2 ms·

> That's in direct conflict with the cryptocurrency world both in the long term (because it aims to be a revolution) and in the short (because it is ever mutati

> That's in direct conflict with the cryptocurrency world both in the long term (because it aims to be a revolution) and in the short (because it is ever mutating). How is the cryptocurrency world mutating? Bitcoin works pretty much in the similar way as it worked almost 10 years ago. Also coinbases services when it comes to the basic brokerage services are pretty much unchanged in the end. I wouldn't attach something like "revolution" to cryptocurrency any more. The blending with traditional finance industry has been happening for many years already and I think that trend will continue. In the end it is just another way of moving and storing value. If you are offering cryptocurrency services you need to take more regulation risk than with traditional finance business. However you can still invest in regulatory compliance and try to migitate those risks as much as you can (and you probably should). However you don't need to engage to any kind of "revolution" unless you want to - you can cooperate with regulators and they are nowadays also more interested to work with you.

wpietri 7y ago
> How is the cryptocurrency world mutating? Bitcoin works pretty much in the similar way as it worked almost 10 years ago. Sure, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. But the moment I bring up some sort of Bitcoin flaw, 20 people pop up to say, "Oh, but that's fixed in coin X with extension Y!" The X and the Y change regularly, but when the shiny wears off the old thing, there's always a new thing. And this article makes that clear; if Bitcoin were all that were necessary, Srinivasan wouldn't have had a case for expansion. > I wouldn't attach something like "revolution" to cryptocurrency any more. [...] In the end it is just another way of moving and storing value. In which case it has failed, in that they are apparently not better than existing solutions for traditional use cases like "buy a cheeseburger" or "pay Bob back for the cheeseburger he bought me". Let alone something like "get paid by my job every Friday" or "pay my mortgage". As far as I can tell, Bitcoin's relative value prop is only in speculation, light financial crime, and other things that most people are better off avoiding.

wpietri 7y ago

> How is the cryptocurrency world mutating? Bitcoin works pretty much in the similar way as it worked almost 10 years ago. Sure, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. But the moment I bring up some sort of Bitcoin flaw, 20 people pop up to say, "Oh, but that's fixed in coin X with extension Y!" The X and the Y change regularly, but when the shiny wears off the old thing, there's always a new thing. And this article makes that clear; if Bitcoin were all that were necessary, Srinivasan wouldn't have had a case for expansion. > I wouldn't attach something like "revolution" to cryptocurrency any more. [...] In the end it is just another way of moving and storing value. In which case it has failed, in that they are apparently not better than existing solutions for traditional use cases like "buy a cheeseburger" or "pay Bob back for the cheeseburger he bought me". Let alone something like "get paid by my job every Friday" or "pay my mortgage". As far as I can tell, Bitcoin's relative value prop is only in speculation, light financial crime, and other things that most people are better off avoiding.