To which people are you referring who needs to be financially aware? There are all kinds of people in any given country... so I take it that you are referring to the El Salvadorean people as being too financial unaware.
This is the trap many people from richer countries fall into, just because a country is poor doesn’t mean the population there is financially unaware. It’s probably not so much different from rich countries, where most people there are completely financially illiterate and have no clue of what’s going on. There are financial literate and talented people everywhere. People from poorer countries with weak currencies might even understand concepts like hard money much better than any westerner. It’s still cringe how most people there are completely ignorant and basically just repeat what some low quality mainstream media channel tells them about Bitcoin, with journalists that aren’t even qualified to try to form other peoples opinions on scientific topics. Let’s not confuse easiness of making a living with financial literacy. Throw average people from rich countries, in countries with bad living conditions and they will barely make a living too. It’s 10 times harder to build something in a poorer country than a rich one, purchasing power is lower, there might not even be minimum wages, or they’re really low. So it’s harder to even build businesses or get good jobs. Laws might not even protect property like in richer countries and what you have built can be wiped out, without you being at fault. Much less opportunities than in bigger countries overall. Even their remittances got almost completely eaten by banks. It’s not like the world economy is helping poorer countries in any way. It takes the a whole lot of fundamental work to build countries up in a prosperous way, it doesn’t have so much to do about financial literacy of individuals. Idk if Bukele will succeed, it’s a task one man can’t do alone with only limited time in office, but he did some right things atleast. Fuck crypto... El Salvador is bitcoin-focused.. so what the fuck does crypto have to do with anything? Are you sure that you are in the right thread?
For me this is a good example of being financially unaware. Crypto isn’t a saviour for everything and them staying out of it would be a sign of being financially literate. Shitcoins are mostly bought by beginners that are financially unaware, or experienced people that know how cash out. It’s always a dangerous game that is about making money and not about providing something long-term, shitcoins embody the fiat mindset but on cocaine. Whoever thinks crypto will fix poor countries is blinded by a hype. Compare the average shitcoiner thread with the average Bitcoin thread and the difference is huge. These people won’t fix the world, they wouldn’t even have the ability to. And not everyone will be rich by simply holding a shitcoin, this utopia won’t happen either. Economics doesn’t even work like this, resources are limited no matter how many shitcoins are printed. |
|
|
|
You don't get it, do you? The system prevents information from being changed. It doesn't check whether information is true or false. False information is something that doesn't correspond to reality. You can put the following information on blockchain: "1+1=5", and in that way prevent it from being changed. But that doesn't mean one plus one equals five. It's false information.
Exactly, that’s why Blockchain alone is not a solution to every problem, like shitcoiners want to make it seem. But in Bitcoins case all information that is necessary to verify the information exists inside the system itself. It’s based on digital signatures. For a transaction: - You need a hash of the previous transaction(this shows how you got the coins).
- You need the public key of the next person you want to transfer it to.
- A digital signature of the two previous points, which proves you’re the owner of the coins, this can’t be faked it needs your private key, you can only have the correct private key if you were the previous owner of the coins. That’s why you need to secure your private keys, because it serves as a proof of ownership.
It’s impossible to even transact with false information like this. You can’t try to spend other peoples coins or spend coins you don’t have, or write any bs information you want inside the Bitcoin Blockchain. So then only the double spend problems remained, but full nodes/ miners validate new transactions before they get taken into a Block. Only utxos can be spent. Invalid blocks are rejected. Only objectively valid transactions are taken into new blocks. When there’s conflicting transactions the one broadcasted first is considered valid. For this you have a timestamp server that relies on PoW. This was the first time this problem was solved in a decentralized, trustless way, Bitcoins validity is ensured objectively. It’s checked wether information is true or false. When there’s the nft bs and other things that shitcoiners want to sell as solutions, then blockchain isn’t the solution. As it can’t verify information that is outside the system. Like art, real estate, medical records etc. As you can simply add in false information and there’s no fully objective way of verifying it. And like you rightly stated it doesn’t matter if false information can’t be changed, but on centralized blockchains not even that is certain. So there a blockchain wouldn’t be different from a centralized database as both need trust to work. It continues to be a pretty vacuous claim to be asserting that bitcoin is like that - even though for sure concededly, bitcoin's value would plummet greatly if 80% or more lost confidence in it.
Bitcoin has hodl rates of like 65%+, im not sure how many assets even reach this territory. Anyone who thinks this is a ponzi is clueless about what other assets are actually based on. |
|
|
|
There's one problem with your rant about information. You missed out something that is called "fake information". This is when someone tells or writes something that is not true.
