3 ms·

I disagree, I use it for booking flights and hotels everytime I travel (e.g. Expedia, Destinia; 9flats, CryptoCribs). Smooth experience, much better than paying

• panarky 9y ago
  > Nobody actually uses bitcoin for payment Is anyone else fatigued by repeating the same arguments over and over forever? If I just state them here once maybe we can talk about new ideas (pro or con, doesn't matter). 1) There are no "real" cryptocurrency transactions 2) It's all speculation 3) There's no intrinsic value 4) Tulips I say, TULIPS! 5) If you can't pay taxes with it, it's not "real money" 6) Governments will shut it down 7) Transactions aren't really private 8) Mining uses more energy than entire nations 9) Nobody will ever spend a deflationary currency 10) It's only useful for drugs, assassinations, gambling and ransoms 11) It doesn't scale, not enough transactions per second, blockchain will get too big 12) It's too volatile to be useful 13) Since the exchange rate keeps rising it's not useful for payments 14) Since I can't buy coffee with it it's not useful 15) Since fees are high it's not useful 16) It's a scam, Ponzi, pyramid 17) The "market cap" is (a) too small to be relevant, (b) evidence of a bubble 18) Will never completely replace gold / national currencies / corporations so there's no value 19) There are a lot of shady exchanges that (a) get hacked, (b) steal customer deposits, (c) are secretly insolvent 20) If the cryptography gets broken / bugs or exploits are discovered and the whole thing goes to zero Maybe so many new people are just now getting involved that we keep rehashing a decade of stale thinking? Let's talk about some new ideas!
  • lucozade 9y ago
    What may be more helpful that a definitive list of arguments is a definitive list of valid responses to those arguments. As a random example, mining does use more energy than some nations. Why this may be a good thing in a medium of exchange/value store tends to receive somewhat hand wavy responses. If you have a great answer then it might be helpful to share it.
    • panarky 9y ago
      You're right, many of these are valid criticisms. It's just that we've been having the identical arguments over and over for nearly ten years now. We're not advancing our understanding by re-hashing the same tired ideas. Maybe I'll make a page with common responses to these arguments. To use your example ... it's true that mining cryptocurrencies consumes a lot of energy. So do casinos. So does Facebook and Starbucks. So does manufacturing weapons. The world's televisions consume a lot of energy. Bank office buildings and the millions of bank workers who drive to work every day also use a lot of energy. The question isn't how much energy a thing uses, it's how much value is derived per watt-hour of energy.
  • justifier 9y ago
    Can you point me to comprehensive and conclusive discourse on each of these; or even just: > 20) If the cryptography gets broken the whole thing goes to zero I bring it up often here and each time I am met with a similar argument that you are making, but loudly ignoring is different from discussing It's like going to a doctor and each time saying 'ugh, the tired old cancer conversation..can we just talk about something new?!' until the cancer just kills you
    • panarky 9y ago
      That's the thing - there's no "comprehensive and conclusive" answer to these arguments, just a never-ending parade of the same discussions repeated ad infinitum. As for breaking the cryptography, it's been nearly 10 years now, with all the code in the public domain and massive incentives to find a flaw. That's why some people call Bitcoin "anti-fragile" since it seems to get stronger the more it's attacked. But of course it's theoretically possible that the NSA / GCHQ / FAPSI will (or has already) broken the cryptography. What happens then? Do miners stop until the flaw is fixed? Do they roll back to before the compromise? Does the blockchain fork into a new, fixed coin? I guess that's the beauty of financial assets defined by open-source software. Bugs and exploits happen, they get fixed, and we move ahead on a new version.
      • justifier 9y ago
        But your reply only covers a small aspect of a single possible perspective on the question: 'a bug in only sha256 was disclosed publically' Perhaps you are having 'the same discussions repeated ad infinitum.' because of your input stead the actual subject matter > I guess that's the beauty of financial assets defined by open-source software. Bugs and exploits happen, they get fixed, and we move ahead on a new version. I am unconcerned with the 'move ahead' bit My concern is with the assets currently in the blockchain When I warn those that ask me if they should 'get Bitcoin' that the technology is propped up on unsolved math problems It is to protect their finances stead attempt to disparage Bitcoin If the cryptography is broken then the entire blockchain is suspect and needs to be discarded along with the record of any assets locked in it
• shp0ngle 9y ago
  That's great, but the availability of services accepting bitcoin and the general usage as a payment didn't increase nearly as much as the value did. There is a minor usage, but that doesn't explain the rise in value.