasing. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ Bitc…
Fiat wasn't mentioned here, unless you want to argue that I purposely specified US dollars - I did so because of easy numbers.
Just because one way of handling currency sucks, it doesn't mean it justifies crypto, which sucks but way worse (because it can be abused by entire population instead of several hundred governments).
> Bitcoin is one way to side-step this debasement.
It isn't. It's not being used for payments. People hold it (or, to be fully crypto-compatible - HODL).
Its network is slow, we all know it's 7 TPS.
It requires too much processing power.
And the list goes on.
It's being used as a Ponzi scheme, the difference between crypto and fiat is that regular mortals have access to scam too, not only the governments.
You didn't say a word about how the value is being added to BTC, but I guess that's what your fiat comparison was about. I'm sorry, but you sound like regular crypto-bro who doesn't actually grasp how things work but thinks they do.
I'd like to remind the readers that some people use crypto as a payment method and do not speculate. As far as I know there is no alternative with the same level of convinience that crypto provide (KYC-less and fast payments to anyone in the world with just one secret). Remember that next time you suggest something among the lines of "crypto should be made illegal".
The killer app for crypto is "KYC-less" which usually means "I can evade taxes or sell illicit goods". Otherwise, real money is faster, more scalable, and more resilient to users making mistakes. Nothing I do is illegal; I pay my taxes; sometimes I make mistakes. Why would I ever want to use crypto over real money?
Payment processors are currently a form of zero representation government that decides what businesses are allowed to exist online, and they frequently abuse this power. They can only by avoided by using crypto. This is the one big use case of crypto i see as important, really...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin is a useful mechanism for exchanging value, but NFTs have yet not shown any utility. The difference is that a currency only needs to solve scarcity and double spend, which blockchains accomplish, but ownership of property requires physical and/or legal protections, which they do not. Once you introduce an organization that enforces property rights there's no reason to use an expensive blockchain instead of a…
>...but ownership of property requires physical and/or legal protections, which they do not. This is not true for digital property. Digital property is just as "made up" as the NFT that proves its ownership. People hear "NFT" and for some inexplicable reason jump to physical art. If the network believes, by whatever consensus methods for proof of ownership that are employed by this network, that you own one coin then…