501–510 of 515 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just send it through a mixer beforehand. Also securing information is possible on the blockchain, Monero does it.
But we already have "mixers" for normal money. It's called "money laundering". I can't imagine "mixing" remaining legal for much longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First: I guess you guys are talking about mining pools, not miners. Second: so long as there's one single mining pool that is not colluding, then any censorship attempt is going to be moot. You would need to have, not just 51% of mining-pool collusion, you need 100%! Third: even if you had 100% collusion, this "problem" is actually being solved with technology, it's called Stratum V2 protocol. Stay tuned. Last but no…
What we are talking about is something that already happened: the DAO rollback. So, it’s impossible? I’m really not surprised this level of ignorance exists in crypto fandom.
Now, if you're suggesting one-off cases like this are the counter-argument for the censorship argument, I'll bring you the bad news: this has never happened on chains that are not shitcoins, e.g. bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meth/other drugs in general being purchasable via Bitcoin has value though. You and I might not find that useful or moral, but we shouldn’t pretend the drug market is a small or insignificant one either.
Right but if that's all it can be used for, it will eventually settle into a value below its equivalent dollar amount. That is, the amount of bitcoin you'll get for $100 will buy some fraction of the meth that $100 will buy. It will probably be close to 1:1 but that discount rate will be the only actually important question. The limited utility will function as a capital control, so it will be like Bahamian dollars.
That I agree with actually! Part of its utility in being used for drug purchases comes from the other uses for BTC meaning that theres liquidity. Without that, it's still useful for black market transcations, but less useful than it is today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we are talking about is something that already happened: the DAO rollback. So, it’s impossible? I’m really not surprised this level of ignorance exists in crypto fandom.
If the DAO rollback had been a successful attempt at censorship (e.g. 100% collusion of miners), then there would have not been a chain-split, but there was one, and as a result of that, both ETC and ETH exist today. Now, if you're suggesting one-off cases like this are the counter-argument for the censorship argument, I'll bring you the bad news: this has never happened on chains that are not shitcoins, e.g. bitcoin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue I have with the argument is that you can apply it to anything. The fact that Bernie Madoff pulled off a ponzi scheme for years and the fact that "The Lindy effect works until it doesn't" isn't a specific critique of Bitcoin.
The Lindy Effect is meant to describe things like buildings and cities, that generally you don't have an outside risk to consider that the whole time they might've been a fraud or illegal. We don't really need to worry that The Great Pyramids have been a hologram all this time. We don't need to worry that the US is going to make The Great Pyramids illegal (I mean, anything can happen, but it's a much smaller chance t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think I have been wrong? Like I said, the ability to actually buy stuff with Bitcoin is in decline. I'd change my mind if I saw evidence of increasing Bitcoin adoption in the real economy. Based on what evidence exactly? Consider that an entire nation state has since adopted it as its national currency, along the USD in the last 3 years; that means it works in parallel with the USD. Not to mention that merc…
You’re doing the ignorant a favor for no real gain. Bitcoin adoption will continue. Bitcoin’s progress remains unstoppable. No amount of downvotes can stop it. And the next giant leap in buying power will just make the anger and denial stronger here - a classic case of cognitive dissonance.
Why exclude Bitcoin in all of this? is it unlike other cryptos in it's 'unknown ICO'? What makes bitcoin a commodity, vs. Solana, Cardano and Polygon being securtys. Is it the distribution of tokens, method of ICO, tech stack?
Snowden showed us the US gov has complete worldwide monitoring, so there's no way they don't know who satoshi is/ was/ were... There's some unknown POI, with $56B and you don't think the CIA and FBI aren't extremely concerned about that person. People always pointed towards bitcoin as being used for 'Money laundering' but its the perfect honey-pot. It's not private, it's completely public and i can tell exactly where and how you interact with the chain. So many idiots think, 'bitcoin's private! let's launder money through it in a super stupid way that still hits all the KYC flags. Oh, your wallet uses tornado cash wash? all incoming and outcoming wallets are now flagged.
Why didn't the US ban Bitcoin out the gate?
It's not like they US doesn't have presidence here. They shut down and put in jail previous creators of 'internet money'.
China (Who also has world-wide monitoring) was also extremely fast in noticing it. in 2013 with a market cap of 1.3b, they banned it while the US was completely apathetic.
BTC was created by the CIA. There, i said it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But then you have to explain why gift cards are worth something gift cards are vouchers You pay $30 to the store so that someone else can spend the $30 in that store. It's a certificate, not a currency, not a store of value.
its a loan to the card issuer
It works the same way as lending the money directly to a person, gift cards are simply more convenient to handle and are safer than cash, but other than that it's just a gift in the form of cash, no matter how many intermediaries are between the sender and the receiver, the input and the output will always match exactly.
If, for example, I give my friend Alex $20 to buy something for his little daughter but Alex uses it to bet on a football match and loses it, Alex has to take some money from his pocket and then buy the gift with his own money. Which is not different than saying he spent his money on the bet and bought the gift with the money I gave him.
If otherwise Alex wins, he will still buy the gift, but he will also have increased the initial sum by an x% which he can keep (or maybe try his luck again)
Buying a gift card is the same process, the company holding the money at one point has to give back something of the same exact value, it doesn't matter what they do with the money in between, what matters to the sender and the receiver is that the amount printed on the card is fully available at the check out (which is just lik getting the amount in cash and then paying with that)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's not a scale at which acyclic preferences is a good approximation of what actually happens, so that's not really a good comparison. But even given that, structural engineers use nonlinear models that are more complicated than Newtonian physics, whereas economists say "math is too difficult so we'll use a simplifying but false set of assumptions"
Apparently I choose a great example then! There are a lot of examples where the assumptions, especially this one, of microeconomics hold. Profit-maximizing corporations don't have cyclic desires. In many cases, people don't have cyclic desires (e.g. in the flavor of the soda they want). Microeconomics starts with those, much as becoming a structural engineer requires understanding the basics of Newtonian physics. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we are talking about is something that already happened: the DAO rollback. So, it’s impossible? I’m really not surprised this level of ignorance exists in crypto fandom.
If the DAO rollback had been a successful attempt at censorship (e.g. 100% collusion of miners), then there would have not been a chain-split, but there was one, and as a result of that, both ETC and ETH exist today. Now, if you're suggesting one-off cases like this are the counter-argument for the censorship argument, I'll bring you the bad news: this has never happened on chains that are not shitcoins, e.g. bitcoin…