5 ms·

Money is largely controlled by a small group of investors and central banks. [citation needed]

by sb057 5y ago

pcwalton 5y ago
The difference is that traditional money is up front about that fact and doesn't use decentralization as a selling point.
- nickpinkston 5y ago
  100% this
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    This sort of comment adds nothing of value whatsoever to the discussion.
    - glenvdb 5y ago
      Well... neither does your's, or this one for that matter.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Well and also the government doesn’t need to have a “selling point” because of the whole being the government thing.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  There seems to be a weird perception that decentralization means that there won't be inequality of power in the system. That's not what it means. Decentralization simply means that there is no central power that can make unilateral decisions about the system like a government can with its currency. This explicit decentralization of power is what people are excited about, because it means any change to the system requires a supermajority of consent and there are no central points of attack that power hungry fascists can target and take over. Centralization can be incredibly efficient, but also incredibly fragile. Bitcoin is the anti fragile monetary system.
  - bradwood 5y ago
    You nailed it. Bitcoin is not some kind of panacea that will make everyone rich. It's just money that cannot be fucked with by central bankers, governments, dictators or anyone else for that matter. That's it.
    - evilos 5y ago
      Can't it still be fucked with via regulation? eg China banning it outright etc.
      - IAmGraydon 5y ago
        Yep. That’s the thing that crypto supporters just seem to ignore: it requires an infrastructure that is owned and controlled by a higher power. Namely, the internet. In the end, the government has the power to easily shut this entire thing down. It only exists because they let it.
        glenvdb 5y ago
        You think they're going to shutdown the Internet to kill Bitcoin? Even if they did, once the Internet was back up and running what would stop the Bitcoin network from continuing where it left off? There's thousands of people around the world running their own Bitcoin nodes, many also protected behind Tor [1]. In what realistic way could governments shut it down globally? They could go for centralised custodial businesses like the exchanges, but that doesn't stop the Bitcoin network itself. Also there are decentralised exchanges like Bisq that can't be shutdown. "Yes (you will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.), but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own." — Satoshi Nakamoto "A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990’s. I hope it’s obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we’re trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system." — Satoshi Nakamoto 1. https://bitnodes.io/dashboard/ https://bitnodes.io/dashboard/
Proven 5y ago
That's not money, that's currencies and fiat. And there's a difference between "controlling" and "owning". Free market doesn't provide mechanisms for money "control". If you rightfully own it, it's yours and I don't care how much you have. I apply the same logic to Bitcoin - I don't care how many people own it and how much BTC each has: it's their own business. But they can't "control" "money" - they care barely control their own wallets I don't accept BTC in exchange for my labor. So, why should I care?
Synaesthesia 5y ago
Yes it is. But bitcoin has an even greater degree of inequality, way beyond. Almost all the bitcoin is in the hands of a few thousand people.
- zeepzeep 5y ago
  Sadly crypto currencies do not solve the problem of money distribution. (It's not the problem of the money, it's how we as society use it)
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  You can change that today by buying some. It’s an all you can eat buffet at $61,000 and those thousands will gladly sell you some.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    You're going to love my Herbalife supplements.
nuerow 5y ago
> Money is largely controlled by a small group of investors and central banks. [citation needed] There are an estimated 40 trillion dollars in circulation alone. The US government debt is currently close to 30 trillion dollars. The world's richest person has an estimated value of around 180 billion dollars, less than 1% of the US debt alone. I'm talking about projected value, not cash. In contrast, it was already reported that a mere 100 individuals control around 13% of BTC's coins, and 1000 users control around 40%. https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-whales-the-key-facts-figures-you-need-to-know-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-whales-the-key-facts...
- kolinko 5y ago
  You need to compare the relative numbers. Bitcoin is being held by 1000x fewer people than the US dollar. If 100 people control 13% of Bitcoin, then the question is how much Dollar top 100,000 people hold.
  - tonfa 5y ago
    But by design Bitcoin doesn't dilute or expand through balance sheet, so in a BTC maximalist world, those 100 people still hold roughly the same fraction, right?
- yc12340 5y ago
  So you are saying, that US government controls such staggering amount of money, that even it's debt (denominated in it's own currency) is several orders of magnitude bigger than total worth of the richest person in the world? And that person is also many orders of magnitude richer than a mean citizen?! Suddenly, Bitcoin does not sound so centralized in comparison...
2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
I'd say the main takeaway is that the narrative of "crypto currencies decentralize money and transfer the power and control from banks/rich people to the people" is just complete bullsh*.