That’s what Blockchain, Proof-of-Work and Nodes are for, to prevent any false information from entering. The longest/ most worked chain is the global we truth we all agree upon, because it’s able to outpace attackers. That is because it’s unlikely that 1 entity can gather as much hashing power as a whole network of honest miners, that get paid for their work and have economic incentives to stay honest. It’s just unlikely that a small entity can gather enough resources to outpace all of them. We have a really strong basis to assume that the transaction history is correct and is actually how it happened. This proved itself in practice too, so we’re here over a decade later with a correct transaction history and state of the blockchain, that was actually done without needing trust and a central entity to tell us what the truth is. That is actually backed by many scientific concepts that were used together in a clever way. With traditional databases you don’t have this, you need a central authority to tell everyone what the „truth“ is, this information can be faked and is purely based on trust. You can change any traditional database in any way, in the moment or later on, they’re not append-only nor do they have any mechanism to preserve truth. And they’re not even open to the public. There will be no single way to prove the transaction history of a bank in 20 years from now is correct/ still exists, just like you can’t prove now, which transactions banks did 20 years ago. Nor will you ever have access to this information. The later we go back in time the harder it will be to get any data and the correct ledger state is just lost. With Bitcoin it’s preserved forever as long as the network is running and the incentives work, you can recover your money even in 100 years from now, if you have access to your keys. Your family will be able to access this money even 100 years now, unheard of of any bank. They can’t even preserve a financial system this long. Nakamoto's software writes down something that is not true. It writes down that people have a specific amount of a digital resource called bitcoin. But that's a lie. It's fake information. For example, let's take a person with the number 0.001 and a person with the number 1,000 written next to their addresses. If those numbers were actually true, if they were representing the amount of some digital resource, then the second person should be able show 100,000 times more digital bits in their possession, than the first person. Because, all digital resources are composed of digital bits - 0 and 1. And they occupy memory space. Yet, there's no 100,000 times bigger memory space reserved for the second person, occupied with digital bits. Both persons have only numbers attributed to the addresses. Numbers that occupy nearly the same memory space. Hence, there is no digital resource called bitcoin. Nakamoto's software is writing lies to your online addresses. You're simply the participants in a Ponzi scheme that uses the bait of non-existent bitcoins to lure people in. No amount of rants can change that fact.
Go educate yourself how Bitcoin operates and manages money. Or you can repeat the same stupidity. I don't even read your responses anymore. |
|
|
|
What information are you fantasizing about? Of course that information is a resource. If you have some nasty discovery about the president Biden or some publicly important person this can be very valuable information.
Lmao it’s not some gossip that he’s talking about. Everything in life comes down to information, that is the base layer for everything. It is the most essential resource of any of them, and being able to study and use information is a big factor of what made humanity the dominant species on earth. Your DNA carries genetic information. It decides how your organism is built and maintained. If you’re sick or healthy. That allows organism to have evolution. This information can be used or changed. For example in forensics to catch criminals, to do paternity tests etc. Dna is even used in computer science as a storage device, that’s what’s being researched currently. DNA digital data storage is the process of encoding and decoding binary data to and from synthesized strands of DNA.[1][2]
While DNA as a storage medium has enormous potential because of its high storage density, its practical use is currently severely limited because of its high cost and very slow read and write times.[3]
In June 2019, scientists reported that all 16 GB of text from Wikipedia's English-language version have been encoded into synthetic DNA.[4] In 2021, scientists reported that a custom DNA data writer had been developed that was capable of writing data into DNA at 18 Mbps.[5]
Davos Bitcoin Challenge
On January 21, 2015, Nick Goldman from the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI), one of the original authors of the 2013 Nature paper,[19] announced the Davos Bitcoin Challenge at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos.[34][35] During his presentation, DNA tubes were handed out to the audience, with the message that each tube contained the private key of exactly one bitcoin, all coded in DNA. The first one to sequence and decode the DNA could claim the bitcoin and win the challenge. The challenge was set for three years and would close if nobody claimed the prize before January 21, 2018.[35]
Almost three years later on January 19, 2018, the EBI announced that a Belgian PhD student, Sander Wuyts, of the University of Antwerp and Vrije Universiteit Brussel, was the first one to complete the challenge.[36][37] Next to the instructions on how to claim the bitcoin (stored as a plain text and PDF file), the logo of the EBI, the logo of the company that printed the DNA (CustomArray), and a sketch of James Joyce were retrieved from the DNA.[38].
