3 ms·

> Yeah, no, that's simply not true. There's lo-jacks, there's DOT owned cameras, there's the police. And if someone steals the keys to cryptocurrency you can t

> Yeah, no, that's simply not true. There's lo-jacks, there's DOT owned cameras, there's the police. And if someone steals the keys to cryptocurrency you can transfer your balance before. If someone scraps a car, you don't get it back. The asinine argument would be to pretend cryptocurrency is somehow unique here. > Well you should tell the Ethereum foundation lol. You brought up ethereum stuff as a diversion and a gish gallop instead of admitting that what you originally said was not just hyperbolic but a lie. This has nothing to do with anything except for you to ignore what contradicts everything you say. > I have no idea what kind of transaction you're talking about, and it's clear you don't either. Anything that takes a while is simply factored via lending. This is not a problem that exists in reality, just contrived. Once again, just because you don't know something, it doesn't mean that no one else does. How do you think charge backs work? Credit card transactions take a month to clear and make it to the vendor. > That 3%, by the way, exists primarily in the US. And? You were making an argument that credit cards somehow negate benefits of cryptocurrencies. > By the way, acceptance of credit increases average ticket size for merchants about 20%, and reduces their costs associated with managing cash. And? This isn't about credit cards, you said no one wanted anything that cryptocurrency does. > I'm sorry but they don't. The countries with the largest crypto penetration are Nigeria (where it's now illegal and dropping) and the US. It's less than 5% in the US and less than 1% globally. They do. Again, repeating your assertions isn't evidence. First you said no one uses it and no one wants it. Now you are back peddling into saying "it's only millions of people". Here is some actual information instead of hallucinated nonsense to try to shift around from your original claims - 106 million people are estimated to be cryptocurrency users. https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/crypto-users-pass-100-million-boomers-gen-x-bitcoin-btc-ethereum-2021-2-1030122720 https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/crypto-u... > It's been 13 years. There's high school students younger than Bitcoin. This means nothing. > Nobody in these countries is interested in paying a months salary in transaction fees for a coffee - No one is making an argument for bitcoin. I explicitly said that already and you copied and pasted it. Then you still argue against something you hallucinated. > or to dump their live savings into an easily scammable store of value that fluctuates 20% day over day. [citaiton needed] on your part. All of this is nonsense and reeks of desperate frustration to validate hating something instead of understanding it. > Competitors are only cheap because nobody uses them. This is the crypto way. Bitcoin Cash has more transactions that bitcoin and 32x the transaction throughput. Monero has a dynamically increasing block size with gradual penalties for outlier large blocks. What you are saying is completely disproven by these two examples alone. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.ht... > It is if the intrinsic characteristics of the currency are the reason you no longer have it. Trustlessness, censorship resistance, decentralization - this is why $2B could flee in the first place. And be fenced. You can't do that with traditional currencies. They didn't really have it in the first place, just like paypal. They had a number and never touched cryptocurrencies. You should tell all the people with frozen paypal accounts that this "can't happen with traditional currencies". You should also tell the citizens of Moldova. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_bank_fraud_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_bank_fraud_scandal You should also tell the Bangladesh bank that was hacked and -used to make over $100 million in SWIFT transactions from the Federal Reserve in New York-. They would be pleased to know this can't happen with "traditional currencies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Bank_robbery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Bank_robbery > Sure, I do, thanks to TransferWise Borderless That's interesting that you mention them, since they make heavy use of ACH, which takes 3-4 business days to clear, and receiving USD wire transfers costs $7.50. Once again though, you said "no one wants" cryptocurrencies. 100 million people want them and your own anecdotes don't mean anything. > And everyone would say we don't need to spend a country of power so some ancaps can trade spreadsheet cells :) This is nonsense to avoid talking about reality.

