7 ms·

What do you mean without any reasoning? I gave a very precise argument on why and how I think they are similar. Why don’t you try to debunk my argument instead

What do you mean without any reasoning? I gave a very precise argument on why and how I think they are similar. Why don’t you try to debunk my argument instead of a generic reply?

colordrops 9y ago
Cryptocurrency has many positive values that are not replicated by any other financial instrument when taken together as a whole: * No middle man * Nearly instant transfer at low cost * Non-geographically bound * Non-governmentally bound * Potentially untraceable depending on how you use it * Incorruptible * Uncensorable * No central point of failure * Transparent and open (as in source and freedom) * Programmable and automatable * It is the first system to solve the byzantine generals problem. My point though is that anyone who has been paying at least even slight attention would know that there is a purpose and value to the design of and usage of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and to claim otherwise is an embarrassing display of ignorance.
- noncoml 9y ago
  My argument was specific to Bitcoin, not against cryptocurrency as a technology.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    Everything I said applies to Bitcoin, which is arguably the most legitimate instance of cryptocurrency.
    - tedunangst 9y ago
      Nearly instant transfer at low cost?
      - colordrops 9y ago
        Depends on what you compare it to, such as Western Union or gold. But if you can really only find one nit out of the ten or so things I listed, I don't consider my argument debunked.
- another-one-off 9y ago
  That is cool, but the reason the existing monetary system doesn't have those properties is because government purposely didn't include them. Things like "Uncensorable" and "Non-governmentally bound" and "Untraceable" might yet be tested and turn out to be illegal - falling afoul of, eg, laws against financing terrorists. If bitcoin attracts regulations, the technical aspects will lose to the social aspects. Overwhelming majorities of people obey financial law - see also, the tax system; people aren't in that voluntarily. These are not proven positive values. Yet.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    That's a particular government's problem, not a problem with bitcoin. Considering that Bitcoin is non-local, there will always be a jurisdiction somewhere that allows transactions that are restricted somewhere else. That was the whole point behind Satoshi's design - to work around corrupt and overly restrictive governmental financial systems. If you find a problem with that, then fine, but it's not what we are discussing here, which is the claim that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme.
- Someone1234 9y ago
  Wasn't the whole "no middle man" thing mostly about avoiding the 3% Credit Card Processing fees found elsewhere? Bitcoin is now more expensive to verify than most credit card processors[0]. "Nearly instant transfer at low cost" it is no longer instant or low cost. Confirmation times[1] have now skyrocketed and as I showed above as have costs. This is why Valve's Steam no longer accepts it. "No central point of failure" like Mt. Gox[2]? And the recent currency split[3]? [0] https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... [1] https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash
  - colordrops 9y ago
    It is nearly instant when compared to most money transfer services or gold, and low cost is relative, and depends on the coin and time of transfer. Bitcoin cash, which you link to, is both fast and cheap to transfer. Mt. Gox is not Bitcoin. It was an exchange. It has nothing to do with whether Bitcoin has a central point of failure or not.
    - laci27 9y ago
      Nearly instant?:) Compared to what? I got money transfer between banks, by wire, from the US to the end of the world in less than a day. You can't get 3 confirmations on a BTC transaction in 24 hours!
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- brokensegue 9y ago
  > No central point of failure It's looking like the dev team behind bitcoin is the central point of failure given recent political fights. > No middle man If the lightning network becomes a thing then bitcoin will have lots of middle men. Coinbase already is one in practice. > Nearly instant transfer at low cost People have already pointed out that this is totally false. > Incorruptible In what sense? How can any financial instrument by corrupted? There's definitely corruption at bitcoin-related institutions. > It is the first system to solve the byzantine generals problem. No? > Non-governmentally bound only if you are willing to break the law. which is true for lots of financial instruments.
sanmon3186 9y ago
I would have agreed with you to a certain degree if this post was just about BTC. OP asked about crypto-market, and BTC can’t represent all of it even if it has the lion share. Your response paints everything as Ponzi scheme (or that’s how interpreted it) which is unfair to serious projects.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- noncoml 9y ago
  If I am not mistaken the original title was about Bitcoin.

