3 ms·

Cryptocurrencies are tulips, that is investment vehicles of the greater fool style. They only have value if you can find a greater fool to sell it to. By and la

by eloff 7y ago

Cryptocurrencies are tulips, that is investment vehicles of the greater fool style. They only have value if you can find a greater fool to sell it to. By and large they're not useful as a currency. Libra could be. It's also managed at somewhat arms length from Facebook in that it's run by the Libra foundation. I say somewhat because Facebook intends to integrate it into WhatsApp and Messenger. I don't see a technical or organizational reason Libra can't be a crytocurrency - and the very first successful one.

Vervious 7y ago
I agree that fiat only has value if a government, or some other group with capital backs it. Cryptocurrency is distinct from "digital currency" in that it's decentralized, and not managed by a large actor. Sure, they may be doomed to fail. Libra is NOT a decentralized currency, and thus does not deserve any support from Bitcoin/cryptocurrency people. I 100% agree with you, just want to make the distinction between "cryptocurrency" and "digital money". Libra is Snapchat Cash + Facebook's own currency and we shouldn't try to defend it, when it is obviously trying to circumvent government regulation. Now, it sounds like you don't think digital, private currencies/securities should be regulated. That's a more interesting conversation. Recall how the 1907 financial panics (and the Great Gatsby era) led the U.S. to government-regulated central banking in the first place.
- eloff 7y ago
  I didn't say anything about fiat currencies. I think we should also make a distinction between crytocurrency and digital money, since the latter has utility. Bitcoin is not decentralized either. It is in theory, but it requires mining which centralized naturally due to efficiencies of scale. It also requires exchanges to convert to and from fiat, and those are completely centralized private companies. Libra in practice seems to be less centralized than bitcoin in practice. People make arguments from theory, but those are not relevant to the systems in practice in the real world.

by eloff 7y ago

Vervious 7y ago

I agree that fiat only has value if a government, or some other group with capital backs it. Cryptocurrency is distinct from "digital currency" in that it's decentralized, and not managed by a large actor. Sure, they may be doomed to fail. Libra is NOT a decentralized currency, and thus does not deserve any support from Bitcoin/cryptocurrency people. I 100% agree with you, just want to make the distinction between "cryptocurrency" and "digital money". Libra is Snapchat Cash + Facebook's own currency and we shouldn't try to defend it, when it is obviously trying to circumvent government regulation. Now, it sounds like you don't think digital, private currencies/securities should be regulated. That's a more interesting conversation. Recall how the 1907 financial panics (and the Great Gatsby era) led the U.S. to government-regulated central banking in the first place.

eloff 7y ago
I didn't say anything about fiat currencies. I think we should also make a distinction between crytocurrency and digital money, since the latter has utility. Bitcoin is not decentralized either. It is in theory, but it requires mining which centralized naturally due to efficiencies of scale. It also requires exchanges to convert to and from fiat, and those are completely centralized private companies. Libra in practice seems to be less centralized than bitcoin in practice. People make arguments from theory, but those are not relevant to the systems in practice in the real world.