111–120 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The capped emission certainly encourages FOMO and speculation. A fixed block reward would still provide scarcity in the long term while strongly discouraging speculation [1]. [1] https://tromp.github.io/blog/2020/12/20/soft-supply
Doesn't seem like a hard cap when every BTC is almost infinitely divisible into smaller amounts of "satoshis".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As you can see this is an issue, it means that every bank has to have an account on every other bank in order to have funds moving around, and even keep liquidity there. I don't see how a stablecoin solves this. You still need all the actors involved to agree on the stablecoin, just like you'd need them to agree on any non-blockchain-based system. You added an extra step, namely going through this new currency, whi…
> And why do you expect the whole world to agree on a stablecoin-based solution if they can't or don't want to agree on a TARGET-like one? I didn't read anything about tm-guimaraes "expecting the whole world to agree on a stablecoin-based solution" and you didn't bother to quote him, if he did say it. In fact, multiple stable coins and quick arrangements between individual banks are a big part of the value provided b…
Why would that go faster than agreeing on existing currencies? If you want to go from, say, EUR to USD, going through more currencies just adds overhead. And again, why do you expect quicker arrangements when stablecoins are involved (and all the other elements still are)?
> two banks can agree and use a stable in no time at all
If they can (meaning they're also legally allowed to) agree to that, then they can agree to using their main currencies as well. Let's not pretend that EUR -> EUR-based stable currency -> USD-based stable currency -> USD is somehow simpler than EUR -> USD.
> the convenience and speed of stables is there for all to see
Where can we all see that? Which product has stablecoins as part of their implementation instead of as a marketing point? I gave examples above that seem to do what you both seem to argue stablecoins are good for, namely transferring money independently of currencies. AFAICT Wise does not use stablecoins, and I'm pretty sure they would if it could make things more efficient to reduce their fees while still increasing their margins. The fact that they don't and are still in business years after stablecoins have been out (and again, legal stablecoins traded by known actors could have existed before proof of work was created anyway) indicates that it's not the competitive advantage you think it is.
OP was talking about legal money and how banks could use stablecoins to improve their connectivity for legal money flows. Regulations are a given constraint for them, so the risk and lack of compliance you mention is actually a deal-breaker here.
I also fail to understand this notion of "unstable coin" to refer to currencies "stable coins" are pegged to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironic your name is "strawman" when you constructed one. And this has nothing to do whenever the tech is good or bad, this is literally about how "untraceable" tech will make it easier for criminals to turn the supporters into helpless victims. Since the irony is with your absolutist argument that it goes the other way too, if we have a proper surveillance state for instance there would be clear and obvious benefits…
Its a adhominem trap and you fell for it. None of the things I said was a strawman, your comments obviously implied if there even should be anonymous money which you doubled down here. >it's whenever or not it's worth having an anonymous currency given all the implications And I think it is worth the same way privacy or autonomy is worth the "risk". Maybe you should ask people in less safe and stable countries if the…
You created a strawman from a position I didn't imply or stated, since I was merely responding to your claim.
>And I think it is worth the same way privacy or autonomy is worth the "risk". Maybe you should ask people in less safe and stable countries if they trust there state with there money or people in unsafe environments auch as abuse victims, journalists, whistleblowers or activists.
What does "safe" and "stable" countries mean here? These aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples.
This is because "safe" can mean either free from violent crime then for instance China would be a better contestant than USA, or "safe" as in not being worried about being persecuted by individuals/the state, then USA is considered much safer although that has slipped with the current admin.
Same thing goes with "stable".
And it's fine to advocate for privacy due safety but you cannot proclaim there's no consequences of this and implying then that it's "better" because of this is naïve at best.
>"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Using that quote outside of the context it was meant to address is a bit cheesy.
>I'm talking about crypto where the word currency means something not speculative assets like with btc. And those i can assure you are doing better than ever regardless what opinion you or anybody else has because they are, by design, censorship and tyranny resistant. the hacker spirit.
And also extremely prone to support criminals/government seeking to destabilize/promote abuse and victims of said economic abuse/scams have far less protection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its a adhominem trap and you fell for it. None of the things I said was a strawman, your comments obviously implied if there even should be anonymous money which you doubled down here. >it's whenever or not it's worth having an anonymous currency given all the implications And I think it is worth the same way privacy or autonomy is worth the "risk". Maybe you should ask people in less safe and stable countries if the…
>Its a adhominem trap and you fell for it. None of the things I said was a strawman, your comments obviously implied if there even should be anonymous money which you doubled down here. You created a strawman from a position I didn't imply or stated, since I was merely responding to your claim. >And I think it is worth the same way privacy or autonomy is worth the "risk". Maybe you should ask people in less safe and…
I said privacy and anonymity is important to prevent bad people robbing people, you said that criminals can use it too, I said so can anything good too but is no argument against using them. You should look up what strawman actually means before using it as gotcha
>What does "safe" and "stable" countries mean here? These aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples.
Needing an example for bad coutries or environments existing??? You know what you are right there does not exist such countries, my bad it was just a strawman because we live in heaven on earth.
>And it's fine to advocate for privacy due safety but you cannot proclaim there's no consequences of this and implying then that it's "better" because of this is naïve at best.
Never said there wasn't. literally anything has consequences, i just choose freedom with "risks" above controlling tyranny that tracks, surveils and controls every transactions that claim safety.
>Using that quote outside of the context it was meant to address is a bit cheesy
It is very fitting against anti freedom and privacy rhetoric fueled by fear.
>And also extremely prone to support criminals/government seeking to destabilize/promote abuse and victims of said economic abuse/scams have far less protection.