What do you mean without any reasoning? I gave a very precise argument on why and how I think they are similar. Why don’t you try to debunk my argument instead of a generic reply?

colordrops 9y ago

Cryptocurrency has many positive values that are not replicated by any other financial instrument when taken together as a whole: * No middle man * Nearly instant transfer at low cost * Non-geographically bound * Non-governmentally bound * Potentially untraceable depending on how you use it * Incorruptible * Uncensorable * No central point of failure * Transparent and open (as in source and freedom) * Programmable and automatable * It is the first system to solve the byzantine generals problem. My point though is that anyone who has been paying at least even slight attention would know that there is a purpose and value to the design of and usage of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and to claim otherwise is an embarrassing display of ignorance.

noncoml 9y ago
My argument was specific to Bitcoin, not against cryptocurrency as a technology.
- colordrops 9y ago
  Everything I said applies to Bitcoin, which is arguably the most legitimate instance of cryptocurrency.
  - tedunangst 9y ago
    Nearly instant transfer at low cost?
    - colordrops 9y ago
      Depends on what you compare it to, such as Western Union or gold. But if you can really only find one nit out of the ten or so things I listed, I don't consider my argument debunked.
another-one-off 9y ago
That is cool, but the reason the existing monetary system doesn't have those properties is because government purposely didn't include them. Things like "Uncensorable" and "Non-governmentally bound" and "Untraceable" might yet be tested and turn out to be illegal - falling afoul of, eg, laws against financing terrorists. If bitcoin attracts regulations, the technical aspects will lose to the social aspects. Overwhelming majorities of people obey financial law - see also, the tax system; people aren't in that voluntarily. These are not proven positive values. Yet.
- colordrops 9y ago
  That's a particular government's problem, not a problem with bitcoin. Considering that Bitcoin is non-local, there will always be a jurisdiction somewhere that allows transactions that are restricted somewhere else. That was the whole point behind Satoshi's design - to work around corrupt and overly restrictive governmental financial systems. If you find a problem with that, then fine, but it's not what we are discussing here, which is the claim that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme.
Someone1234 9y ago
Wasn't the whole "no middle man" thing mostly about avoiding the 3% Credit Card Processing fees found elsewhere? Bitcoin is now more expensive to verify than most credit card processors[0]. "Nearly instant transfer at low cost" it is no longer instant or low cost. Confirmation times[1] have now skyrocketed and as I showed above as have costs. This is why Valve's Steam no longer accepts it. "No central point of failure" like Mt. Gox[2]? And the recent currency split[3]? [0] https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... [1] https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash
- colordrops 9y ago
  It is nearly instant when compared to most money transfer services or gold, and low cost is relative, and depends on the coin and time of transfer. Bitcoin cash, which you link to, is both fast and cheap to transfer. Mt. Gox is not Bitcoin. It was an exchange. It has nothing to do with whether Bitcoin has a central point of failure or not.
  - laci27 9y ago
    Nearly instant?:) Compared to what? I got money transfer between banks, by wire, from the US to the end of the world in less than a day. You can't get 3 confirmations on a BTC transaction in 24 hours!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
brokensegue 9y ago
> No central point of failure It's looking like the dev team behind bitcoin is the central point of failure given recent political fights. > No middle man If the lightning network becomes a thing then bitcoin will have lots of middle men. Coinbase already is one in practice. > Nearly instant transfer at low cost People have already pointed out that this is totally false. > Incorruptible In what sense? How can any financial instrument by corrupted? There's definitely corruption at bitcoin-related institutions. > It is the first system to solve the byzantine generals problem. No? > Non-governmentally bound only if you are willing to break the law. which is true for lots of financial instruments.

sanmon3186 9y ago

I would have agreed with you to a certain degree if this post was just about BTC. OP asked about crypto-market, and BTC can’t represent all of it even if it has the lion share. Your response paints everything as Ponzi scheme (or that’s how interpreted it) which is unfair to serious projects.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
noncoml 9y ago
If I am not mistaken the original title was about Bitcoin.