6 ms·

> I still can’t believe how so many (otherwise) smart people that I talk to try to justify that the blockchain or cryptos will make the world a better place. W

> I still can’t believe how so many (otherwise) smart people that I talk to try to justify that the blockchain or cryptos will make the world a better place. Well if you keep running into the same issues maybe you shouldn't be so sure of yourself.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
I only see new issues with crypto. Which one does it actually solve?
- Guest42 5y ago
  I'd say it solves the what brands can sports venues extract the most marketing money from problem.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Well, it does scare the bejesus out of establishment, which is not an easy thing to do ( https://www.marketwatch.com/story/crypto-can-destabilize-nations-and-undermine-u-s-dollar-dominance-hillary-clinton-says-11637332449?mod=mw_latestnews https://www.marketwatch.com/story/crypto-can-destabilize-nat... ). As a side rant, I get more and more tired of the fact that in US the establishment is compromised of REALLY old people and somehow they are in charge of technological landscape?
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    So that's a pro? Lol
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      I said it in jest, but in retrospect maybe yes.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    Bioweapons also scare the bejesus out of "the establishment". Does that mean we should all be developing bioweapons?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      I think you misunderstood the core issue of my concern. My concern is not with the device establishment is scared of. My concern is with the fact that people, who appear to making decision about those devices know little to nothing about them. Half of them wouldn't know how to change a font in a document and yet they want to decide the path technology takes? It really is an extension of the dilemma presented by Douglas Adams: "To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job"
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        > I think you misunderstood the core issue of my concern. Did I? You yourself said that your complaint about people's knowledge was a "side rant". I didn't care about your side rant, I responded on the actual topic.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        I re-read what I wrote. You are right. In my head the two were connected even though it was more of an afterthought and not part of the original argument. I apologize for that. Regarding bio-weapons, assuming we will not end this civilization some other way, I do think that knowledge is a dangerous thing, but how are bio-weapons different from cryptography, 3d printing or nuclear fission. In a more practical sense, do you not think households may end up having gene editing tech in their garage, the way some are mining crypto now? More to the point, establishment is only scared of things that undermine its power. Does that make crypto inherently a bad thing?
        5y ago
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    I have thought about your comment. And it's just a rant about ignoring crypto. Which has no actual value and use-case in a real economy where people need to spend money to keep people earning ( and spending) money. I actually agree with those "old folks" and I'm only 33.. you're comment only makes sense from a greedy standing concerning crypto, not any other tech. Additionally, your comment "in jest" is just immoral to 99% of the people. Yuk.
- _djo_ 5y ago
  I'm sceptical of most of the claimed benefits of crypto but I have to admit that it seems useful for cross-border remittances, bypassing companies like Western Union who have traditionally charged unreasonable rates. Even with processing fees it's usually cheaper to do it via crypto.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Problem here is banking for the rural areas in poor countries. They don't have internet, so they have to travel far to get banking access and as such, they are unbanked. Claiming crypto is the solution is a fake dogma of the core issue.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      The poor and unbanked in a number of developing countries are still able to use crypto for remittances, in some cases done through local trusted intermediaries who do have that access. Same as hawala brokers.
      - NicoJuicy 5y ago
        Core problem is internet connectivity that enables easy banking.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    > it seems useful for cross-border remittances It seems useful for that, yes, but it turns out: It is not actually useful for that. The economics just do not work. Crypto can not support a one-way money flow, so it has to rely on middlemen for the reverse flow, and that ends up being at least as expensive as traditional ways of doing remittance. Many companies have tried to make this work, and they have all folded.
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  International remittances in seconds for less than a penny
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Lately, the average bitcoin transaction fee has fluctuated between $24 and $31, according to data provider Bitinfocharts. February 2021
    - anonymoushn 5y ago
      Right. I don't recommend using Bitcoin for payments.
  - brabel 5y ago
    I can get that with https://wise.com/ https://wise.com/ which integrates well with banks and therefore is my favourite solution for that. How does crypto compare to this?
    - anonymoushn 5y ago
      Hello, that's great that your selection of countries and banks work well with Wise. For me, moving about $10,000 (the maximum allowed by Wise) from the US to Japan through Wise takes about 5 days, costs like $70, and requires me to take a phone call at 2 in the morning from my US bank.
