3 ms·

Regardless of what's happening this winter, there's still way too much money sloshing around in the crypto space, money that is being ineffectively allocated...

by drcode 8y ago

Regardless of what's happening this winter, there's still way too much money sloshing around in the crypto space, money that is being ineffectively allocated... It'll be another 5 years at a minimum before any of the markets in the crypto space will be anywhere near "efficient", in my estimation.

hippich 8y ago
thinking globally... if someone holding the bag (i.e. bought at 20k and sold at 3k) - someone (smarter?) else got the difference and now have capital to deploy it more efficiently (if we assume bitcoin is not efficient deployment of resources) So overall things did not change - non-efficient money-managers lost, efficient money-managers got more resources to deploy to better alternatives. is my thinking flawed somewhere?
- gigatexal 8y ago
  No you're right. There's always someone on the other side of the trade. The cynic in me thinks though nothing changed because the person on the other side of that trade more often than not is always on that side of the trade -- the winning side -- and the schmuck who bought at 20k and is selling at 3k is usually at that side of the trade -- the losing side. So those that have capital now have more of it -- since all economics is just the transfer of capital and goods from one entity to another. There are useful things to come out of bitcoin even though I want the whole idea of alt-coins to die: the blockchain is novel and I think could have some really good uses.
  - codyb 8y ago
    Just curious if you have any examples of good uses? I haven't seen much although I think Estonia's X-roads initiative uses it in some neat and novel ways although that's not distributed.
- IAmEveryone 8y ago
  There was probably a lot of money paying what is essentially slave labor digging up coal and turning it into hurricanes and floods along the way.
- jeswin 8y ago
  Well, the flaw could be that a significant percentage of the difference may have been lost in energy and infrastructure costs - which are of little value now. Bitcoin burnt a lot of energy for very little net value. One could argue that proving distributed consensus to be a viable tool in world trade was worth the cost.

by drcode 8y ago

hippich 8y ago

thinking globally... if someone holding the bag (i.e. bought at 20k and sold at 3k) - someone (smarter?) else got the difference and now have capital to deploy it more efficiently (if we assume bitcoin is not efficient deployment of resources) So overall things did not change - non-efficient money-managers lost, efficient money-managers got more resources to deploy to better alternatives. is my thinking flawed somewhere?

gigatexal 8y ago
No you're right. There's always someone on the other side of the trade. The cynic in me thinks though nothing changed because the person on the other side of that trade more often than not is always on that side of the trade -- the winning side -- and the schmuck who bought at 20k and is selling at 3k is usually at that side of the trade -- the losing side. So those that have capital now have more of it -- since all economics is just the transfer of capital and goods from one entity to another. There are useful things to come out of bitcoin even though I want the whole idea of alt-coins to die: the blockchain is novel and I think could have some really good uses.
- codyb 8y ago
  Just curious if you have any examples of good uses? I haven't seen much although I think Estonia's X-roads initiative uses it in some neat and novel ways although that's not distributed.
IAmEveryone 8y ago
There was probably a lot of money paying what is essentially slave labor digging up coal and turning it into hurricanes and floods along the way.
jeswin 8y ago
Well, the flaw could be that a significant percentage of the difference may have been lost in energy and infrastructure costs - which are of little value now. Bitcoin burnt a lot of energy for very little net value. One could argue that proving distributed consensus to be a viable tool in world trade was worth the cost.