2 ms·

All I know is that Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. -- regularly experience "connectivity issues" <g>... If a currency relies on a network to support it,

All I know is that Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. -- regularly experience "connectivity issues" <g>... If a currency relies on a network to support it, that currency is only as good as the underlying network... In other words, if the underlying network is useless -- so is the currency... Here, watch this, a Rick and Morty cartoon segment that will explain it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mweTc7tDO3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mweTc7tDO3I (Disclaimer: I do not endorse any messages of violence that this Rick and Morty cartoon segment may imply. There's a quote in the Bible (and I am not a particularly religious man or anything!), and that quote is "Be ye as wise as serpents, yet as gentle as doves". I am not a particularly religious man or anything -- but I take that particular quote to heart! <g>)

capableweb 6y ago
> In other words, if the underlying network is useless -- so is the currency... Many of us agree with that, hence it would be preferable that cryptocurrencies were the standard, not country-currencies. In the grand scheme of things, Bitcoin ends up being more resistant and durable than the many ledgers each country runs themselves. Or in other words, if you trust in Bitcoin, use it directly, not via Coinbase. As peter_d_sherman said: "currency is only as good as the underlying network" For example, what would happen to the Turkish lira if the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey burned down and somehow couldn't restore data from backups? With Bitcoin and others, the risk is much lower from central failure. Although individual failure risk is much higher. Tradeoffs.