71–80 of 121 posts
Bitcoins are clearly negative sum game (resources used, GPUs burned, CO2 emitted, money changed hands). Wish we could do less of it.
His "fortune" is mostly ownership of Binance which is now under the thumb of the US government. If—as widely theorized—Binance's secret ingredient is crime then it's not going to be worth what it once was.
I'm pretty sure that he also has personal BTC stash. Maybe not billions though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do we need a so-called decentralized currency anyway? I'd be less antagonistic if its major use case wasn't money laundering.
Capital controls are becoming more and more erratic and authoritarian. A decentralized currency provides a relief valve.
As recently as 1989, most of the world's currencies were tightly controlled and exchange rates were fixed. In many countries like the Soviet Union, you were not even allowed to bring local cash outside of the country at risk of high penalties. Sending an international wire transfer was a multi-day operation that probably involved telex messages and several phone calls.
Today you can send money instantly across the European continent in a single currency at essentially zero cost. The USA is also catching up and finally bringing their banks to the 21st century with Fedwire. Everybody has multiple credit cards and uses them for online shopping across the world. Any physical product you might imagine can be ordered from China with a one-click digital payment.
None of these improvements were thanks to Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency.
Bitcoins are clearly negative sum game (resources used, GPUs burned, CO2 emitted, money changed hands). Wish we could do less of it.
I’m just curious - if you were to try making a decentralized currency as a fun project, what mechanism would you use instead? I’m someone who doesn’t really use it, but was fascinated with it before “blockchain” became a buzzword. edit: proof-of-work. I have been out of the loop for years :) My next question is are there downsides to proof-of-stake, and why has bitcoin not moved towards it?
If it is based on proof-of-work it needs to be something useful.
If someone can prove proof-of-work won't work without wasted work then we need to make some sacrifices to make it workable. Because we cannot allow slow as molasses and/or extremely wasteful for all future.
If it is based on proof-of-stake there needs to be a fair distribution model.
I have some ideas for both, especially the first but I want to give them some more thought :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is more of consequence resulting from lower transaction costs, rather than an economic externality. That said, I understand the definitions of externality is changing in popular usage.
> that is more of consequence resulting from lower transaction costs, rather than an economic externality An externality is "an indirect cost or benefit to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of another party's (or parties') activity" [1]. If Visa reduced its fees, the merchant's additional profit is an externality. > understand the definitions of externality is changing in popular usage Third-party ec…
Wikipedia doesn't go too deep into when externality analysis is appropriate or useful, but hints at this in the following sentence to the one you quoted.
>Externalities can be considered as unpriced components that are involved in either consumer or producer market transactions
Something like the advent of centralized currency isnt a priced good or action, so it doesnt make sense to say it has a positive externality (e.g the transaction price of "centralized currency adoption" is not a priced object).
This is why it is more appropriate to say something like the advent of centralized currency has consequences instead.
Regarding the Visa example, the merchant isn't a uninvolved 3rd party, so the profit is not an externality. Value on the table during an economic exchange is not an externality. Similarly, the value created or lost for each interacting party is not an externality.
One more thoughts on common externality misconception.
The general connotation is that externalities describe pricing failure and market failure (e.g. pollution). The usefulness externality analysis breaks down quickly when you move from realized external costs or benefits to opportunity costs or benefits.
If a $1 pill saves a worker's life, is the value that person generates over the remainder of their life an externality. Technically yes. If you sell them a pill again a year later, the same is true. That doesnt mean the pill is priced incorrectly.
This illustrates how externalities can be duplicative and should not be confused with pricing errors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that is more of consequence resulting from lower transaction costs, rather than an economic externality An externality is "an indirect cost or benefit to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of another party's (or parties') activity" [1]. If Visa reduced its fees, the merchant's additional profit is an externality. > understand the definitions of externality is changing in popular usage Third-party ec…
As I see it, I think the distinction between consequences and externalities is that externalities are applied to cost and pricing, but not concepts. Wikipedia doesn't go too deep into when externality analysis is appropriate or useful, but hints at this in the following sentence to the one you quoted. >Externalities can be considered as unpriced components that are involved in either consumer or producer market trans…
Of course it is. Joining a currency union carries costs.
Broadly speaking, you're correct: the term has ambiguous meaning. My point is that isn't something new, but an element that has always been with the term.
Bitcoins are clearly negative sum game (resources used, GPUs burned, CO2 emitted, money changed hands). Wish we could do less of it.
I’m just curious - if you were to try making a decentralized currency as a fun project, what mechanism would you use instead? I’m someone who doesn’t really use it, but was fascinated with it before “blockchain” became a buzzword. edit: proof-of-work. I have been out of the loop for years :) My next question is are there downsides to proof-of-stake, and why has bitcoin not moved towards it?
Bitcoin has not moved to it, because arguably the new system would not be Bitcoin any more. It's a coordination problem where you have to get most users (including centralized exchanges) to stop following the PoW chain and start respecting the PoS chain, but they will only do that if they believe everybody else will. Ethereum was able to pull that off because Ethereum foundation and Vitalik (its creator) announcing and implementing, and practicing the switch many times, has a lot of weight. (And then still, some miners remained, but that chain is now known by a different name and not generally known as "Ethereum".) Bitcoin is a lot less coordinated in that sense, even less invasive changes to the protocol are difficult to pull off.
Bitcoins are clearly negative sum game (resources used, GPUs burned, CO2 emitted, money changed hands). Wish we could do less of it.
I’m just curious - if you were to try making a decentralized currency as a fun project, what mechanism would you use instead? I’m someone who doesn’t really use it, but was fascinated with it before “blockchain” became a buzzword. edit: proof-of-work. I have been out of the loop for years :) My next question is are there downsides to proof-of-stake, and why has bitcoin not moved towards it?