Yes, absolutely, you got it, except for that small correction I made. That cryptocurrency software is complex at its core is necessary for technical reasons; it's becoming simpler to use as new software/technologies are built on top of it. Just like with the Internet (e.g. TCP/IP -> HTTP -> HTML -> CSS -> JS).
You are arguing that as it more technologies are build on top of the already complex utilization of the Bitcoin software, more simple it becomes to use the software. This is an argument based on a self contradictory premise. As more layers of technologies are added on top of the Bitcoin software, more complex it will become to use. Moreover, as more software are involved in the process, less secure it becomes for the end-user.
More complex for developers (who love the challenge), but not end-users. I thought that would be an obvious inference. JavaScript adds a much more complex sub-system to HTML/CSS webpages (developers' side), but adds functionality to make things easier and better for end-users.
You also don't understand that fiat currencies are
mathematically programmed to fail, hence they will fail at some point, whether the end result is deflation or inflation.
It all ends in a conspiracy theory. I should had predicted that!
I heard few years ago that 2012 would be the end of the world as well...
So you believe that labeling something as a "conspiracy theory" makes it untrue? That's really funny, given that Chris Martenson (author of the crash course linked above) has done everything he possibly can to avoid that label at all costs, by staying within mainstream parameters as much as possible!
By your lax definition, everything you've ever been told by an "authority" is a "conspiracy theory". People who throw about the term "conspiracy theory" are generally the most brainwashed, least informed, and of course most TV-watching people. Logically cornered, almost all of your arguments are now fallacies. This one is an
appeal to ridicule.
How so? The fact that crypto/crypto volatility is much lower would suggest that volatility is not a cryptocurrency problem, but a speculation-driven crypto/fiat exchange problem, which is transitory during the cryptocurrency adoption phase.
Nope, it would only suggest that volatility between LTC and BTC is lower than any fiat currency and BTC. What you wrote is just gibberish... Funny gibberish.
Another appeal to ridicule and unfounded dismissal. Any crypto/crypto pair has similar volatility as BTC/LTC; that pair was used only as an example (which I think you understood). Elaborating further, crypto/crypto volatility is closer to fiat/fiat volatility, which shows that the unacceptable volatility of crypto/fiat is not an intrinsic or inherent aspect of cryptocurrencies. If you're looking at them in terms of their value in fiat, then you're right, but cryptocurrencies are (or will become) much more than that.
In jails, cigarettes can sometimes be used as a currency. There's also no reason why they couldn't be used as currency anywhere else. As an example, read about
cacao beans. The longest lasting currency?
Wooden sticks (used for over 700 years in England!).
People used "cacao beans" at some point as currency, so therefore BTC is a currency. What a nice line of argumentation! Your comparison of "cacao beans" with BTC is the product of a genius!
A bit of a
straw man argument along with a sarcarstic appeal to ridicule. I was trying to show you that indeed anything can be used as currency (e.g. cacao beans, tally sticks, cigarettes, gold, pieces of paper, digital tokens of pieces of paper, digital cryptocurrencies). You even agreed that Bitcoin inescapably fits definition #1 for "currency".
Like others pointed out, BTC is being used as a currency, therefore it is a currency. Old definitions of currency that do not take into account the fact of the Internet are obsolete.
"The fact of the Internet are obsolete"? Really?
If English isn't your first language, don't assume that others are writing nonsense. Rephrased: Old definitions of currency which do not take into account the fact of the Internet, are obsolete. (I.e. the definitions are obsolete, not the Internet.)
English is not my mother language, so I must consider nonsense an useful information. Nice!
A pretty silly straw man argument. I even rephrased it for you so you couldn't possibly continue to misunderstand what I wrote, but you chose to pretend that you continue to have the false understanding that I said that "the fact of the Internet are obsolete".
The documentaries were offered for your education, not as references to support my "pointless arguments". There are no contradictions or hypocrisy, otherwise you'd be pointing them out, which you try to do next...
First, I am not right because a documentary says so, I'm right because(/if) it is so. I can think for myself. I haven't watched TV in 6 years. It's a very bad idea to assume that you already know all you need to know. There is nothing more dangerous than a closed mind.
Oh, thank you very much. Yeah, you are right because you say so!
LOL?
So you're just going to ignore the "(/if)" part, just like you ignored half of my sentence about definitions of currency being obsolete? Quoting out of context that blatantly suggests a twisted approach to this discussion.
Nobody is against money per se. It doesn't make sense to oppose a concept. It's a good idea to get an understanding of how the current monetary system works (which we are not taught in schools/academia/media), and how it evolved, before one embarks onto more advanced ideas, such as cryptocurrencies or the idea of a resource-based economy (RBE). See, that's the problem, that many of us are still willfully ignorant and even instinctively mock people who point you towards the truth.
Sorry, but you are not really telling truths here, hence the mocking. However, I agree that is a good idea to learn how the current monetary system works.
You can say that as much as you want, but I suggest you might find more joy and satisfaction in seeking truth rather than short-term ego gratification (such as by pretending you know all that you need to know and mocking me). If you think it's a good idea to learn how the current monetary system works, then why would you dismiss Chris Martenson's extremely accurate Crash Course as something that "could not possibly be true" (what you really mean when you say/think "conspiracy theory")?