Do you understand that computer science isn’t detached from reality slowly? The whole world around us is made by information. It can be expressed by chemistry, math and physics. Each object is made up in some unique way, that decide it’s properties. How would you express the speed of light without math? Many discoveries would have never been possible if people didn’t express themselves in math. And if you don’t understand why the speed of light is important for society, you won’t be able to understand many other concepts too(in your case). Because your way of thinking has already many deficits. Even language is basically the transmission of information. There are no universal laws behind it, it’s unprecise just made up by the imagination of humans and yet it works. We have a huge advantage over other living beings, because our language is precise enough to allow for complex communication. We’re thousands of kilometres away from each other and yet can still communicate. Something other living beings can’t. We can even still read writings of long dead people, their information is the only thing that survives. This is made possible by language. Math would be a kind of precise universal language and this is the basis computers use. Societies are formed on the basis of information. We create laws, ideas, etc. Money is used as a tool to distribute resources in these societies. Once you realise that there are certain properties that determine what makes good and bad money, it’s not the way of transmission of these resources that decide it. We used metal before, then paper, now digital systems. The properties of physical objects like paper or metal are not fitting enough to form a resistant kind of money, the information they’re transmitting can be forged with, and in golds case the physical properties limit how well you can transmit that information(lack of divisibility etc), which makes it a worse form of money. But we can form information precisely trough computer science and programming languages. This allows for the creation of a money that perfectly fills out the desirable properties and is stored in a way that is safe from manipulation. The constraints of using something like paper and metal, that are made up by the physical world, are overcome like this. They weren’t made to be money in the first place, we repurposed these things to be used as money. Trough math we can precisely dictate the properties of a digital kind of money, that can perfectly fill out the properties we need. The result is Bitcoin. We didn’t repurpose something physical in an inefficient way, but created the best form of money that is currently possible from scratch. This is a tailor made solution. Society will be able to work better with unforged and higher quality information, than the constantly manipulated low quality mess we used before. But by entering in Nakamoto's scheme you bought no information. The system simply attributed a number to your address. A number that supposedly represent the amount of tokens or coins. But you're not even able to show those coins. Because they don't exist. They're simply a bait to lure people in a Ponzi scheme. All Ponzi schemes, from the one invented by Charles Ponzi to the one invented by Bernie Madoff, had some kind of bait to lure people in. Generally, the bait was business that generates big returns. In reality however no business existed. Which is why the returns to existing investors could only be generated from the resources contributed by new investors. What Satoshi Nakamoto did, is simply change the bait. Instead of business that generates big returns, Nakamoto used the bait of digital money that generates fast and secure transactions. However, neither money nor transactions exist in reality. And all those that took the bait and invested in Nakamoto's Ponzi scheme, are able to return their investments only from resources contributed by new investors. Admit finally that you're participating in a Ponzi scheme and want to make some money out of it. But please, stop with the stupidity and fantasies about some information or coins or magical money. They don't exist. You look like a religious nutcase trying to convincing me they do.
Go educate yourself how Bitcoin operates and manages money. Or you can repeat the same stupidity. I don't even read your responses anymore. |
|
|
|
I don't know how to verify gold exactly without melting it down.. and then there are problems with melting it down for sure.. so it ends up going back to trust with the various stamps on the gold and from where the pieces came.. so then if they are getting exchanged a lot (because these are stamped pieces, that does not seem to be very divisible).
The ONE BIG problem with verifiability is not just on its own as the only problem because it then overlaps with the various other traits.. even if we could have various sizes of verified gold (would that even be practical?)..
There’s more to that. Gold coins given out by governments can simply be debased or ultimately abandoned, if they become tired of hard money. You will likely need some mint they choose. Also in a gold standard their reserves can start to get depleted by foreign countries etc, because they have to make bills redeemable. It’s just a whole complicated mess again that failed for a reason. It won’t protect individuals like Bitcoin, that’s for sure. To add to the verifiability problem: there’s gold bars with some protective packaging that should serve as a certificate for being real, but they can easily be faked and also then you have to trust the mint even more, as you won’t even be able to touch it anymore. So it’s a double mess. Bitcoin solves so many of those gold problems all at once.. so why even fuck around with gold.. unless the Armageddon hits. and even then.. i question the practicality of preparing for Armageddon.. even though it has begun to seem way more likely that Armageddon could come since early 2020 as compared to its seemingly lower odds of coming prior to our revelations about the levels of pure vacuousness and precariousness of the world since early 2020.
I doubt that in an armageddon gold makes a difference. You can’t eat or drink it and so can’t other people. Running around with a lot of gold would also be heavy, dangerous and a waste, when you’re on the hunt for real resources. You can only realistically make a few payments cuz u can’t divide it. And resources like food, water, weapons will probably be trading for a lot more. In nature your best bet is having a group, not some metal. |
|
|
|
Snowshow is the only adult in the room and some respondents here put their immaturity on full display.
Buy more electronic digits and convince yourself there is no stopping the B-train.
This old Spanish saying couldn't be more fitting: "alábate pollo que mañana te guisan"
If you’re anti fiat and anti Bitcoin, you can only be a gold bug. This form of money already failed in practice and it’s foolish to try the same thing over and over again, and expecting something to change. My offer: let’s meet here again in exactly 10 years and then talk about Bitcoin again. I’ll set a reminder. After 24 years in operation then, any fud about a decentralised digital system not being durable enough, should be put into fairytale territory then. |
|
|
|
My point is I think a lot of people don’t realize this. I see a lot of protests against governments for the sake of protest. Bitcoin is also used a lot as a ‘the people will take over’ argument. Biggest shouters are often the ones that depend the most on them.
