Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

Post by shkkmo » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 4:04 PM UTC

eric_cc wrote: post #50

> For my part, I held LOL ouch. Selling prior to 2016 must sting. It makes sense that somebody who made this mistake would be bitter. This guys take of: > It has failed to be a useful currency, invented a new class of internet abuse, further enriched the rich, wasted staggering amounts of electricity, hastened climate change, ruined hundreds of otherwise promising projects, provided a climate for hundreds of scams to…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

cle wrote: post #54

reducesuffering wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA says "Hey! If you write a comment about this article online, disclose your stake in cryptocurrency." Otherwise I think we can safely ignore it. Stake: 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH

And what do we do if someone has a large stake? Ignore their arguments? Should we do the same if they have no stake and are criticizing it? How much stake is enough, given a particular argument, to consider it on its own merits and not reject it based on cui bono? If someone doesn't disclose their stake, should we assume the worst, the best, the average? What if they're lying? (I have no stake in anything crypto rela…

Post by eric_cc » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

knorker wrote: post #11

cies wrote: post #2

It's in it's infancy. In two decades we will know what it means to us as mankind. Cars were also dangerous, unregulated, expensive and excessively polluting. It got a lot better on all these points, and not all due to the cars: some of it was a mind shift that mankind had to make. Same will hold true for cryptocurrency.

But cars had value. They have value. They had value from day 1. Cryptocurrencies just don't. It's all smoke and mirrors, where everything would be better without the blockchain. Without irreversibility. Without everything about it. There are whole books about how terrible and useless it is. And please do what the article said: How much of your own money is dependent on you selling the lie of cryptocurrency or smart c…

Post by knorker » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

rjmunro wrote: post #42

yui43 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Basically the same bridge” is such a hilarious oversimplification that it makes your blame of the Federal Reserve even more amusing. No, absolutely no improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design in sixty years. No added overhead for environmental studies and other regulations. It’s all the Fed. Hacker News discussing economics is like arguing geopolitics with someone on peyote.

The thing is that "improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design" should make it cheaper, not more expensive. That's how it works in other industries. Although I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on the Fed. The same thing has happened in the UK and many other places.

Post by acdha » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

eric_cc wrote: post #57

shkkmo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not learn anything from that post, it mostly read as an advertisement for ETH and the linked websites. If you are going to toute the actual legitimate use cases for blockchain, please name at least one.

Not OP but the easiest one: De-Fi