4 ms·

When evaluating any information from any source, whether from a government or not, you should keep human biases in mind. The thing to keep in mind here is that

When evaluating any information from any source, whether from a government or not, you should keep human biases in mind. The thing to keep in mind here is that India's bankers are giving their opinion on the current biggest competitor to their power and livelihoods. And the report says as much. > The basic purpose of blockchain, or more generally the distributed ledger, the technology on which these crypto-products run, is to make financial intermediation, and therefore banks, redundant. Imagine thinking any bureaucracy can give an honest assessment on the thing that makes them obsolete. Any opinion they give out should be evaluated through the lens of them losing their power and livelihoods. Any report from central bankers on crypto is the equivalent of McDonalds executives giving their opinion on Burger King.

throw3838 5y ago
Blockchain does not make banking obsolete. We can already do business by moving raw currency around, but hardly anyone does that. There is a whole crypt banking sector that provides exchanges, custody, lending... And if you take inflation overhead, consumed by miners and other services to keep BTC or ETH running (5% to 10% annually), there is not much advantage over existing banking.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  > Blockchain does not make banking obsolete It doesn't, but Satoshi thought it would. See for example the Genesis block. > There is a whole crypt banking sector that provides exchanges, custody, lending... Back in the day, the idea was to make every citizen financially sovereign. It didn't work in practice because those services you mention are useful. (Just like crypto has trouble working as a payment infrastructure, because chargebacks are an useful and demanded service)
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> India's bankers are giving their opinion on the current biggest competitor to their power and livelihoods Some of crypto’s biggest backers are on Wall Street. For obvious reasons. Crypto is making Wall Street billions while letting them preach from beneath a populist veneer.
- tyre 5y ago
  This is true of individual crypto-holders too. The people with billions in crypto are all over twitter saying how holding coins and NFTs is for the people. The crypto ecosystem is almost exactly the same as the massive wealth concentration in America, except worse. The narrative from those at the top, and the willingness of people to defend them, is the same. People rabidly defending Elon Musk is equally strange. He’s trolling on the internet, not looking out for you.
ARandumGuy 5y ago
It's clearly important to understand the biases and potential conflicts of interest when analyzing a source. No source is free of bias, and figuring out what those biases are is an important part of critical thinking. However, a source can be completely biased and still be correct. Any counterarguments need to be based primarily on the provided evidence and conclusions, not the "trustworthiness" of the arguer.
yalogin 5y ago
Sorry but to me that logic applies more to crypto than countries. Crypto is a solution with no problem and it’s flush with 100s of billions and so all those billions are hell bent on finding a problem and keep pushing for it
- djschnei 5y ago
  Your privilege is showing. A huge portion of the world is under-banked or completely unbanked. It's one of the largest barriers to quality of life improvement on the planet. Say what you will about crypto's current state, but mathematically enforced property rights wrapped around a weightless, trustless, and borderless currency solves very real problems for some of the worlds least privileged people.
  - rzanella 5y ago
    Sure, next time an armed militia thug comes around for "taxes" show him your magical numbers. I mean, this huge portion goes straight from "unbanked" to using a convoluted highly technical solution that has high volatility and no legal recourse whatsoever... stonks!
    - djschnei 5y ago
      I just envision an old man yelling at clouds. I won't convince you. Maybe go read about some bottom up adoptions of bitcoin in places like Nigeria. Or don't, I don't care. You shouldn't buy any and probably should short it.
    - logicalmonster 5y ago
      Speaking of legal recourse, we just recently saw the Government of Canada try and stamp out a form of political protest by trying to arbitrarily freeze participants' bank accounts. Regardless of how you feel about that particular protest, the type of legal recourse many people might think exists with banks might not actually exist, particularly for those who don't toe the line with all of their government's viewpoints, or if there's an actual emergency. As far as high volatility goes, the question you should be asking is "volatility, relative to what"? The rate of Bitcoin "inflation" is known and transparent. Now compare that to the power of the virtual printing press and the effects of inflation on fiat currencies' buying power.
brightstep 5y ago
You need to read this not as an assessment of merit, but as a strategic outlook. Central banks see crypto as dangerous to the economy and threatening to their power and their country's sovereignty. Central banks have a lot of power. It stands to reason that they will use that power with the aim of either destroying or co-opting the technology. The merits of cryptocurrency and its underlying ideology are unimportant, because those building and using it (for the most part) and negligible power compared to the institutions it would threaten.