True af, they might also be shouting for something they dont really understand. Just having no rules wont better their position. We need some kind of balance indeed, and im fully convinced that people are the strongest when they actually work together, not if we just abolish everything just for the sake of decentralization. This is the trap many people fall into, just because one thing is successful, theyre trying to apply its properties to everything, even tho it may not be fitting. I think if we can improve the financial system and make it sane again, much of the political radicality will be reduced, as people will be more busy with their lifes again and building something nice, because it will actually be possible for many people again. Everything tends to get politicized when people are struggling with their well being, we saw this in the 30s in europe etc. Thats why im also deeply disappointed by the economists in charge, they know this and yet just ignore it for whatever reason. I would expect them to take some responsibility, as theyre the ones that can prevent a lot of suffering. But i must also say the state isn’t really helping here, they just use every crisis for themselves and try to paint anyone who opens their mouth in a bad light. This is actually strengthening the points the people who want to abolish the government make. They’re just making it worse, instead of bringing people together again. |
|
|
|
The Ledger is indeed public but first they need to link a person to the transaction. This can be rather hard if a person is managing this well. And if you leave some room to people they will use it
They just need their xpubs and can see all their transaction history. It would be easy for the police to get this in some way. Bitcoin is used less for criminal activity than legacy finance, there was research about this. Also they’re catching criminals all the time and confiscating their Bitcoin. There’s too many traces for criminals to be safe from law enforcement, Bitcoin is built for people not criminals. Regarding Monetary Policy you are fully right. At best the people performing it are making the wrong decisions and politicians just want to optimize their elected period. This should be performed by people with a different time period and only in exceptional times
Agree, i just don’t believe in reform inside the system itself anymore. Image Corona without this policy. Lots of businesses would have gone bankrupt and you would again be in the suffering story…
This could be handled in a no money printing way, if the economy would still be healthy. They could get loans or taxes from not printed money. The government can still have programs to save the economy, they just can’t do it all the time when it’s not actually necessary, as they wouldn’t be able to pay back debts anymore when they do it all the time when it’s not actually necessary. Hard money brings back the necessity to make smart decisions. |
|
|
|
Go educate yourself how banks operate and manage debt. Or you can repeat the same stupidity. I don't even read your responses anymore.
Translation = the troll is beat and gave up. |
|
|
|
There is indeed nothing wrong with taxes used for public services in a smart way. It helps all individuals and society as a whole.
Problem is with a decentralized payment system governments will lose track of payment flows and it will be much more difficult to tax. Possibilities to dodge taxes will be endless.
Bitcoins ledger is public and any transaction is saved forever. There isn’t more transparency than this. Not good to evade taxes/ criminal activities as the proof will be there forever for law enforcement. It will be hard for criminals to hide evidences, when the police will check them in person. They already have all the tools in their disposal to spy on citizens. Even networks like lightning aren’t completely private and there can still be evidence found there, if they really check criminals. Pseudonymity of Bitcoin is good to protect regular citizens right to privacy, but it won’t hide real criminal activities. Police will have enough evidence to work with, that can’t easily be destroyed. Also most Bitcoin is linked to some real id on centralized exchanges, this completely removes any privacy and is a real problem. Also it will be very hard to perform efficient monetary policies when there is nobody in charge of the macro economic movements. Money printing can be a bitch but it can also give air to your economy
Let me bring in the counter argument again. Let’s evaluate monetary policy first. The end result is always printing more money and delaying problems for generations, which makes them worse, than just having solved them earlier. It never really solved a problem in the first place. Japan has delayed it’s problems from the last century till now. Now they’re bigger than ever and broken beyond repair. Europe is in the same boat now. Who is doing the policy? Some people in backdoors that haven’t even been elected, there’s no way to hold them accountable for anything. You can’t vote them in or out, there’s also no realistic way to go to court against them. Are they really that capable? I doubt it, there’s no solved problem in their track record. Their criminal record is bigger than actual work being done. Let’s not look at, if they seem knowledgeable or professional, but just at their track record in office: there’s nothing to show, except broken rules, criminal activity that isn’t punished and having made issues worse. What is the result? Entire governments/ corporations became dependent on printed money to pay for their expenses/ to not go bankrupt. Bailout after bailout. They’re not able to survive in the free market anymore. It’s like someone being on drugs. We left economics and entered central planning. Which every economist knows is a sin that is dangerous. You can’t heal a drug addict by giving him more drugs for generations, problems have to actually be solved. If we keep in mind now of who is actually running monetary policy, what is safer? Putting them into a train that they can’t control themselves, but is on a safe track - or giving them a sports cars that they can drive into any direction they want, but we know they won’t follow any traffic rules when they don’t want to. Which of these two options is less likely to crash? Which of these options will be safer to the population? Addition: States still have the ability to issue their own currencies with forced value attached to it and their own monetary policies, regardless how successful Bitcoin is. But the difference is now that they have compete with a superior form of currency. If they mess up their policies and no one wants to use their currency, it’s their own fault, not Bitcoins. In the case they want to compete with Bitcoin, you will notice that they can’t do that much different from Bitcoin in the first place. So it might be better to just stick to Bitcoin directly. If they force value to a weaker form of currency they will just trigger greshams law again, and people will hoard Bitcoin and use the weaker currency in circulation. Until thiers law comes into play and no one wants to use this currency anymore and Bitcoin becomes the medium of exchange again. This cycle repeats as long as they will introduce bad currencies. Ultimately the best form of money needs to be resistant to bad policy, that’s why no centralized currency will ever be able to outperform a decentralized one. Just sticking to Bitcoin might be the most efficient approach. |
|
|
|
I mean really. You act like an advertising bot. Participants in this thread also.
