3 ms·

> s/tool/ponzi scheme/ This weakens the rest of your argument. Bitcoin obviously isn't a Ponzi scheme. If speaking to an uninformed audience, this could be a g

> s/tool/ponzi scheme/ This weakens the rest of your argument. Bitcoin obviously isn't a Ponzi scheme. If speaking to an uninformed audience, this could be a good-enough approximation, but when speaking to an informed audience, a cheap shot like this just makes you seem uninformed (which you clearly aren't, based on the rest of your post). > I am entirely unconvinced that bitcoin has a positive short-term effect. Most of what happens with BitCoin is people buying it in exchange for fiat currency, a bunch of speculation, and mining (if that's not mostly over). I don't see it empowering workers' movements. On the whole, I agree with you on this, and I hope there's nothing in my previous post which makes it seem otherwise. However, as with any large complex system, there are local effects, and the situation is not as simple as you're making it seem.

einpoklum 6y ago
1. Can you post a link to an overview of these positive local effects? 2. Are there enough of these local effects to counter-weigh the global negative effects? AFAICT the answer to (2.) is negative, but I suppose I could be mistaken, since I don't follow BitCoin use closely.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > 1. Can you post a link to an overview of these positive local effects? To be clear what I mean by "local" in this case, is "within a sub-economy" not necessarily local geographically. There are a few examples already in this thread, but I'll add a few of my own: 1. Workers in the US often send money back to families in third-world countries. Doing this with BTC is less expensive and faster than with wire transfers. 2. Transacting in Bitcoin has made the illegal drug trade safer, which primarily benefits the poor. Less violence, higher quality products, less risk of being caught. > 2. Are there enough of these local effects to counter-weigh the global negative effects? > AFAICT the answer to (2.) is negative, but I suppose I could be mistaken, since I don't follow BitCoin use closely. I tend to agree with you here.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    > Workers in the US often send money back to families in third-world countries. Doing this with BTC is less expensive and faster than with wire transfers. How high are those fees, these days? IIUC, in recent years, several companies have enabled regular-money-based transfers over the Internet at lower fees than in the past. Some quick searching indicates players include Zelle, PayPal, CashApp and Venmo For example, I just checked the PayPal (ugh) fee for transferring 1,000 USD to a Mexican bank account. If you have a US bank account linked to PayPal, the fee is zero. I've heard Zelle is also free (?) Even if for some countries its probably more expensive - I wonder if it's that high. Plus, on the BTC side, you need to factor in the fees for converting to and from BTC. About the illegal drug trade: I don't see how BTC improves product quality. As for the violence - world states, primarily the US, control the level of violence, and it isn't really about the method of payment. As for the risk of drug-runners being caught - most of these are small-time businessmen rather than workers. So I feel this is a bit of a forced example. If anything, the benefit here is possibly reducing state involvement in drug trafficking and bringing us closer to de-criminalization.

einpoklum 6y ago

1. Can you post a link to an overview of these positive local effects? 2. Are there enough of these local effects to counter-weigh the global negative effects? AFAICT the answer to (2.) is negative, but I suppose I could be mistaken, since I don't follow BitCoin use closely.

kerkeslager 6y ago
> 1. Can you post a link to an overview of these positive local effects? To be clear what I mean by "local" in this case, is "within a sub-economy" not necessarily local geographically. There are a few examples already in this thread, but I'll add a few of my own: 1. Workers in the US often send money back to families in third-world countries. Doing this with BTC is less expensive and faster than with wire transfers. 2. Transacting in Bitcoin has made the illegal drug trade safer, which primarily benefits the poor. Less violence, higher quality products, less risk of being caught. > 2. Are there enough of these local effects to counter-weigh the global negative effects? > AFAICT the answer to (2.) is negative, but I suppose I could be mistaken, since I don't follow BitCoin use closely. I tend to agree with you here.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > Workers in the US often send money back to families in third-world countries. Doing this with BTC is less expensive and faster than with wire transfers. How high are those fees, these days? IIUC, in recent years, several companies have enabled regular-money-based transfers over the Internet at lower fees than in the past. Some quick searching indicates players include Zelle, PayPal, CashApp and Venmo For example, I just checked the PayPal (ugh) fee for transferring 1,000 USD to a Mexican bank account. If you have a US bank account linked to PayPal, the fee is zero. I've heard Zelle is also free (?) Even if for some countries its probably more expensive - I wonder if it's that high. Plus, on the BTC side, you need to factor in the fees for converting to and from BTC. About the illegal drug trade: I don't see how BTC improves product quality. As for the violence - world states, primarily the US, control the level of violence, and it isn't really about the method of payment. As for the risk of drug-runners being caught - most of these are small-time businessmen rather than workers. So I feel this is a bit of a forced example. If anything, the benefit here is possibly reducing state involvement in drug trafficking and bringing us closer to de-criminalization.