And also extremely prone to support good individuals against these very same things and a lot more. Your fear mongering works in the other direction too. And to quote yourself "these aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples"
Banks are fortified and guarded for a reason. If you have money in bitcoin, it's only as secure as your person and whatever you use to access your crypto assets. If you had a million in gold, would you leave it on your desk? Walk around with it on the street? Your odds of getting to where you're going with the gold are pretty good in most places, but it's still a big risk. Brag about or show that gold off to somebody…
You can store your private keys encrypted in a safety deposit box. You can store 3 copies in 3 different banks. It only costs $15-30 per year per box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Its a adhominem trap and you fell for it. None of the things I said was a strawman, your comments obviously implied if there even should be anonymous money which you doubled down here. You created a strawman from a position I didn't imply or stated, since I was merely responding to your claim. >And I think it is worth the same way privacy or autonomy is worth the "risk". Maybe you should ask people in less safe and…
>You created a strawman from a position I didn't imply or stated, since I was merely responding to your claim. I said privacy and anonymity is important to prevent bad people robbing people, you said that criminals can use it too, I said so can anything good too but is no argument against using them. You should look up what strawman actually means before using it as gotcha >What does "safe" and "stable" countries mea…
Not at all what I said, I said criminals can ABUSE the anonymity others enjoy to make it easier for them to ensure their victims are helpless.
Hence why I pointed out why it's a strawman, my position was never about "criminals use it to fuel/wash their crimes" but that due to the very nature of crypto being private it also means it's easier for criminals to get away with robbing people who own crypto (did you even read the article?).
>Needing an example for bad coutries or environments existing??? You know what you are right there does not exist such countries, my bad it was just a strawman because we live in heaven on earth.
Yes definitions are important.
>Never said there wasn't. literally anything has consequences, i just choose freedom with "risks" above controlling tyranny that tracks, surveils and controls every transactions that claim safety.
Good, then you should be more aware of my point than acting out as if I am proposing something radically different to your idea of freedom.
>It is very fitting against anti freedom and privacy rhetoric fueled by fear.
Except that the context has nothing to do with freedom or privacy but taxation, and most measure that goes against freedom with certain exceptions are rarely born out of fear but paid in blood.
>And also extremely prone to support good individuals against these very same things and a lot more. Your fear mongering works in the other direction too. And to quote yourself "these aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples"
Which specific concerns would a good individual have about the traditional currency system that has plenty of laws (depending of course where you live, but let's assume in the west) protecting their assets both from illegal seizure and from theft, especially since they have a democratic right to vote in people to represent their interest in either weakening or strengthening laws that enhances privacy, protection and ownership of their assets?
What specific concern there does crypto solve?
If it is privacy to ensure the feds can't track that you bought a bad dragon dildo then absolute I 100% agree that is a valid point, but then you also need to owe up to that point and agree that any exploitation that comes from such anonymity will also be part of unfortunate reality of dealing with crypto.
Also please point out the so called "fear mongering" in my point? That I am arguing against your point? Quite bizarre Orwellian way of seeing a discussion.
Or again you are aware you're arguing in a discussion that is about an article detailing crimes being done mainly thanks weaponizing crypto's anonymity against the owner(s)?
>And to quote yourself "these aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples"
Such as the various rug pulls done by various crypto coins (latest being Trump + his wife), before that the various influencers and their memecoins (hawk tuah coin being just the latest), to this very article pointing out people being robbed and there's not much to be done about stopping the transaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can store your private keys encrypted in a safety deposit box. You can store 3 copies in 3 different banks. It only costs $15-30 per year per box.
That helps, but only so much due to the inherent lack of security. We’ve already seen cases where they hold a family member hostage demanding someone turn over the keys, and you’re not getting things like duress procedures for $15/year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That helps, but only so much due to the inherent lack of security. We’ve already seen cases where they hold a family member hostage demanding someone turn over the keys, and you’re not getting things like duress procedures for $15/year.
In case of kidnapping having your money in a bank won't help you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Decentralization (I have in mind something like Hyperliquid or even BTC) ensures that everybody in the world have access to the same economy without intermediaries asking for a fee. Which means, a person in Indian can access to income the same way a person in the US would. And do they? In practice? The theory is always sweet, but in practice once you take away "crime" and "hold to sell high" you'll be hard pressed…
> "Every time someone gets swindled out of their "deregulated, decentralized" money ... you have one more voice asking a centralized organization for protection, maybe with some regulation." Regulation is key, quality decentralized finance can only happen with quality regulation. Ditto for plain old centralized banking. My question is, why we don't have anything of reasonable quality? That lack is the reason fraudste…
Depends on the L1 that you use. If you think of BTC, yeah, fee could be high (not if you are sending 1M), if you think of a proof-of-stake L1 then not much. Also depends on the TPS. Again; thinking about Hyperliquid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell third-world countries that centralization is good :) Centralization could be good, sometimes (if it works idk). The problem is that the financial world has been monopolized by certain entities and the barrier of entry is enormous. It is never fair to not play by the same rules when regulation favors big institutions, etc... Access to credit is difficult sometimes and unfair. But that is just a reason you could g…
> Decentralization (I have in mind something like Hyperliquid or even BTC) ensures that everybody in the world have access to the same economy without intermediaries asking for a fee. Which means, a person in Indian can access to income the same way a person in the US would. And do they? In practice? The theory is always sweet, but in practice once you take away "crime" and "hold to sell high" you'll be hard pressed…
Yes, they have access to the same economy.
> you have one more voice asking a centralized organization for protection, maybe with some regulation
I don't want regulation, thanks. Just have backups or smth. Only looking for governments to not ban it in order to allow users to convert their BTCs to fiat currency. But that is already kinda in place, because old school investors are asking for it.
> Ask that person in India if they're eager to "access to income the same way a person in the US would" (whatever that means)
It means that they can also earn a 100K salary in USD, thus not being affected by inflation