We just stated facts, so you just admitted that you see Bitcoin features as something with a positive connotation, if you interpret it as advertising, because advertisements usually try to sell you something. I stated several times that i don’t want you to buy any Bitcoin, even if you start to understand it. Just take a look at this statement of yours: "Bitcoin does the job it’s supposed to do."
Shocking :O. The network is running since it’s creation without fault almost. Gets upgrades and is being maintained. Does its job as an P2P electronic cash system, and other things. Shocking statement to say: Bitcoin does the job it’s supposed to do. What job? If you give me a car and I give you back 5 paper stickers with the word "Thanks", and this gets written in some database as "5 THX", what job would that stickers and data about them do? What that has to do with the concepts of economy, payment or transactions? Nothing.
The irony is that you’re describing what happens in fiat. I give you the car, and you give me 5 paper stickers back with „500“ written on it. We act like it’s the most serious thing in the world, just because it came out of a specific printing press that is chosen by some entity(government). Or when we’re using digital payments, it gets sent to some payment processors database and it takes days until that number gets written inside the database of my bank. There’s many hops to take and the whole architecture is a mess, outdated and insecure. And a pain for businesses: Fraud: Over two-thirds of merchants we surveyed as part of our VotE: Merchant Study 2021 recorded a year- over-year increase in fraud volume – more than one-third indicated that the increase was significant. The real concern here is much bigger than losses. This year, respondents said their number one concern about fraud was the customer experience impact. Merchants are concerned about jeopardizing trust if they can’t keep bad actors away, but they’re also concerned about creating friction for their most loyal customers. One thing is clear: Manual review teams won’t be able to scale fast enough to effectively address the growth of e-commerce and expedited fulfillment – some degree of automation is imperative
False declines: In-store, the authorization rate for card transactions is in the high-90 percentage range. Online, it hovers in the mid-80s. That means in the ballpark of one in seven e-commerce transactions are being turned away, and many of those are good transactions where an incorrect assessment was made by the merchant or card issuer. We estimate that more than $16bn in the past 12 months has been turned away due to false declines in the US alone. Many tactics, including local acquiring and data sharing between card issuers and fraud-prevention providers, can help reclaim some of this challenge. Ralph Dangelmaier, CEO of BlueSnap, pointed out that A/B testing across acquiring banks is a key tactic his company leverages to help merchants optimize authorizations.
$16.3bn in abandoned purchases over the past 12 months due to false positive transaction declines
Bitcoins whole architecture is way more elegant and efficient than the mess they have built. Doesn’t have the problems as above. So if you’re buying my car happily send me „stickers“ to Bitcoins ledger, i prefer it that way. It’s more secure, fraud free and i am in control. The whole process is completely transparent and i can watch every step. If there’s problems you have actual people to help you/ teach you here, and not some chat/ phone bot of a bank, because they don’t even care about support anymore. I see what you mean here, I see what you are trying to figure out.
You think some "resource" needs to be transferred, but you want this "resource" to be made of some atoms. Or, at least that's what I think you meant.
There are material resources: computers, their wiring, the electricity that make them run are made of atoms, electrons, and charges that flow through the wires. These material resource help computers, the internet, and bitcoin to function in a timely manner, but they aren't necessary for the internet or bitcoin to function. What you are missing, and can't seem to understand is that the "resource" incorporated in a bitcoin transaction is actually "informational". It is wrapped up in its cryptography, in the mathematics that allow it to work.
There is value in understanding the following knowledge: 1+1=2. If you can't understand why that type of knowledge is valuable, then you will never understand why exchanging bitcoins for products across the globe can have value.