Money is largely controlled by a small group of investors and central banks. [citation needed]

by sb057 5y ago

Money is largely controlled by a small group of investors and central banks. [citation needed]

The difference is that traditional money is up front about that fact and doesn't use decentralization as a selling point.

nickpinkston 5y ago
100% this
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  This sort of comment adds nothing of value whatsoever to the discussion.
  - glenvdb 5y ago
    Well... neither does your's, or this one for that matter.
tshaddox 5y ago
Well and also the government doesn’t need to have a “selling point” because of the whole being the government thing.
anonporridge 5y ago
There seems to be a weird perception that decentralization means that there won't be inequality of power in the system. That's not what it means. Decentralization simply means that there is no central power that can make unilateral decisions about the system like a government can with its currency. This explicit decentralization of power is what people are excited about, because it means any change to the system requires a supermajority of consent and there are no central points of attack that power hungry fascists can target and take over. Centralization can be incredibly efficient, but also incredibly fragile. Bitcoin is the anti fragile monetary system.
- bradwood 5y ago
  You nailed it. Bitcoin is not some kind of panacea that will make everyone rich. It's just money that cannot be fucked with by central bankers, governments, dictators or anyone else for that matter. That's it.
  - evilos 5y ago
    Can't it still be fucked with via regulation? eg China banning it outright etc.
    - IAmGraydon 5y ago
      Yep. That’s the thing that crypto supporters just seem to ignore: it requires an infrastructure that is owned and controlled by a higher power. Namely, the internet. In the end, the government has the power to easily shut this entire thing down. It only exists because they let it.
      - glenvdb 5y ago
        You think they're going to shutdown the Internet to kill Bitcoin? Even if they did, once the Internet was back up and running what would stop the Bitcoin network from continuing where it left off? There's thousands of people around the world running their own Bitcoin nodes, many also protected behind Tor [1]. In what realistic way could governments shut it down globally? They could go for centralised custodial businesses like the exchanges, but that doesn't stop the Bitcoin network itself. Also there are decentralised exchanges like Bisq that can't be shutdown. "Yes (you will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.), but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own." — Satoshi Nakamoto "A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990’s. I hope it’s obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we’re trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system." — Satoshi Nakamoto 1. https://bitnodes.io/dashboard/ https://bitnodes.io/dashboard/

Proven 5y ago

That's not money, that's currencies and fiat. And there's a difference between "controlling" and "owning". Free market doesn't provide mechanisms for money "control". If you rightfully own it, it's yours and I don't care how much you have. I apply the same logic to Bitcoin - I don't care how many people own it and how much BTC each has: it's their own business. But they can't "control" "money" - they care barely control their own wallets I don't accept BTC in exchange for my labor. So, why should I care?

Synaesthesia 5y ago

Yes it is. But bitcoin has an even greater degree of inequality, way beyond. Almost all the bitcoin is in the hands of a few thousand people.

zeepzeep 5y ago
Sadly crypto currencies do not solve the problem of money distribution. (It's not the problem of the money, it's how we as society use it)
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
You can change that today by buying some. It’s an all you can eat buffet at $61,000 and those thousands will gladly sell you some.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  You're going to love my Herbalife supplements.

nuerow 5y ago

> Money is largely controlled by a small group of investors and central banks. [citation needed] There are an estimated 40 trillion dollars in circulation alone. The US government debt is currently close to 30 trillion dollars. The world's richest person has an estimated value of around 180 billion dollars, less than 1% of the US debt alone. I'm talking about projected value, not cash. In contrast, it was already reported that a mere 100 individuals control around 13% of BTC's coins, and 1000 users control around 40%. https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-whales-the-key-facts-figures-you-need-to-know-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-whales-the-key-facts...

kolinko 5y ago
You need to compare the relative numbers. Bitcoin is being held by 1000x fewer people than the US dollar. If 100 people control 13% of Bitcoin, then the question is how much Dollar top 100,000 people hold.
- tonfa 5y ago
  But by design Bitcoin doesn't dilute or expand through balance sheet, so in a BTC maximalist world, those 100 people still hold roughly the same fraction, right?
yc12340 5y ago
So you are saying, that US government controls such staggering amount of money, that even it's debt (denominated in it's own currency) is several orders of magnitude bigger than total worth of the richest person in the world? And that person is also many orders of magnitude richer than a mean citizen?! Suddenly, Bitcoin does not sound so centralized in comparison...

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago

I'd say the main takeaway is that the narrative of "crypto currencies decentralize money and transfer the power and control from banks/rich people to the people" is just complete bullsh*.