631–640 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what circumstance could the banking system collapse but leave the electric grid and all other infrastructure which supports the internet intact?
Venezuela?
The original promise of crypto was lost a LONG time ago. Instead of being a true rival to FIAT, it became a thing with a toxic-as-hell commumity, fraud, and basically its nothing more than a high risk stock. The risk is NOT only "will this go up or down" but you have a high risk of being robbed, as have happened to millions of people. Maybe there will be a better alternative in the future, but right now bitcoin is no…
> its nothing more than a high risk stock Nothing more? Proof-Of-Work wasn't innovative? With fiat you have high risk of losing 50% of USD's purchasing value within 2 years, which already happened, and which is not far from being robbed, as have happened to millions of people too.
Invest in stocks and bonds to maintain purchasing power.
I worked at a crypto exchange and after I came to the conclusion that 99% of crypto was scams and rugpulls, I sold all my crypto and vowed to have nothing to do with it. It's more of a religion than a financial instrument and absolutely nothing has shown to me that crypto is anything more than a speculative gamble, basically tulips with the religious promise of a better world. The number of employees that lost money…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a difference between "Freedom to do something " and "Freedom to not have something happen to you ". If we keep curtailing the former to serve the latter, we will end up perfectly safe from interruptions, doing nothing at all(aside from what the government dictates as 'serving the common good')
There's no difference. You can't formulate that distinction coherently. What's the difference between having the freedom to walk the street and having the freedom to not be hindered from walking the street?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The risk is NOT only "will this go up or down" but you have a high risk of being robbed, as have happened to millions of people. Using a cryptocurrency (originally) meant basically opting out of the governmental violence-as-a-service for cryptocurrency/-token purposes and taking care of this aspect by yourself. Depending on your resourcefulness and lifestyle, this may mean - hiring personal security - being very ca…
It originally meant nothing. Bitcoin was a proof of concept, with some examples of things it could solve, but no actual ideological arc. Some people saw it as an opportunity to push for an ideological agenda because you can convince a lot of people that cryptocurrency is a silver bullet (it's not).
Wasn’t the first thing signed an article about the collapse of the banking system?
My question is, which real-world problem is actually solved by crypto? All I know is transferring money over the border gets much easier than pre-bitcoin era.
Other online payment methods (Visa, PayPal, Stripe, your bank's ACH, etc.) do. These policies start by disallowing illegal transactions (crime). Then they disallow unfair transactions (buyer claims not to like the quality of the item, etc.). Then they disallow immoral transactions (gambling, pornography, etc.). Then they disallow anything... unseemly? (2022 Freedom Convoy protests, Stripe briefly banning certain legal, non-adult LGBTQ+ transactions in 2025, etc.).
Is it a problem that your currency-transfer system enforces policy? Many people don't care, but to some, yes, it is a problem. They don't want PayPal telling them what they can and can't do with their hard-earned money, because that's the job of their government, their religion, and their conscience. They want their online cash to behave like offline cash.
If you were designing a system architecture for value transfer, would your low-level primitives throw policy exceptions, or would you delegate that responsibility higher in the system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's attached to the bill itself, not the owner or the wallet. If I give you a dollar bill with the serial number 100100, it's impossible for you to prove that bill came from me (unless you have forensic evidence of me giving it to you, of course - but that's equivalent to having photo evidence of me typing in my private key to a BTC wallet) . If you find a dollar bill on the street, it's now yours, you can't…
You don't have to transfer bitcoin. You can give someone private keys to the wallet and they can do anything they want with it. It would be exact equivalent of giving someone the bill
The original promise of crypto was lost a LONG time ago. Instead of being a true rival to FIAT, it became a thing with a toxic-as-hell commumity, fraud, and basically its nothing more than a high risk stock. The risk is NOT only "will this go up or down" but you have a high risk of being robbed, as have happened to millions of people. Maybe there will be a better alternative in the future, but right now bitcoin is no…
It was started as an alternative to fiat casino capitalism. It became an absurdist parody of fiat casino capitalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to that, crypto is also a gift from heaven for criminals who need to receive ransoms.
Not true by any means. Fiat is the tried and true way to commit crime. Having transcations on a ledger forever, works against your criminal take. You are just repeating.