People just won’t grasp that computers aren’t completely detached from the physical world. There’s over 15.000 nodes or more with the whole copy of the chain, that is more than any bank has. His money is literally saved around the entire world, instead of being stored by just some private company/ companies. He can recover it from anywhere with his keys. A nuke can hit his country and his money will still be safe. They all verify that the rules of the network are being enforced, manipulation would be detected fast. In his banks database we gotta trust what they’re doing, some central entity can decide what they want. Delete, manipulate whatever. It’s not transparent, nor is there some mechanism that can prevent it with a guarantee. |
|
|
|
Only one problem: look closely and the network itself has to be accessed through a series of gates (physical & political) that that are outside the control of the network.
I missed this part, what exactly do you mean? Bitcoin can be accessed without gates, it allows you to become completely self sovereign when you run your own node and hold your own keys. You ideally acquire Bitcoin in a P2P way on decentralized exchanges/ in person for various reasons. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not "cryptocurrency". You're confusing things and messing all up just like @Shitshow!. You should listen things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwWVKqpxZtISee what he says about fiat money... And think again and try again! 22 years later and this speech could still be held today, word by word. Its probably the latest speech of a politician on this topic, even tho its so old, that says a lot. I cant even remember any other politician trying to address these issues ever and were seeing the results of it. Not one single issue he addressed was solved in the last 22 years and we will have to pay the price for it, as they just have been delayed till now. |
|
|
|
The whole "digital asset" meme is a sand castle built on the shore or a rising ocean. With bitcoin - there is no company, there are no employees, there is no product, no revenues and no profits.
It’s open source, the amount of talent that worked on this and the research that was being done, is worth more than any shitty centralized company could afford/ be able to pull off. It was the most successful asset of the last decade, this doesn’t happen accidentally or from pure hypes, it’s work. - Nice try to talk down on something that is open source, and try to criticise it because it’s not in private hands. Logic. There is a community, there are contributors in various forms, there is a software and a network that’s holds more value than some countries, people are profiting, businesses that build on Bitcoin are generating revenues. If rates go above 3.5% - look out below - for everything.
Then some countries will go bankrupt, but sure let’s believe in this fairytale. And let’s believe that Bitcoin can’t survive in an 3.5% interest environment, when inflation is over 10%. Every investor in the world will run into bonds to have some guaranteed losses. The most sound money in the world couldn’t survive this, while being the actual fix to this economic mess. Bring the interest rates on, it will only make it more obvious to people why Bitcoin is needed. "If it sounds too good to be true - it usually is"
So stop listening/ reading now and just verify it. |
|
|
|
Economics can be argued to fall under the category of citizen welfare, but it's inlikely that governments are banning cryptocurrencies because of its economic factor, but they are rather banning it from a national security perspective (funds can be laundered out to other nations/criminals, and lack of regulation) and largely override the welfare factors (climate, scammers running amok, etc.).
It depends, governments currently have a monopoly on money. They completely rely on debt to pay their expenses mostly, for this they give out bonds etc. You loan them money, they pay you interest. The problem is that in many economic zones like japan and europe interest rates are negative. You would loan out money and get less money back, its completely ridiculous. So who would still loan them money? The problem is: they arent capable of raising it, because otherwise they would go bankrupt. So the central banks have to start buying trillions in bonds(both government and corporate bonds), by just printing money and financing governments/corporates expenses, which is something that is not even their task and was frowned upon when the system was still healthy. Otherwise entire economies will start to collapse. So you could argue its governments themselves that are weakening national security and welfare, by having become completely reliant on debt that is financed by central banks, instead of the market itself. It has consequences for all of us, because this money is created out of thin air and making our currencies worth less and less and their own citizens poorer over time, and entire nations fragile. The spiral of debasement, there is no fix inside the system itself anymore. The only reason they would ban Bitcoin is to keep their monopoly alive and this system running, but ofc they will use lies about national security and welfare as cover ups. Even tho the only real way outside of this debt-based monetary system trap is something like Bitcoin that isnt based on debt. The problem is, if they do this they will lose control over the money and cant use it like before anymore. So they rather choose the dumb way of going against Bitcoin to keep their ponzi alive, as it makes fiat whales incredibily rich similar to PoS, as they have the power to rig the system and get most of the printed money/ bailouts. An example for what happens when a country cant pay back their debts anymore is sri lanka: now they have exploding inflation and no way to pay for energy, food medicine imports etc. Sri Lanka defaults on debt for first time in its history
|
|
|
|
Are you some kind of advertising bot for luring people into Nakamoto's Ponzi?
Are you out of arguments? Poor you. You're just keep repeating the lie that bitcoin is money.
Because i use the criteria that is used to evaluate money and not some OLTP Systems salesman hurt feelings. You're keep repeating that bitcoin has utility although you know that without new investors bringing utility from the outside bitcoin holders have nothing.
Bitcoin does the job it’s supposed to do, no matter if a fiat market exists or not. I can transact either way, while your fiat payment method will always need counterparties and trust to work, which opens the doors to fraud and exploitation, without a guarantee to prevent this. I mean, the thing that you are doing is obvious false advertising. And the promotion of an online fraud, spreading disinformation.
In your dreams maybe. Anyone can verify this information themselves from top to bottom. While it’s not even possible to audit the code of fiat payment systems. They can do false advertising without you ever being able to notice it. |
|
|
|
peter todd assumed that there is a constant "loss rate" of bitcoin. so you're saying you disagree with that assumption? if it's not a constant rate then what is it exactly?
The first problem is that you can never know, how many Bitcoin are actually lost forever. Some might just not be moving it and it’s not even lost, some could be recovered in the future, then they’re not lost forever. It’s impossible to track this accurately, literally impossible. It can only be based on an estimation that has no real data, which is problematic when you want to introduce a rate of new coins that want to balance out coins being lost. Either it will be too much or not enough. If it’s too much you’re debasing the currency, if it’s not enough it didn’t prevent all coins being lost. But in any scenario you’re adding drawbacks to Bitcoins properties. Also it’s not a constant and probably fluctuating, but we can’t even possibly know. What i think is that coin loss will slow down dramatically over time, and it will take so long till all would be lost, that it doesn’t matter for humanity anymore. Some coins are just secured too well, to be lost in a scenario that would matter. If something like coin loss abruptly reaches a critical level for whatever reason, people in the future can propose solutions to it, because a tail emission would not even be enough in any such scenario. Tail emission also ignores factors as market value, distribution/ cost of mining. Or the effect debasement has on later holders too, also just giving miners new coins doesnt guarantee they will hit the market in the future and be distributed. Because if miners settle their bills in Bitcoin in the future these coins only reach asic producers and energy providers. So you risk a cantillon effect, where money isn’t even distributed to newcomers anymore. The less relevant fiat becomes, the more strong this effect will be. |
|
|
|
The author is right.
He is making money from selling fiat infrastructure, probably shitting his pants of how much traction Bitcoin its getting and how many transactions lightning/ side chains can handle, as it will make his centralized, garbage irrelevant. With Open Source you only have to solve a problem once. When you asked a horse salesman what he thinks about cars, when they just gained traction, similar actions probably occurred. There is always some shitty salesman that wants to prevent innovations, because they are „dangerous“ and „harmful“(but just to his business). Sending email provides utility because email has info about some aspect of reality that is of interest to the receiver.
There’s nothing that makes sure that it is something of interest, most emails are useless spam or uninteresting. On the other hand, bitcoin that one receives provides no utility. It's just a token of investment in a Ponzi scheme. It's like if you would give me $100 and in return I would give you a paper sticker saying "Thanks".
Keep ignoring reality. It has purchasing power that you can send over the internet, in a way that no shitty centralized fiat infrastructure can, and its saved into something that has the best monetary properties invented so far. Bitcoin is like a "Thanks" sticker in a digital form. It provides zero utility but people see value in it and that's why they purchase it.
It’s not, it has more utility than fiat payments as there is no middle man, so you have payments without a counterparty risk. It’s literally impossible to get scammed like this, while your beloved author has the power to scam people, and everything relies on trust. For this reason alone it’s priceless. There’s people like emigrants that want to send their families and friends money at home, but most of it is eaten by banks, governments or smugglers. They exploit the poorest of the poorest, something your author isn’t mentioning. With Bitcoin you can send money trough any border, smuggler or whatever corrupt barrier there is, that is preventing your money from reaching where it should go. Something that can change the world, when poor people can potentially fully receive their money in an unconfiscatable way in the future. The technology is here, now it’s just a matter of adoption. El Salvador is starting with it, it’s a legal tender so you can use it to purchase any resource you want, guaranteed. And it’s not like only them could use something like this, any person benefits from not having a counterparty risk, because our counterparties(financial institutions) are completely reckless in their actions and completely devalue our money and negatively impact freedom to transact. Bitcoin is the definition of utility and the purest money there is. It will just disappoint you, if you want to use ur money as toilet paper, as it won’t waste time on being things that don’t matter. |
|
|
|
Personally, I like the idea of Verifiability. It is quite powerful to be able to verify that you have real bitcoin. It is really difficult to do that with anything else..
gold? holy shit what a nightmare.. especially on a system wide level, even though it might not be so difficult if you have a coin in your hand and you melt it down or whatever it is that you have to do to really have confidence.
Let me add one drawback of verifying gold or even melting your gold. It will break the fungibility of it in the process, as gold coins/ bars we acquire need to be manufactured by some renowned mint. Otherwise you will loose some degree of saleability/ market value in the process. It’s hard for a regular person to even verify their gold or use it freely in some other way, without some major drawbacks. Gresham's law dynamics will continue to push these valuations versus price in a likely to be more true direction/assessment.
