5 ms·

There are huge regulatory and societal roadblocks for crypto to be used as envisioned not as present during those other cases of wide technological adoption. F

There are huge regulatory and societal roadblocks for crypto to be used as envisioned not as present during those other cases of wide technological adoption. For crypto to be valuable, merchants need to use it. Transactions need to be cheaper. A stable decentralized financial system needs to emerge. The use case is a world without central banks and central currency manipulation. People who don’t see the use case don’t understand the scope of what direct exchange of currency without central management entails. There are arguments against that world and in favor of central currencies. The roadblocks are enormous, maybe insurmountable. And perhaps that world would be worse or lead to more authoritarian control rather than less. But I don’t think anyone who believes in the potential denies crypto will take time to have a lot of mainstream use simply because the main use case is so large.

JackFr 5y ago
> The use case is a world without central banks and central currency manipulation. > People who don’t see the use case don’t understand the scope of what direct exchange of currency without central management entails. People who see that as a feature don't understand how credit works nor its importance in modern financial capitalism.
- didericis 5y ago
  Credit and hard crypto currencies are not incompatible. The main difference is crypto sets hard limits on underlying denominator of value and distinguishes it from credit. There are potential liquidity problems and endless debates about whether having everything backed by crypto like bitcoin would be a net positive. I don’t have the background to get into all the economic implications and I’m not entirely sold on this alternative crypto based future I’m presenting being a good thing, even if possible. Rather than dismiss these types of arguments, though, I’d like to see more central bank advocates explain why creditors which accumulate bitcoin would not be able to act similarly to current issuers of credit, but more checked and decentralized because none would have control over the production of the underlying value representation that’s borrowed against.
lottin 5y ago
I think the major roadblock is the fact that bitcoin was conceived as anarcho-capitalist money, and for it to succeed anarcho-capitalism would have to succeed. And that's not going to happen, because anarcho-capitalism is not viable way of organising a society. It should be obvious to anyone who has delved into the literature.
- didericis 5y ago
  Gold was the world reserve currency for millennia and acted similarly to bitcoin and other crypto currencies. You can still have emergent government structures many of the bitcoin people would hate on top of a base store of value which is not centrally produced by governments.
  - lottin 5y ago
    I agree. But the promises that bitcoin makes can only become reality if anarcho-capitalism itself becomes a reality. Otherwise, if the government continues to tax you, and banks continue to hold fractional reserves, what is the point of using something so anti-economical and impractical as bitcoin, when you can just use a more convenient currency?
    - didericis 5y ago
      If the supply of money is distributed it becomes more difficult to manipulate. Fractional reserves in a world backed by bitcoin can’t be bailed out if banks screw up. If people want to exchange whatever government backed medium might sit on top of it to actual bitcoin the banks wouldn’t be able to if they spread themselves too thin. It would create more accountability.
      - lottin 5y ago
        That's not what I meant. The majority of money in circulation is not issued by central banks, but instead is money that is created out of thin air by commercial banks that operate under fractional reserve banking. In other words, fractional reserve banking expands the money supply. This means that if bitcoin became money, the supply of bitcoins would not be fixed at all, contrary to what many of its advocates believe, because fractional reserve banking would create a colossal amount of new bitcoins, just like now it creates colossal amounts of new dollars. So the promise of a fixed supply of money cannot happen, unless a world-wide ban on fractional reserve banking occurs first, somehow.

JackFr 5y ago

> The use case is a world without central banks and central currency manipulation. > People who don’t see the use case don’t understand the scope of what direct exchange of currency without central management entails. People who see that as a feature don't understand how credit works nor its importance in modern financial capitalism.

didericis 5y ago
Credit and hard crypto currencies are not incompatible. The main difference is crypto sets hard limits on underlying denominator of value and distinguishes it from credit. There are potential liquidity problems and endless debates about whether having everything backed by crypto like bitcoin would be a net positive. I don’t have the background to get into all the economic implications and I’m not entirely sold on this alternative crypto based future I’m presenting being a good thing, even if possible. Rather than dismiss these types of arguments, though, I’d like to see more central bank advocates explain why creditors which accumulate bitcoin would not be able to act similarly to current issuers of credit, but more checked and decentralized because none would have control over the production of the underlying value representation that’s borrowed against.

lottin 5y ago

I think the major roadblock is the fact that bitcoin was conceived as anarcho-capitalist money, and for it to succeed anarcho-capitalism would have to succeed. And that's not going to happen, because anarcho-capitalism is not viable way of organising a society. It should be obvious to anyone who has delved into the literature.

didericis 5y ago
Gold was the world reserve currency for millennia and acted similarly to bitcoin and other crypto currencies. You can still have emergent government structures many of the bitcoin people would hate on top of a base store of value which is not centrally produced by governments.
- lottin 5y ago
  I agree. But the promises that bitcoin makes can only become reality if anarcho-capitalism itself becomes a reality. Otherwise, if the government continues to tax you, and banks continue to hold fractional reserves, what is the point of using something so anti-economical and impractical as bitcoin, when you can just use a more convenient currency?
  - didericis 5y ago
    If the supply of money is distributed it becomes more difficult to manipulate. Fractional reserves in a world backed by bitcoin can’t be bailed out if banks screw up. If people want to exchange whatever government backed medium might sit on top of it to actual bitcoin the banks wouldn’t be able to if they spread themselves too thin. It would create more accountability.
    - lottin 5y ago
      That's not what I meant. The majority of money in circulation is not issued by central banks, but instead is money that is created out of thin air by commercial banks that operate under fractional reserve banking. In other words, fractional reserve banking expands the money supply. This means that if bitcoin became money, the supply of bitcoins would not be fixed at all, contrary to what many of its advocates believe, because fractional reserve banking would create a colossal amount of new bitcoins, just like now it creates colossal amounts of new dollars. So the promise of a fixed supply of money cannot happen, unless a world-wide ban on fractional reserve banking occurs first, somehow.