6 ms·

It is precisely this kind of ignorance this article is to disperse. Just because you don’t have the imagination to see why peer to peer, censorship resistant, n

It is precisely this kind of ignorance this article is to disperse. Just because you don’t have the imagination to see why peer to peer, censorship resistant, non-state based electronic money might be useful, doesn’t mean we all feel that way. After all these years and you still don’t get it means you live a sheltered life. In fact, you are going out of your way to shout “scam”, meanwhile most of us just ignore you while building the future.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
There it is, the comment that uncritically defends cryptocurrencies. I mean the traits you describe are not wrong, it's just that crypto is not useful as a payment method due to transaction volume, value / exchange rate volatility, acceptance, etc. For a laugh, people bought pizzas and the like with bitcoin. Nowadays they hold onto it because it might be worth fiat money. Why spend something as money if it could be worth 20% more tomorrow? It's an unregulated trading product, it's not practical as electronic money. I mean it might become that, but it would need a lot more oversight, which will cost the traits you mentioned (peer to peer, censorship resistant, etc).
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  It’s fine, Bitcoin has worked exactly as expected for the 13 years of its life. It will work as expected for the next 13. It doesn’t need your approval, it just is. The next 13 years might well be considerably more interesting than the first. You are welcome to throw rocks from the side lines. It is an entirely opt-in and voluntary monetary system.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Flailing wildly around in value, unfit for purpose is how it was intended?
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      Works for me, maybe you are holding it wrong.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        It's not money if all you do is hold it lol. That makes it an asset. Spending it in exchange for goods and services makes it money, and 4 tx/sec doesn't give you a lot of room to do that. And uh, well, you see, many other assets have outperformed it over the last 5 years.
        scottiebarnes 5y ago
        > It's not money if all you do is hold it lol. Hmm, we need to tell every Central Bank in the world that the gold bars they're holding aren't money. Fort Knox must be a cover for government experimentation on aliens.
        detaro 5y ago
        ... which Central Bank refers to their gold assets as "money"?
        scottiebarnes 5y ago
        You're right, they wouldn't refer to it as money because that would undermine the power of their own printed fiat currency. So its just some sort of very expensive commodity asset, which is used to store value, which we can expect to use to trade with other people, which USED to be money but somehow isn't anymore.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        > You're right, they wouldn't refer to it as money because that would undermine the power of their own printed fiat currency. No they don't refer to it as money because words have meaning.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > For a laugh, people bought pizzas and the like with bitcoin. Nowadays they hold onto it because it might be worth fiat money. Why spend something as money if it could be worth 20% more tomorrow? Which is kind of the definition of a deflationary currency. We've been through all of this already with the gold standard: it was useful for a time, but the pros and cons have generally been weighed and the consensus seems to be not to use it.
- tomputer 5y ago
  > It's an unregulated trading product, it's not practical as electronic money. What if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be digital cash but with a limited supply like gold? From the bitcoin whitepaper: The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. Before Bitcoin there was no ‘cash’ on the internet. Only electronic corporate (controlled) money.
malermeister 5y ago
Just because you don’t have the imagination to see why peer to peer, censorship resistant, non-state based electronic money might be harmful, doesn’t mean we all feel that way. Bitcoin is an attack on the core foundations of our society and is trying to actively undermine democracy. Thankfully it's pretty ineffective so far.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  ...trying to actively undermine democracy. What "democracy" is this? Is that the word you're using for a "choice" between Biden and Trump? Good grief.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    Don't be so US-centric. Just cause one country is failing doesn't mean that all are.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      What direction are your obesity rates pointing? We are your future.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Bitcoin is an attack on the core foundations of our society and is trying to actively undermine democracy Without an attached justification I can't tell whether this is serious or not.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    The justification is in the parent post. By removing control of money from the democratically elected state, you are creating a corporatist dystopia where only money itself is the highest power and the will of the people no longer has a way of being enforced. I'm a big beginner believer in Kreiskyan deficit spending for example. Good luck trying to do that once you can no longer print your own money.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

There it is, the comment that uncritically defends cryptocurrencies. I mean the traits you describe are not wrong, it's just that crypto is not useful as a payment method due to transaction volume, value / exchange rate volatility, acceptance, etc. For a laugh, people bought pizzas and the like with bitcoin. Nowadays they hold onto it because it might be worth fiat money. Why spend something as money if it could be worth 20% more tomorrow? It's an unregulated trading product, it's not practical as electronic money. I mean it might become that, but it would need a lot more oversight, which will cost the traits you mentioned (peer to peer, censorship resistant, etc).

randomhodler84 5y ago
It’s fine, Bitcoin has worked exactly as expected for the 13 years of its life. It will work as expected for the next 13. It doesn’t need your approval, it just is. The next 13 years might well be considerably more interesting than the first. You are welcome to throw rocks from the side lines. It is an entirely opt-in and voluntary monetary system.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Flailing wildly around in value, unfit for purpose is how it was intended?
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    Works for me, maybe you are holding it wrong.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      It's not money if all you do is hold it lol. That makes it an asset. Spending it in exchange for goods and services makes it money, and 4 tx/sec doesn't give you a lot of room to do that. And uh, well, you see, many other assets have outperformed it over the last 5 years.
      - scottiebarnes 5y ago
        > It's not money if all you do is hold it lol. Hmm, we need to tell every Central Bank in the world that the gold bars they're holding aren't money. Fort Knox must be a cover for government experimentation on aliens.
        detaro 5y ago
        ... which Central Bank refers to their gold assets as "money"?
        scottiebarnes 5y ago
        You're right, they wouldn't refer to it as money because that would undermine the power of their own printed fiat currency. So its just some sort of very expensive commodity asset, which is used to store value, which we can expect to use to trade with other people, which USED to be money but somehow isn't anymore.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        > You're right, they wouldn't refer to it as money because that would undermine the power of their own printed fiat currency. No they don't refer to it as money because words have meaning.
throw0101a 5y ago
> For a laugh, people bought pizzas and the like with bitcoin. Nowadays they hold onto it because it might be worth fiat money. Why spend something as money if it could be worth 20% more tomorrow? Which is kind of the definition of a deflationary currency. We've been through all of this already with the gold standard: it was useful for a time, but the pros and cons have generally been weighed and the consensus seems to be not to use it.
tomputer 5y ago
> It's an unregulated trading product, it's not practical as electronic money. What if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be digital cash but with a limited supply like gold? From the bitcoin whitepaper: The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. Before Bitcoin there was no ‘cash’ on the internet. Only electronic corporate (controlled) money.

malermeister 5y ago

Just because you don’t have the imagination to see why peer to peer, censorship resistant, non-state based electronic money might be harmful, doesn’t mean we all feel that way. Bitcoin is an attack on the core foundations of our society and is trying to actively undermine democracy. Thankfully it's pretty ineffective so far.

jessaustin 5y ago
...trying to actively undermine democracy. What "democracy" is this? Is that the word you're using for a "choice" between Biden and Trump? Good grief.
- malermeister 5y ago
  Don't be so US-centric. Just cause one country is failing doesn't mean that all are.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    What direction are your obesity rates pointing? We are your future.
gruez 5y ago
>Bitcoin is an attack on the core foundations of our society and is trying to actively undermine democracy Without an attached justification I can't tell whether this is serious or not.
- malermeister 5y ago
  The justification is in the parent post. By removing control of money from the democratically elected state, you are creating a corporatist dystopia where only money itself is the highest power and the will of the people no longer has a way of being enforced. I'm a big beginner believer in Kreiskyan deficit spending for example. Good luck trying to do that once you can no longer print your own money.