3 ms·

I'm certain that's the right decision for you. But for those who spend time understanding markets instead of mythologizing them (and assigning any unpredicted m

I'm certain that's the right decision for you. But for those who spend time understanding markets instead of mythologizing them (and assigning any unpredicted movement to a boogieman), there is absolutely alpha to be had, and the market is not so easy to manipulate as many (almost exclusively non-quants) believe. It's popular to shit on cryptocurrencies these days, and they certainly have their shortcomings, but they are still fascinating systems and the markets are even more interesting. Instead of intellectual discussion, people seem to flood the comments with hate and jealousy, presumably because some people made more money than them due to presumed luck.

wpietri 6y ago
The popularity of shitting on cryptocurrencies is directly in proportion to the level of hype that never lived up to anything. They were supposed to revolutionize the world's economy. But so far they only have proven utility for speculation and light financial crime. Is it possible that somebody will make money speculating on cryptocurrencies? Sure. Some people make money from MLM schemes too. But ultimately these are negative-sum activities: more money goes in than comes out. And a lot of the money going in is from suckers being taken for a ride. I think there's nothing wrong with people being negative about that.
- lend000 6y ago
  Based on the tone of the parent, I think we can probably agree his interest is more about deriding those who are involved in cryptocurrencies (whether they won or lost in the market) than offering a warning to protect newcomers. Like most, you have trivialized the use cases in places like Venezuela and Zimbabwe where the state backed financial system has failed. With the current state of technology, Bitcoin has no ability to replace the global payment network. Claiming that means it's a failure that hasn't lived up to anything is hyperbole. The system's very existence and self maintenance after over a decade is impressive enough to me. I also believe the financial utility of a new asset class with new properties is interesting and useful on its own, although I doubt the layman would agree.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > ... Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Those are utterly irrelevant until you solve the initial distribution problem. Ready for it? - Those people don't have money. - The only way to purchase a meaningful quantity of BTC is through purchase on an exchange. After all, it's twice as hard to mine today as it was yesterday, and in Venezuela you'll just get your mining rig socialized (this has happened a few times). - If you exchange within the country, then you're just moving the poops around. It's zero sum. Steve has a bunch of Bolivars. He exchanges with Alice for BTC. Now Alice has a bunch of Bolivars, and Steve has BTC. The net worth of the system was preserved perfectly. BTC did nothing for the union of Alice and Bob -- except they lost a ~$0.50 transaction fee, which is a few days wages. - If you exchange outside the country, who on earth outside the country wants your Bolivars?! If you can exchange outside you may as well buy Gold or Dollars. Those haven't dropped 50% in the last 3 years. Even if you did buy BTC, it's still a zero net sum situation -- except they lost a ~$0.50 transaction fee, which is a few days wages. Bitcoin is meaningless for third-world countries in aggregate until the initial distribution problem is solved. The problem in Venezuela isn't a piss-poor currency, that's a symptom of a piss-poor government. No amount of magic beans will change that, until the people solve the problem.
    - lend000 6y ago
      You seem to have completely missed the point that there have been severe currency exchange controls in Venezuela for over a decade. These Venezuelans aren't trading Bolivars outside the country; they are exporting BTC mined with a mismanaged electrical grid to get food, toiletries, etc. imported into the country. Yes, you can buy things with BTC. https://reason.com/2016/11/28/the-secret-dangerous-world-of/ https://reason.com/2016/11/28/the-secret-dangerous-world-of/ > that's a symptom of a piss-poor government. No amount of magic beans will change that, Did it solve their government problem? No. But it resulted in a little more food in the country then there would otherwise be by allowing citizens to subvert their government's financial controls. BTC provides a base level quality of money, that basically acts as an insurance system against the worst governments. Does it have a huge use case in a country with a healthy and functional financial system? No. But if things go to shit in a country, people can still use Bitcoin and safely transfer value online instead of reverting to trading gold coins in person. I know you want all things BTC to be bad. But try to keep it intellectual, not emotional. What about the technology -- do you think it's fascinating that a relatively simple and elegant protocol of incentives and cryptography can result in a self sustaining financial system still running a decade after its release?
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  It's mostly regulator's failure.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    Nah. The point of Bitcoin was always to be beyond reach of traditional regulation. It's a failure of self-regulation.