arcticbull 6y ago
Let me circle back and tighten up. > All of this is nonsense and reeks of desperate frustration to validate hating something instead of understanding it. I understand the system plenty, the difference is I look at it objectively, and you're not. You drank the kool-aid and got swept away. tl;dr: Cryptocurrencies are poor currencies because they're broadly speaking deflationary. That's not something we want in currencies, as it reduces the velocity of money and leads to a slower economy. They can't react to shocks, they can't react to population changes and hard currency exacerbates economic instability. Currencies only need to hold their value for as long as you possess them, be fungible (cryptos largely are not) and be cheap or free to transact anything else is a non-goal. Crypto prices are backed by Paolo's Bahamian money printer and enthusiasm. They're intrinsically inefficient because decentralization is inefficient. They're actively user-hostile because transactions are irreversible and they're super easy to lose. Not to mention they flail around wildly both up and down. Awful currency. They're poor assets because Cryptocurrencies are negative sum vehicles. Any wealth generation is purely illusory. For every $1 you put into the system less than $1 can leave because miners extract the delta. This is simply a system to transfer wealth from new market participants to old market participants. A business generates revenue which is used to repurchase shares, issue dividends or grow the intrinsic value of a business. They're not actually better at anything than a classical implementation. The actual issues in the traditional finance system can just as easily be solved within it. ACH is a great example. It's deprecated, on its way to being replaced with RTP, which settles instantly, no blockchain needed. Fedwires settle instantly and a number of US banks offer them free of charge. If you understood a bit more about traditional finance you'd see your arguments really aren't relevant to people. In exchange it facilitates money laundering at an unprecedented scale, and unprecedented frauds. It created a new type of crime - ransomware. And those fraud examples? Literally a rounding error on this exit scam right here. Thanks, Crypto!
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  > I understand the system plenty, the difference is I look at it objectively, and you're not. You drank the kool-aid and got swept away. That's not an argument or information of any kind. Instead of confronting anything I said, your whole post is a text book gish gallop - a bunch of nonsense arguments about things you are hallucinating since everything you said so far has been wildly contradicted. No mention of the 100 million cryptocurrency users after you said there were none. No mention of all the use cases after you said there were none. No mention of your claim of 'cheap because they aren't popular' being completely and obviously false. No mention of all the bank hacks after you said it doesn't happen with traditional currencies. No mention of the sources I gave to back up what I said while you repeat what you want to be true with no evidence. Instead you forget all the things you said that were not true at all and move on to venting about some sort of tangents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop > ACH is a great example. It's deprecated Then why does the thing you linked use it? > They're not actually better at anything than a classical implementation. You can come up with all the "you just don't understand" BS you want (with nothing to back it up) but the truth is there is no other way you could send me money in an hour without identifying information and a third party. I'm sure you will purposely miss the point and say "but I don't want too" instead of confronting that this is obviously not true.

arcticbull 6y ago

Let me circle back and tighten up. > All of this is nonsense and reeks of desperate frustration to validate hating something instead of understanding it. I understand the system plenty, the difference is I look at it objectively, and you're not. You drank the kool-aid and got swept away. tl;dr: Cryptocurrencies are poor currencies because they're broadly speaking deflationary. That's not something we want in currencies, as it reduces the velocity of money and leads to a slower economy. They can't react to shocks, they can't react to population changes and hard currency exacerbates economic instability. Currencies only need to hold their value for as long as you possess them, be fungible (cryptos largely are not) and be cheap or free to transact anything else is a non-goal. Crypto prices are backed by Paolo's Bahamian money printer and enthusiasm. They're intrinsically inefficient because decentralization is inefficient. They're actively user-hostile because transactions are irreversible and they're super easy to lose. Not to mention they flail around wildly both up and down. Awful currency. They're poor assets because Cryptocurrencies are negative sum vehicles. Any wealth generation is purely illusory. For every $1 you put into the system less than $1 can leave because miners extract the delta. This is simply a system to transfer wealth from new market participants to old market participants. A business generates revenue which is used to repurchase shares, issue dividends or grow the intrinsic value of a business. They're not actually better at anything than a classical implementation. The actual issues in the traditional finance system can just as easily be solved within it. ACH is a great example. It's deprecated, on its way to being replaced with RTP, which settles instantly, no blockchain needed. Fedwires settle instantly and a number of US banks offer them free of charge. If you understood a bit more about traditional finance you'd see your arguments really aren't relevant to people. In exchange it facilitates money laundering at an unprecedented scale, and unprecedented frauds. It created a new type of crime - ransomware. And those fraud examples? Literally a rounding error on this exit scam right here. Thanks, Crypto!

CyberDildonics 6y ago
> I understand the system plenty, the difference is I look at it objectively, and you're not. You drank the kool-aid and got swept away. That's not an argument or information of any kind. Instead of confronting anything I said, your whole post is a text book gish gallop - a bunch of nonsense arguments about things you are hallucinating since everything you said so far has been wildly contradicted. No mention of the 100 million cryptocurrency users after you said there were none. No mention of all the use cases after you said there were none. No mention of your claim of 'cheap because they aren't popular' being completely and obviously false. No mention of all the bank hacks after you said it doesn't happen with traditional currencies. No mention of the sources I gave to back up what I said while you repeat what you want to be true with no evidence. Instead you forget all the things you said that were not true at all and move on to venting about some sort of tangents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop > ACH is a great example. It's deprecated Then why does the thing you linked use it? > They're not actually better at anything than a classical implementation. You can come up with all the "you just don't understand" BS you want (with nothing to back it up) but the truth is there is no other way you could send me money in an hour without identifying information and a third party. I'm sure you will purposely miss the point and say "but I don't want too" instead of confronting that this is obviously not true.