      - NicoJuicy 5y ago
        You can up those limits. Those are typically risk factors concerning fraud. Which is a feature. And in practice your converting 10 k $ -> btc -> yen would be a lot more expensive ;). Those crypto exchanges have enormous fees too.
        anonymoushn 5y ago
        > You can up those limits. You can't. That's a hard cap imposed by Wise for all transfers into Japan. > And in practice your converting 10 k $ -> btc -> yen would be a lot more expensive ;). Those crypto exchanges have enormous fees too. Nobody proposed using bitcoin. Maybe you mean the worst fee tiers on US exchanges like Coinbase? I pay 1.5bps taker fees and receive maker rebates at my primary exchange. My primary exchange and one of my Japanese banks also provide extremely competitive OTC forex rates which I cannot currently use because my primary exchange does not have fiat withdrawals in Japan and because Wise is not willing to send dollars to my Japanese bank (I wonder why).
- oleganza 5y ago
  Speaking only for Bitcoin, that's a leverage against state monopoly on money issuance. Regardless of the church you subscribe to (deflationary spiral of death VS austrian hard money libertopia), the fact remains that people: - want to save value for later, - want it to be liquid, - want it to be secure Govs' monopoly on money and ad-hoc issuance policy does not make fiat currencies a good fit. Physical gold is hard to secure, transport and partially liquidate. Gold certs and all sorts of funds are subject to counterparty risk that we begin with (see the history full of abuses in that realm). Real estate is expensive, comes with high taxes and is very far from being liquid. Bitcoin solves all these issues because it's far more liquid and easier to secure than gold or real estate. That creates a leverage against how much gov could inflate their money supply or tax other assets: they more they do, the more value flows out into Bitcoin. Today Bitcoin is a tiny slice of the pie, but in the future it may be very visible and offer real competition and make all the people who do not even use Bitcoin find themselves in a more stable fiat environment as a result.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Decentralization is not secure from fraud. Crypto shows the unpreparedness of the masses and platforms: Eg. https://rekt.news https://rekt.news And personally, i didn't see any non-tech folk know the concept of an offline wallet. "Save value for later" just abolishes everything that has been learned to increase consumption and drive economics from the last 100 years. It's a negative growth driver for the country, if you applaud that, i think that's insane.
    - oleganza 5y ago
      That's an orthogonal issue. There are plenty of non-crypto investment scams (ask your local VC), phishing etc. Some part of the population will always be robbed or scammed, regardless of the name of your country, inflation rate or what currency you use to pay the bills. Crypto may be higher on radar because there's lure of high returns because market is expanding rapidly, and, as in any bubble, some things will pop and some people will hold the bag. Just like with dotcom bubble or california gold rush. PS. Even though California rush left most people without much direct profit, the indirect profit was that California was populated, infrastructure developed and it became an important part of the global economy, and as a free state was one more place where people could move to build a better future for themselves, even if they were not directly interested in the gold itself.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

I only see new issues with crypto. Which one does it actually solve?

Guest42 5y ago
I'd say it solves the what brands can sports venues extract the most marketing money from problem.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
Well, it does scare the bejesus out of establishment, which is not an easy thing to do ( https://www.marketwatch.com/story/crypto-can-destabilize-nations-and-undermine-u-s-dollar-dominance-hillary-clinton-says-11637332449?mod=mw_latestnews https://www.marketwatch.com/story/crypto-can-destabilize-nat... ). As a side rant, I get more and more tired of the fact that in US the establishment is compromised of REALLY old people and somehow they are in charge of technological landscape?
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  So that's a pro? Lol
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    I said it in jest, but in retrospect maybe yes.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Bioweapons also scare the bejesus out of "the establishment". Does that mean we should all be developing bioweapons?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    I think you misunderstood the core issue of my concern. My concern is not with the device establishment is scared of. My concern is with the fact that people, who appear to making decision about those devices know little to nothing about them. Half of them wouldn't know how to change a font in a document and yet they want to decide the path technology takes? It really is an extension of the dilemma presented by Douglas Adams: "To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job"
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      > I think you misunderstood the core issue of my concern. Did I? You yourself said that your complaint about people's knowledge was a "side rant". I didn't care about your side rant, I responded on the actual topic.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        I re-read what I wrote. You are right. In my head the two were connected even though it was more of an afterthought and not part of the original argument. I apologize for that. Regarding bio-weapons, assuming we will not end this civilization some other way, I do think that knowledge is a dangerous thing, but how are bio-weapons different from cryptography, 3d printing or nuclear fission. In a more practical sense, do you not think households may end up having gene editing tech in their garage, the way some are mining crypto now? More to the point, establishment is only scared of things that undermine its power. Does that make crypto inherently a bad thing?
        5y ago
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  I have thought about your comment. And it's just a rant about ignoring crypto. Which has no actual value and use-case in a real economy where people need to spend money to keep people earning ( and spending) money. I actually agree with those "old folks" and I'm only 33.. you're comment only makes sense from a greedy standing concerning crypto, not any other tech. Additionally, your comment "in jest" is just immoral to 99% of the people. Yuk.
