4 ms·
there are 3 assertions here and they are all dumb. first two aren't even about cryptocurrencies - every currency is more attractive than bolivar in Venezuela t
by keymone 8y ago
there are 3 assertions here and they are all dumb.
first two aren't even about cryptocurrencies - every currency is more attractive than bolivar in Venezuela these days. i guess all those people are doing something illegal (surviving?) or will be better off with electricity (spoiler alert - they already have electricity).
the last one is even dumber and coming from supposedly somebody who should know their way around finances and yet quotes like the one you posted or this one:
> These are preposterous numbers. The imaginary value of these valueless bits of computer data represents enough money to change the course of the entire human race, for example eliminating all poverty or replacing the entire world’s 800 gigawatts of coal power plants with solar generation. Why? WHY???
just show how clueless he is.
there is a gigantic difference between not trusting and not having to trust.
and of course market cap numbers are preposterous. it's because they are meaningless and don't represent anything that exists in reality. not the amount of money that was spent acquiring those currencies, not the amount of money that can be made selling those currencies. it's meaningless numbers.
- empthought 8y ago> There is a gigantic difference between not trusting and not having to trust. This is the point, though. Everyone expecting financial security has to trust. There is no alternative.
- keymone 8y agothe alternative is math. when you sign a transaction and it gets included in the blockchain - i don't need to trust anyone that i got the money, i don't need to fear the transaction will be reversed due to some banking policies, i don't need to fear my account will be closed, etc. so you're right, i have to trust math and i am ok with that.
- empthought 8y agoYou still have to trust your counterparties, though, and they will always be less trustworthy in aggregate than the functioning of a financial system. You're worried about the wrong player in this game.
- keymone 8y agono, that's not how it works. counterparty risk exists irrelevant of which financial system you operate in. you may be paying insurance to reduce the damages, you may sue them in court of law for breaking contract - all of that is irrelevant to financial system. cryptocurrencies is simply different financial system where you don't need to trust middlemen. it's really astonishing how complacent people have become towards trusting middlemen in financial systems. if you ignore the banking services that you're paying for either directly or indirectly via taxes - what is the bank doing for you? why should you pay for having a record in the database? why should bank be involved in facilitating or even censoring your transactions? i'm worried about exactly the right player in this game.
- empthought 8y ago“...[Bitcoin] also has some ideology built in – the assumption that giving national governments the ability to monitor flows of money in the financial system and use it as a form of law enforcement is wrong.” Seems like the author I cited has it exactly right, then.
- keymone 8y agohe has some things right, but not nearly enough. is this the way you concede your opinion expressed above was wrong? because you just jumped from "financial system is not a risk, counterparty is a risk" to "but what about transparency and law enforcement"..
- empthought 8y agoThey are the same problem, and not a jump at all. You even used the phrase “court of law” yourself. Financial security depends on the ability to show who bad actors are and undo their transactions. I don't see how this is possible without some sort of middleman involving civil government. Yes, the current banking system has flaws, but they are not technological flaws and cannot be solved by technological means.