throw3838 5y ago

Blockchain does not make banking obsolete. We can already do business by moving raw currency around, but hardly anyone does that. There is a whole crypt banking sector that provides exchanges, custody, lending... And if you take inflation overhead, consumed by miners and other services to keep BTC or ETH running (5% to 10% annually), there is not much advantage over existing banking.

nextaccountic 5y ago
> Blockchain does not make banking obsolete It doesn't, but Satoshi thought it would. See for example the Genesis block. > There is a whole crypt banking sector that provides exchanges, custody, lending... Back in the day, the idea was to make every citizen financially sovereign. It didn't work in practice because those services you mention are useful. (Just like crypto has trouble working as a payment infrastructure, because chargebacks are an useful and demanded service)

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> India's bankers are giving their opinion on the current biggest competitor to their power and livelihoods Some of crypto’s biggest backers are on Wall Street. For obvious reasons. Crypto is making Wall Street billions while letting them preach from beneath a populist veneer.

tyre 5y ago
This is true of individual crypto-holders too. The people with billions in crypto are all over twitter saying how holding coins and NFTs is for the people. The crypto ecosystem is almost exactly the same as the massive wealth concentration in America, except worse. The narrative from those at the top, and the willingness of people to defend them, is the same. People rabidly defending Elon Musk is equally strange. He’s trolling on the internet, not looking out for you.

ARandumGuy 5y ago

It's clearly important to understand the biases and potential conflicts of interest when analyzing a source. No source is free of bias, and figuring out what those biases are is an important part of critical thinking. However, a source can be completely biased and still be correct. Any counterarguments need to be based primarily on the provided evidence and conclusions, not the "trustworthiness" of the arguer.

yalogin 5y ago

Sorry but to me that logic applies more to crypto than countries. Crypto is a solution with no problem and it’s flush with 100s of billions and so all those billions are hell bent on finding a problem and keep pushing for it

djschnei 5y ago
Your privilege is showing. A huge portion of the world is under-banked or completely unbanked. It's one of the largest barriers to quality of life improvement on the planet. Say what you will about crypto's current state, but mathematically enforced property rights wrapped around a weightless, trustless, and borderless currency solves very real problems for some of the worlds least privileged people.
- rzanella 5y ago
  Sure, next time an armed militia thug comes around for "taxes" show him your magical numbers. I mean, this huge portion goes straight from "unbanked" to using a convoluted highly technical solution that has high volatility and no legal recourse whatsoever... stonks!
  - djschnei 5y ago
    I just envision an old man yelling at clouds. I won't convince you. Maybe go read about some bottom up adoptions of bitcoin in places like Nigeria. Or don't, I don't care. You shouldn't buy any and probably should short it.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    Speaking of legal recourse, we just recently saw the Government of Canada try and stamp out a form of political protest by trying to arbitrarily freeze participants' bank accounts. Regardless of how you feel about that particular protest, the type of legal recourse many people might think exists with banks might not actually exist, particularly for those who don't toe the line with all of their government's viewpoints, or if there's an actual emergency. As far as high volatility goes, the question you should be asking is "volatility, relative to what"? The rate of Bitcoin "inflation" is known and transparent. Now compare that to the power of the virtual printing press and the effects of inflation on fiat currencies' buying power.

brightstep 5y ago

You need to read this not as an assessment of merit, but as a strategic outlook. Central banks see crypto as dangerous to the economy and threatening to their power and their country's sovereignty. Central banks have a lot of power. It stands to reason that they will use that power with the aim of either destroying or co-opting the technology. The merits of cryptocurrency and its underlying ideology are unimportant, because those building and using it (for the most part) and negligible power compared to the institutions it would threaten.