_djo_ 5y ago
I'm sceptical of most of the claimed benefits of crypto but I have to admit that it seems useful for cross-border remittances, bypassing companies like Western Union who have traditionally charged unreasonable rates. Even with processing fees it's usually cheaper to do it via crypto.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Problem here is banking for the rural areas in poor countries. They don't have internet, so they have to travel far to get banking access and as such, they are unbanked. Claiming crypto is the solution is a fake dogma of the core issue.
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    The poor and unbanked in a number of developing countries are still able to use crypto for remittances, in some cases done through local trusted intermediaries who do have that access. Same as hawala brokers.
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      Core problem is internet connectivity that enables easy banking.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  > it seems useful for cross-border remittances It seems useful for that, yes, but it turns out: It is not actually useful for that. The economics just do not work. Crypto can not support a one-way money flow, so it has to rely on middlemen for the reverse flow, and that ends up being at least as expensive as traditional ways of doing remittance. Many companies have tried to make this work, and they have all folded.
anonymoushn 5y ago
International remittances in seconds for less than a penny
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Lately, the average bitcoin transaction fee has fluctuated between $24 and $31, according to data provider Bitinfocharts. February 2021
  - anonymoushn 5y ago
    Right. I don't recommend using Bitcoin for payments.
- brabel 5y ago
  I can get that with https://wise.com/ https://wise.com/ which integrates well with banks and therefore is my favourite solution for that. How does crypto compare to this?
  - anonymoushn 5y ago
    Hello, that's great that your selection of countries and banks work well with Wise. For me, moving about $10,000 (the maximum allowed by Wise) from the US to Japan through Wise takes about 5 days, costs like $70, and requires me to take a phone call at 2 in the morning from my US bank.
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      You can up those limits. Those are typically risk factors concerning fraud. Which is a feature. And in practice your converting 10 k $ -> btc -> yen would be a lot more expensive ;). Those crypto exchanges have enormous fees too.
      - anonymoushn 5y ago
        > You can up those limits. You can't. That's a hard cap imposed by Wise for all transfers into Japan. > And in practice your converting 10 k $ -> btc -> yen would be a lot more expensive ;). Those crypto exchanges have enormous fees too. Nobody proposed using bitcoin. Maybe you mean the worst fee tiers on US exchanges like Coinbase? I pay 1.5bps taker fees and receive maker rebates at my primary exchange. My primary exchange and one of my Japanese banks also provide extremely competitive OTC forex rates which I cannot currently use because my primary exchange does not have fiat withdrawals in Japan and because Wise is not willing to send dollars to my Japanese bank (I wonder why).
oleganza 5y ago
Speaking only for Bitcoin, that's a leverage against state monopoly on money issuance. Regardless of the church you subscribe to (deflationary spiral of death VS austrian hard money libertopia), the fact remains that people: - want to save value for later, - want it to be liquid, - want it to be secure Govs' monopoly on money and ad-hoc issuance policy does not make fiat currencies a good fit. Physical gold is hard to secure, transport and partially liquidate. Gold certs and all sorts of funds are subject to counterparty risk that we begin with (see the history full of abuses in that realm). Real estate is expensive, comes with high taxes and is very far from being liquid. Bitcoin solves all these issues because it's far more liquid and easier to secure than gold or real estate. That creates a leverage against how much gov could inflate their money supply or tax other assets: they more they do, the more value flows out into Bitcoin. Today Bitcoin is a tiny slice of the pie, but in the future it may be very visible and offer real competition and make all the people who do not even use Bitcoin find themselves in a more stable fiat environment as a result.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Decentralization is not secure from fraud. Crypto shows the unpreparedness of the masses and platforms: Eg. https://rekt.news https://rekt.news And personally, i didn't see any non-tech folk know the concept of an offline wallet. "Save value for later" just abolishes everything that has been learned to increase consumption and drive economics from the last 100 years. It's a negative growth driver for the country, if you applaud that, i think that's insane.
  - oleganza 5y ago
    That's an orthogonal issue. There are plenty of non-crypto investment scams (ask your local VC), phishing etc. Some part of the population will always be robbed or scammed, regardless of the name of your country, inflation rate or what currency you use to pay the bills. Crypto may be higher on radar because there's lure of high returns because market is expanding rapidly, and, as in any bubble, some things will pop and some people will hold the bag. Just like with dotcom bubble or california gold rush. PS. Even though California rush left most people without much direct profit, the indirect profit was that California was populated, infrastructure developed and it became an important part of the global economy, and as a free state was one more place where people could move to build a better future for themselves, even if they were not directly interested in the gold itself.