5 ms·

Retaining more individual capability does allow people to commit crimes (though in the public ledger case this is often a stupid idea if you stay in the jurisdi

Retaining more individual capability does allow people to commit crimes (though in the public ledger case this is often a stupid idea if you stay in the jurisdiction where what you’re doing is a crime). Not all governments are good, not all laws are just. It’s easy to roll eyes at this in the west, but a lot of countries in the world are lead by bad people acting in their own self-interest. The other bit you get from Bitcoin at least is programmatic guarantees of supply. This protects you from increases in supply inflating your savings away. It makes it a better store of value than fiat. A standard currency is not always available. The same is true for safe financial systems. This is more relevant for people trying to save in places like Venezuela. Crypto provides new capabilities that may be your best option. If one potential future is authoritarian governments leveraging total control on their citizens financial transactions via centralized financial systems (what the ccp is trying to build) - crypto is a technology that provides a relief valve from that. It’s a good thing it exists imo.

lottin 5y ago
Okay, just don't call it the future of money. A form of money that is worse at everything except clandestine transactions is not the future of money. Regarding the supposed guarantees of limited supply, this is both irrelevant and factually wrong. The issuer of a currency (e.g. a central bank, or the "bitcoin protocol" in the case of bitcoin) does not control the supply of the currency. This is because fractional reserve banking results in new money being created when banks lend, a process that inflates (or deflates, when the demand for loans falls) the money supply. