Genius.

You've just described ANY market, ANYWHERE. The stock market is also designed to take money from the "impatient" and give it to the "patient" - Warren Buffet's words.

All economies are vehicles for trade and cooperation, and they enable us to fund projects and make things happen. The crypto market specifically is not regulated yet and thus more susceptible to market manipulation. That's all.

That's terrific. I wonder what will happen to all the stable coins...

You're on to something here.

Consider this: Today, a non-human entity cannot legally own property. That includes money - fiat money.

Crypto is different because it's the first kind of money that does not distinguish between humans and non-humans. Thus, an AI can own money and pay for things. If you think about it, crypto is laying the groundwork for non-human entities to exist and thrive.

To answer your question directly, AI should be accepted and helped, IMO.

The world of today can't exist without businessmen.

The world of today can't exist without employees.

If everyone were entrepreneurs, who would do the actual work?

The answer is not straightforward - everybody should be encouraged to live up to their potential according to their personality and skill. Some people are more fit to be entrepreneurs, others employees. And that's good because being an entrepreneur is not always glamorous. It can be a horrible existence and is NOT always better than having a stable job.

Loans are extremely important for economic growth. While Bitcoin has a fixed supply (and thus doesn't support credit), the crypto economy itself has already figured out a credit mechanism: Creating tokens.

We're going to see loan services coming soon.

Of course, the price was manipulated. Anytime there is an opportunity to manipulate the price of an asset and make a quick buck, somebody does it.

Long-term effects? Tight regulation on crypto trade.

Yes, and you can do with less.

According to this site (https://www.crypto51.app/), it costs around $600k to carry out a 51% attack on Bitcoin for one hour. Now that's scary.

I guess the reason we don't see this happening is two-fold:

1. Carrying out the attack will hurt the price significantly, thereby hurting the reward of the hacker.
2. It's hard to get access to that kind of hashrate in any practical manner.

But I worry that we will see one in the future.

This big issue with Bitfinex is their association with USDT, which is currently in question because they are not being transparent with their reserves.

Otherwise, I've never had issues with Bitfinex.

Once, religion had an important place in society: It served a few important roles, primarily teaching moral values and creating tight-knit communities.

Modernity changed the equation a bit - you no longer need the Bible or the Quoran to tell you how to behave since those all-important values have become an inherent part of our culture today.

The primary reason people reject religion is science - or, in other words, if you embrace a scientific outlook and approach to life then religion usually doesn't make any sense.

But, "Religion" can have many definitions, and does not have to include a "god". For example, I believe Bitcoin is a type of religion (some call it Satoshism, or other such names) for the modern age. If you look at various local Bitcoin communities, you can see all the hallmarks of a cult.

There's also dataism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataism) but I will let you explore that yourself.

In this context, religion can be something even atheists can subscribe to.

It's not possible, primarily because a country needs to be able to control the supply of money - otherwise it has only limited control over its own economy.

I think the more viable route is creating an altcoin/token. That way you can have a degree of control, yet still take part in the crypto-economy at large - which I do believe will become the economy of the world.

I think we're missing the point of "Decentralized". The more people I talk to, the more I understand that nobody understands what it's even good for, and more importantly, the current limitations of decentralization.

What we have today is not truly decentralized, and it will be a very long time before true decentralized systems crop up. But we are in the right way.

Not many see the connection, but it IS there. Blockchain enables us to deploy truly "serverless" and decentralized apps, and that's a perfect medium for AI to be deployed on.

As to crypto, I think it's a perfect value transfer layer for both biological and AI agents. In fact, it's the first form of "money" fully accessible to non-human entities.

Unfortunately this is well deserved - always doubt everything until proven wrong.

I think he is talking about ERC20 tokens - if that's the case, there's no wallet today that can detect any token.

For two reasons:

- They can't control it.
- Doing the legal paperword is a nightmare.

Both things will get solved one way or another, with time. The tech is too good to ignore.

In my opinion, there has to be some tradeoff. As of right now, going completely decentralized is impossible due to the following reasons:

- People need some kind of protection in case their crypto is lost or stolen.
- Smart contracts are an amazing solution - but what do you do in case of a dispute? You need a human element.
- Tech is not perfect. Smart contracts work very well - until there's a bug.

The best way to deal with these problems is to add additional layers on top of the blockchain, some being tech layers and some being social, human to human layers.

At Safebit, we are solving this problem by providing an applications layer that can offer Safebit wallet users various insurance and arbitration tools that will be able to help them out in case of a dispute/loss/theft. That's probably the best way to close the gaps today.

This definitely prevents complete decentralization, but we will not have complete decentralization until we get sufficiently advanced AI to manage our disputes for us.

To answer your question head-on, I, like Satoshi, think that the blockchain can scale as-is.

Moving over to PoS, sharding, and other methods may be helpful, but our storage, bandwidth, memory, and performance are all growing well enough to make it work.

Andreas Antonopoulos had an interesting talk on this subject in 2016, where he referenced the fact that scalability debates ("can it scale?") are as old as the internet. Back in 92, people didn't think the internet could scale for websites and email attachments. As we all know, that's not the case anymore.

We've heard of Tangem, and think that this could be promising tech. It also helps onboard completely new users. As long as it serves its' purpose without abusing trust, it's a good thing to have.

Out of your points, I'll probably choose convenience. Sending crypto is hassle free. Plus, if you want to spend your crypto, doing it directly is more convenient than converting it in the middle.

This may be a slightly cynical point of view, but things tend to be cyclical.

At any given point, you have the big players, the current "ruling elite", and the opposition.

The ruling elite, over time, tends to get greedy, bloated and slow. It always happens. And when it does, a new and young system takes over, promising to make everything better. And for a while it does, until the cycle comes full circle and the "new guys" become yet another "ruling elite".

Yes, there is hope in decentralization. But crypto and blockchain are not going to solve all the world's problems.

What makes me happy is that over long stretches of time, each new system, each new way of doing things, is better than what was before. Maybe 10x better, but 1.5x better.

 Over time (and I'm talking hundreds of years), we'll get to be in a much better place than we are today. And crypto is the way towards that. Maybe not the final stepping stone, but it is the right direction.

Immortality is one of the great projects of our age - some of our best minds are working on it. If it's a problem that can be solved via engineering (and there is no reason to believe that it's not), we will solve it.

As to whether death is a blessing or a curse, we won't know until we achieve immortality, won't we?