3 ms·

im curious why you're so angry at bitcoin. it's just open source software, that is VOLUNTARY. it clearly challenges your beliefs/ideologies to a point that yo

im curious why you're so angry at bitcoin. it's just open source software, that is VOLUNTARY. it clearly challenges your beliefs/ideologies to a point that you spent the time to comment and try to frame bitcoin in a negative light. Is it bitcoin (the software) scamming people? or is it humans? and most importantly, what are your reasons for wanting bitcoin to fail?

davidgerard 10y ago
It's those fat Goldman Sachs paydays. No, here you go, actual reasons: * Every cryptocurrency I’ve seen is a fractal scam at every level. When phrases along the lines of "a whole new form of money" and "the old rules don’t apply any more" start going around, people get gullible and the ethically-challenged get creative. * Every cryptocurrency I’ve seen is a disastrous waste of resources and effort at every level – “proof of work” in particular is literally wasted to secure a distributed thing that should not be distributed, and which naturally recentralises anyway. (4 miners do 50% and 7 miners do 75% of Bitcoin, and 75% of hashing power is about to be in a single building.) * Cryptocurrency advocates are frequently both strident and delusional about technology, economics, human nature and computer science itself. * Bitcoin ideology is based on John Birch Society and Eustace Mullins conspiracy theories about central bankers, based on economic ideas which are most generously described as "not even wrong". * Bitcoin advocates want a dot-com payday, where you get rich for free, only without even the step where you build an enterprise that does something that's useful to someone. * Bitcoin advocates are almost universally either scammers, suckers or (best of all) suckers who think they're the scammer. Sorry, "early adopter". Pretty much everyone who got in after about 2012 is playing the role of "sucker" in the pump'n'dump. A "trustless" currency seems to attract people who absolutely cannot be trusted. * Blockchains only approximately solve the problems they claim to (coordinating information amongst actors who distrust each other), and the approximation breaks down as they recentralise. * Blockchains have no use cases outside cryptocurrencies, insofar as those count as a use case. * Everything about cryptocurrencies is, in practice, a bad idea for pretty much anyone to be involved in, and warning people off it is a public service. * I feel like it. I've answered you. Now it's your turn to go back to my comment up there and point out which bits are factually inaccurate.

davidgerard 10y ago

It's those fat Goldman Sachs paydays. No, here you go, actual reasons: * Every cryptocurrency I’ve seen is a fractal scam at every level. When phrases along the lines of "a whole new form of money" and "the old rules don’t apply any more" start going around, people get gullible and the ethically-challenged get creative. * Every cryptocurrency I’ve seen is a disastrous waste of resources and effort at every level – “proof of work” in particular is literally wasted to secure a distributed thing that should not be distributed, and which naturally recentralises anyway. (4 miners do 50% and 7 miners do 75% of Bitcoin, and 75% of hashing power is about to be in a single building.) * Cryptocurrency advocates are frequently both strident and delusional about technology, economics, human nature and computer science itself. * Bitcoin ideology is based on John Birch Society and Eustace Mullins conspiracy theories about central bankers, based on economic ideas which are most generously described as "not even wrong". * Bitcoin advocates want a dot-com payday, where you get rich for free, only without even the step where you build an enterprise that does something that's useful to someone. * Bitcoin advocates are almost universally either scammers, suckers or (best of all) suckers who think they're the scammer. Sorry, "early adopter". Pretty much everyone who got in after about 2012 is playing the role of "sucker" in the pump'n'dump. A "trustless" currency seems to attract people who absolutely cannot be trusted. * Blockchains only approximately solve the problems they claim to (coordinating information amongst actors who distrust each other), and the approximation breaks down as they recentralise. * Blockchains have no use cases outside cryptocurrencies, insofar as those count as a use case. * Everything about cryptocurrencies is, in practice, a bad idea for pretty much anyone to be involved in, and warning people off it is a public service. * I feel like it. I've answered you. Now it's your turn to go back to my comment up there and point out which bits are factually inaccurate.