wpietri 6y ago

The popularity of shitting on cryptocurrencies is directly in proportion to the level of hype that never lived up to anything. They were supposed to revolutionize the world's economy. But so far they only have proven utility for speculation and light financial crime. Is it possible that somebody will make money speculating on cryptocurrencies? Sure. Some people make money from MLM schemes too. But ultimately these are negative-sum activities: more money goes in than comes out. And a lot of the money going in is from suckers being taken for a ride. I think there's nothing wrong with people being negative about that.

lend000 6y ago
Based on the tone of the parent, I think we can probably agree his interest is more about deriding those who are involved in cryptocurrencies (whether they won or lost in the market) than offering a warning to protect newcomers. Like most, you have trivialized the use cases in places like Venezuela and Zimbabwe where the state backed financial system has failed. With the current state of technology, Bitcoin has no ability to replace the global payment network. Claiming that means it's a failure that hasn't lived up to anything is hyperbole. The system's very existence and self maintenance after over a decade is impressive enough to me. I also believe the financial utility of a new asset class with new properties is interesting and useful on its own, although I doubt the layman would agree.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > ... Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Those are utterly irrelevant until you solve the initial distribution problem. Ready for it? - Those people don't have money. - The only way to purchase a meaningful quantity of BTC is through purchase on an exchange. After all, it's twice as hard to mine today as it was yesterday, and in Venezuela you'll just get your mining rig socialized (this has happened a few times). - If you exchange within the country, then you're just moving the poops around. It's zero sum. Steve has a bunch of Bolivars. He exchanges with Alice for BTC. Now Alice has a bunch of Bolivars, and Steve has BTC. The net worth of the system was preserved perfectly. BTC did nothing for the union of Alice and Bob -- except they lost a ~$0.50 transaction fee, which is a few days wages. - If you exchange outside the country, who on earth outside the country wants your Bolivars?! If you can exchange outside you may as well buy Gold or Dollars. Those haven't dropped 50% in the last 3 years. Even if you did buy BTC, it's still a zero net sum situation -- except they lost a ~$0.50 transaction fee, which is a few days wages. Bitcoin is meaningless for third-world countries in aggregate until the initial distribution problem is solved. The problem in Venezuela isn't a piss-poor currency, that's a symptom of a piss-poor government. No amount of magic beans will change that, until the people solve the problem.
  - lend000 6y ago
    You seem to have completely missed the point that there have been severe currency exchange controls in Venezuela for over a decade. These Venezuelans aren't trading Bolivars outside the country; they are exporting BTC mined with a mismanaged electrical grid to get food, toiletries, etc. imported into the country. Yes, you can buy things with BTC. https://reason.com/2016/11/28/the-secret-dangerous-world-of/ https://reason.com/2016/11/28/the-secret-dangerous-world-of/ > that's a symptom of a piss-poor government. No amount of magic beans will change that, Did it solve their government problem? No. But it resulted in a little more food in the country then there would otherwise be by allowing citizens to subvert their government's financial controls. BTC provides a base level quality of money, that basically acts as an insurance system against the worst governments. Does it have a huge use case in a country with a healthy and functional financial system? No. But if things go to shit in a country, people can still use Bitcoin and safely transfer value online instead of reverting to trading gold coins in person. I know you want all things BTC to be bad. But try to keep it intellectual, not emotional. What about the technology -- do you think it's fascinating that a relatively simple and elegant protocol of incentives and cryptography can result in a self sustaining financial system still running a decade after its release?
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
It's mostly regulator's failure.
- wpietri 6y ago
  Nah. The point of Bitcoin was always to be beyond reach of traditional regulation. It's a failure of self-regulation.