4 ms·

My biggest fear is that institutions & governments jumping into this pyramid scheme, throwing our hard earned money to make billionaires out of snake oil men.

My biggest fear is that institutions & governments jumping into this pyramid scheme, throwing our hard earned money to make billionaires out of snake oil men. Bitcoin was fine as long as it was a small geeky fun currency with actual small transactions. It became a pyramid scheme once speculators jumped in. I am open to government or industry backed crypto or digital currency.

high_5 5y ago
I think it's a bait and switch scenario where the institutions build something bitcoin like infrastructure but in reality it's just centralized infrastructure for credit cards 2.0.
spiorf 5y ago
> government or industry backed digital currency That's your bank account and credit cards etc.. The whole point of cryptocurrency is to not to be backed or controlled by any single entity.
- uh_uh 5y ago
  Your bank account and credit cards are not programmable money. They don't have smart contracts where third parties can verify the fairness of the financial instruments you are purchasing. All you have is trust in financial institutions.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    The only reason why they aren't programmable, is because banks choose not to expose an API. In fact, even that's not completely true: Starling offers programmable bank accounts in the UK, and there is at least one programmable credit card provider in the US.
    - uh_uh 5y ago
      These are good steps yes. But still, you're at the mercy of fintechs. Also, for this stuff to be really useful, it needs to be standardised worldwide. E.g. Algerian traders should be able to trade with Japanese counterparties by interacting with the same smart contracts.
      - selfhoster11 5y ago
        That I agree with. I just disagree with the assertion that legacy banking is not programmable, because there's nothing that inherently prevents it from working that way (other than bank policy).
- naruvimama 5y ago
  Currencies need to be backed by an asset or an entity. Bitcoin is meaningful only as long as it is a temporary token for transaction like an IOU note. The day it became a "store of value" or asset to be speculated on it is meaningless.
Quindecillion 5y ago
> I am open to government or industry backed crypto or digital currency Then you don't understand the point of Bitcoin. Any "government backed" crypto (also known as Central Bank Digital Currencies, or CBDCs) will be under the complete control of bureaucrats, much like how money currently is. That means they can create as much of that money as they like to fund whatever they want. That kind of monetary expansion is not possible with Bitcoin, which is entirely the point. "The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts." - Satoshi Nakamoto
- naruvimama 5y ago
  I understand that bitcoin is decentralised, but decentralised what? Currencies need to have an underlying useful asset or guarantee. Yes governments used to have gold backed currencies but our economic growth is exponential, so it is now the job of the state. Incase they act irresponsibly it does go into hyper inflation, so they are forced to act responsibly. In case they do print more, it does go into public good like roads & bridges which adds to the public assets and hence adds to the assets backing the currency.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > That kind of monetary expansion is not possible with Bitcoin, which is entirely the point. Yes, which is (one reason) why all of these new projects and initiatives skip Bitcoin altogether and instead invent new tokens and coins for each new project. Bitcoin may not be expanding the Bitcoin supply, but the overall coin supply in the cryptocurrency world is absolutely exploding. New cryptocurrencies pop up every day and each new project mints new coins for arbitrary reasons (so their founders can keep most of them, usually). Why can’t I just pay for a Web3 service using existing Ethereum? Why must we first trade some coin for arbitrary tokens and then pay for the service? The answer is because the founders and early adopters want to cash out as much as possible as quickly as possible, and the fastest way to do that is by minting new coins.

high_5 5y ago

I think it's a bait and switch scenario where the institutions build something bitcoin like infrastructure but in reality it's just centralized infrastructure for credit cards 2.0.

spiorf 5y ago

> government or industry backed digital currency That's your bank account and credit cards etc.. The whole point of cryptocurrency is to not to be backed or controlled by any single entity.

uh_uh 5y ago
Your bank account and credit cards are not programmable money. They don't have smart contracts where third parties can verify the fairness of the financial instruments you are purchasing. All you have is trust in financial institutions.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  The only reason why they aren't programmable, is because banks choose not to expose an API. In fact, even that's not completely true: Starling offers programmable bank accounts in the UK, and there is at least one programmable credit card provider in the US.
  - uh_uh 5y ago
    These are good steps yes. But still, you're at the mercy of fintechs. Also, for this stuff to be really useful, it needs to be standardised worldwide. E.g. Algerian traders should be able to trade with Japanese counterparties by interacting with the same smart contracts.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      That I agree with. I just disagree with the assertion that legacy banking is not programmable, because there's nothing that inherently prevents it from working that way (other than bank policy).
naruvimama 5y ago
Currencies need to be backed by an asset or an entity. Bitcoin is meaningful only as long as it is a temporary token for transaction like an IOU note. The day it became a "store of value" or asset to be speculated on it is meaningless.

Quindecillion 5y ago

> I am open to government or industry backed crypto or digital currency Then you don't understand the point of Bitcoin. Any "government backed" crypto (also known as Central Bank Digital Currencies, or CBDCs) will be under the complete control of bureaucrats, much like how money currently is. That means they can create as much of that money as they like to fund whatever they want. That kind of monetary expansion is not possible with Bitcoin, which is entirely the point. "The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts." - Satoshi Nakamoto

naruvimama 5y ago
I understand that bitcoin is decentralised, but decentralised what? Currencies need to have an underlying useful asset or guarantee. Yes governments used to have gold backed currencies but our economic growth is exponential, so it is now the job of the state. Incase they act irresponsibly it does go into hyper inflation, so they are forced to act responsibly. In case they do print more, it does go into public good like roads & bridges which adds to the public assets and hence adds to the assets backing the currency.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> That kind of monetary expansion is not possible with Bitcoin, which is entirely the point. Yes, which is (one reason) why all of these new projects and initiatives skip Bitcoin altogether and instead invent new tokens and coins for each new project. Bitcoin may not be expanding the Bitcoin supply, but the overall coin supply in the cryptocurrency world is absolutely exploding. New cryptocurrencies pop up every day and each new project mints new coins for arbitrary reasons (so their founders can keep most of them, usually). Why can’t I just pay for a Web3 service using existing Ethereum? Why must we first trade some coin for arbitrary tokens and then pay for the service? The answer is because the founders and early adopters want to cash out as much as possible as quickly as possible, and the fastest way to do that is by minting new coins.