Thiers law can also be a good indicator on how a potential abandonment process of fiat could look like in action. Bitcoin is ultimately money and will be used as a store of value and medium of exchange when the time is right, no intervention necessary. That is what is mindblowing to me, as it makes all the fiddling and policies economists try to introduce completely unnecessary, as the market can handle it itself when a pure form of money is introduced. You are absolutely right. I forgot that important one. Verifiability. But even gold was way better than the shitshow we actually have. Like, I think about it this way: before 1971, the world was under the gold standard and as Ron Paul said countless times, the price of US dollar was roughly stable. That means something. That even without them knowing about what was to come in 2009, gold was te best element to back up the fiat system, from the people's standpoint. This guys says it all in a few words https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfWgmw435YEHe knows what he's talking about and he knows what will come. And see what is happening today... Just what he said. fiat losing value, people freedom going to near 0, bankrupcies, corruption, lies, etc. Yes, Bitcoin will take time. That's why I keep saying and "explaining" over and over again about the importance of Time Preference. Probably one of the hardest concepts to soak in, accept and actually put in practice. The gold standard was a lot better than fiat for the average person, but also suffered from the trust based model and the lack of verifiability. And ultimately failed, because politicians could simply abandon it whenever they like, without a possibility of verification or stopping it. Ultimately the most sound money can only stay sound if it can overcome the wickedness of man, and there is no other approach than Bitcoin so far that comes closer to this. Everything before this failed for this simple reason, and will fail again for this very same reason. Bitcoin is the only attempt so far that can possibly resist this path, so it is the only sound money possibility worth pursuing in this day and age. Bitcoin is the only money that possesses this quality at the moment, and will grow more and more in value if it stays this way. It’s still highly undervalued at the moment as the average joe doesn’t realise what huge difference this simple property would have on its life yet. |
|
|
|
You've deliberately missed this one: False. Once property is stolen/destroyed/lost, fiat numbers suddenly represent non-existent resources. That's why the rich invest on the property, and not on the liability of that property.
I don't understand what you're talking about. An interesting read : The Strange Case of Nakamoto's Bitcoin https://salbayat.org/the-strange-case-of-nakamotos-bitcoin/Apart from the article being pure garbage and unproven accusation after unproven accusation that could fit to anything you apply to it. One example being this: The most important, and most novel mechanism in the Nakamoto scheme is the way in which Proof-of-work (PoW) is leveraged and combined with mining rewards. Originally, Hashcash’s PoW was proposed as a way to discourage e-mail spam or denial of service attacks by forcing senders to expend CPU time, and hence electricity. Electricity costs money, and while the cost is small, it will scale with the number of emails sent, or connection attempts made. This method of using PoW explicitly ties it to some type of utility being provided. In contrast to the ethical ethos of hyper-financialization found in crypto, this method was preferred to email micropayments as it avoided the administrative and moral issues related to charging for e-mail.
Sending email is utility, but sending value/ payments is not? The amount of mind bending is insane. The author also has competing conflict of interests that he didnt explicity state, because he runs a company that sells OLTP Solutions 1. Making money on selling garbage, centralized fiat infrastructure, ofc this can be counted as a whole propaganda piece against Bitcoin then. From the writing style of providing no sources, the article already starting out with some wikipedia and the whole evaluation model already being completely unapplicable to have practical results(it can be applied to anything), we can already guess that this author has no practical experiences in academic writing, not a necessity but doesnt help his case either. The only piece of cred found was some shitty 399$ course on Blockchains 2. Why does it matter? If i used this shitty article as a reference in academia i would either get kicked out or cringed at heavily. Its no necessity to have a degree or anything to put out good information, but this one is a good example of why we have to analyze sources first. And again i dont care about his degree of education, as an academia degree isnt what defines education in the first place, but the quality of this article is a walking red flag and is unusable for any professional work. And here as a end note, to make it obvious why stating conflict of interests matters and i didnt mention this for no reason: Using cryptographic hashing techniques to create an append only ledger is not in and of itself exploitative. However, creating a mechanism that enables economic transactions where value is exchanged for value can only serve as a vehicle for fraud. Bitcoin and all cryptocurrency systems as they exist in their present form are examples of harmful technology. They are dangerous and should not be allowed to exist. Value must be tied to the utility provided by a resource, and not to deception or an externality. By defining the unique characteristics of the Nakamoto scheme, we are better positioned to identify them so that we may act accordingly when they are encountered.
[1] https://ca.linkedin.com/in/salbayat[2] https://101blockchains.com/academy/ https://www.credential.net/18134a57-15cd-4fea-b333-a8a93b453729#gs.g7utld |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
