4 ms·
From the article. > There is no physical, economic, or social justification for something like this. Personally I do feel there is very much an economic justi
by wsc981 6y ago
From the article.
> There is no physical, economic, or social justification for something like this.
Personally I do feel there is very much an economic justification for Bitcoin to exist and to a lesser extent a social justification (privacy).
Bitcoin allows people to keep their wealth outside of the hands of the government and I feel this is a good thing.
Bitcoin makes it cheap and easy to transfer value to another country. Much cheaper compared to using banks with their crazy interbank currency conversion that is very expensive. Also, banks are often quite slow to do the transfers, especially in weekends.
I like the facts that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies can be traded 24-7. Again this to me is a good thing. The markets are always open.
I don't like what Western central banks have been doing in the last few years: Quantitate Easing (QE). QE basically caused the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer since most of the printed money arrived in the stock markets. And rich people own stocks. So rich people in turn might have rebalanced their portfolios by selling some stocks in order to buy property, causing property prices to increase as well. Inflation is visible in the stock and property markets.
But wages at the same time have not grown much (if at all) in some countries for a very long time now. At least Bitcoin is doing the opposite - keep it in your wallet and its value grows. Now I am not sure if the Bitcoin approach is the best idea, to me it seems a very small consistent inflation (~2%) every year is a good thing - especially since wallets get lost and such, but I guess we'll see how it pans out.
But ... perhaps it's a good thing in the long run to have a currency that increases in value if it's not being used. Such a currency might encourage saving and thus reduce consumption which might be good for the environment as well.
- pimterry 6y ago> Personally I do feel there is very much an economic justification for Bitcoin to exist and to a lesser extent a social justification (privacy). Does any of that apply if you compare bitcoin to other crypto alternatives, rather than traditional finance? Is there a justification for using Bitcoin over Celo, Stellar, Cardono, Ethereum (with proof-of-stake), etc, which don't have the same environmental impact?
- wsc981 6y ago> Does any of that apply if you compare bitcoin to other crypto alternatives, rather than traditional finance? Not necessarily no, other cryptos might fill the gap fine as well.
- ForHackernews 6y agoWhy bitcoin specifically? Why not newer, technologically superior proof-of-stake coins? I can't think of another case where supposed technologists cling to a terrible, inefficient protocol even when better alternatives are available. It's not like we still use token ring networks. The only reason I can see for people to love BTC so much is that they are hoping to get rich from speculation.
- caf 6y agoIncreasing the money supply doesn't inherently cause "the rich to become richer". Yes, asset prices (both stocks and real estate) tend to go up, but that's because the underlying asset has about the same value but that value requires more dollars to represent - it's not the asset value that has gone up but the dollar value that has gone down. What it does do is advantage debtors (since the intrinsic value of their outstanding debt, which is a fixed number of dollars, has gone down) and disadvantage creditors and holders of cash (since the intrinsic value of their loan/deposit or cash, which is a fixed number of dollars, has gone down). Some rich might be debtors (those who've borrowed to invest in assets), but some poor might be debtors too (eg. student loans, large credit card debts). It would seem less likely for poorer classes to be creditors or holders of large quantities of cash, though. Wage stagnation is a different matter. A priori, you would expect increasing the money supply to cause wage price inflation alongside asset prices. The fact that this isn't occurring means some other effect is in play.
- viklove 6y ago> Increasing the money supply doesn't inherently cause "the rich to become richer" No, but Quantitative Easing inherently causes the rich to become richer > A priori, you would expect increasing the money supply to cause wage price inflation alongside asset prices. The fact that this isn't occurring means some other effect is in play. Again, no. It's a common tactic to redirect these conversations to talk about how increasing money supply causes inflation. It does not. It depends on how you increase the money supply. QE causes asset inflation, which means it's harder for the poor to acquire assets, and asset holders benefit from the inflation. Who owns assets? The wealthy. QE is class warfare.
- caf 6y agoWhat is your proposed mechanism for this.
- gher-shyu3i 6y agoExactly. It's huge to be able to use a currency that is not arbitrarily devaluable at the whim of the government and central bank.
- jschveibinz 6y agoIt is only a matter of time before crypto-currencies fall under government control. Shadow economies do not generate taxes, and taxes are necessary to support the infrastructure. Let’s be honest: mining of these currencies uses a lot of energy. How about a currency that is tied to CO2 capture?