331–340 of 630 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather that happen to my country's wealth than have it bombed out of existence.
Seems like a non sequitur and moreover a false dilemma.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation I'm extremely confused by this argument that I see again and again. If you want to avoid your assets losing value to inflation that you can buy assets that are resistant to inflation, such as stocks, real estate, land, gold, inflation-adjusted bonds ... I just don't see that cryptocurrencies are particularly useful f…
A)I don’t have $150k+ To just go invest in land or real estate that I’m not going to reside in. B)Are stocks and bonds inflation resistant if they are priced in the inflating currency? Not just normal year over year inflation but the type of inflation that happens when you debase a currency. Regardless, I already own these, the first rule of investing is diversification. C)gold is inflation resistant and tangible so…
Then I doubt that inflation should be much of a concern to you. Just make sure that other income you clearly depend on is adjusted to inflation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> switching to Proof Of Stake would solve almost all bitcoin problems This will also create a very severe problem: it makes it so the means of coin production exist solely in the hands of the coin owners today. Those coin owners won't ever sell you enough coins for you to be a competitive staker. At least with PoW, I can make more coins through extrinsic means -- i.e. better mining hardware.
I've contemplated the idea of a coin that has a single wallet per person (sybil-proof identities must be implemented), these wallets have a max-limit of 1 billion coins, and coins are minted/staked and applied randomly to the lowest 5%, maybe it'd have a use-it-or-lose-it thing built in as well, where if you just sit on your coins and never have any transactions occur it just assumes you might be a "dead" account and…
I stopped reading at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't the case, but believe what you want.
I mean, if you'd like to see some academic research backing up that it is indeed the case, see here: https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/32/5/1798/5427... "We find that approximately one-quarter of bitcoin users are involved in illegal activity. We estimate that around $76 billion of illegal activity per year involve bitcoin (46% of bitcoin transactions), which is close to the scale of the U.S. and European…
I don't think that is the same as "mindless speculation," which is what you said before.
Michael Saylor, who is the CEO of an S&P 600 company, makes a good case for bitcoin as a store of wealth. You can google him and see his arguments if you want.
Also, BTW, money laundering != illegal drug activity. Those are two different crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if you'd like to see some academic research backing up that it is indeed the case, see here: https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/32/5/1798/5427... "We find that approximately one-quarter of bitcoin users are involved in illegal activity. We estimate that around $76 billion of illegal activity per year involve bitcoin (46% of bitcoin transactions), which is close to the scale of the U.S. and European…
I do think it's currently mainly used as an investment vehicle. I don't think that is the same as "mindless speculation," which is what you said before. Michael Saylor, who is the CEO of an S&P 600 company, makes a good case for bitcoin as a store of wealth. You can google him and see his arguments if you want. Also, BTW, money laundering != illegal drug activity. Those are two different crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a non sequitur and moreover a false dilemma.
If the choice is between having my country's wealth destroyed by military invasion, versus being destroyed by someone mining blocks somewhere, I'd take the latter. You asked, not me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a non sequitur and moreover a false dilemma.
If the choice is between having my country's wealth destroyed by military invasion, versus being destroyed by someone mining blocks somewhere, I'd take the latter. You asked, not me.
This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control. The article then proposes to use the law to bring those people back within the control of fiat and government oversight. I no longer think the environmental argument is really plausible here. Clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. But the competition is fiat; backed…
https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/the-guns-of-bitcoin-1f77930...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really believe real estate should be an investment, rather than a place to live?
I absolutely do think it should be an investment and I think treating housing like an investment has substantially increased the quality of housing. A great deal of advances in materials, construction, electrical work, plumbing, you name it... is because housing is treated like an investment and people are willing to spend money to keep their asset in top shape. Furthermore I believe that investing in real estate pro…
I think this is treated differently in different cultures. In Germany, while there is a real-estate as investment market, many people don't (expect to) move much during their lifetime. They buy their home ('Eigenheim') essentially for life (sans the tail end in a nursing home). Still many put a lot of time and money into those houses they don't expect to sell. It's a quality-of-life thing (and some bragging rights). You can (and some do) spend easily a fortune on a kitchen alone. You even find more than one kind of light switch there.
So I'm not quite convinced that real-estate as investment is necessary to drive housing quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the competition is fiat; backed by fighter jets and nukes; literally. How is it that someone can't steal your money? The bank makes sure. How is it the bank can be sure? The cops protect them. How is it the cops aren't overwhelmed? The military protects them. At first glance, I find this an interesting take and it makes me rethink some things. But I don't think I find it very convincing, or at least it's too ex…
To build a factory to perfectly counterfeit US dollar bills costs a few million dollars. It's certainly within technical abilities of Russia or North Korea. The only thing that stops them building such factory is American nukes.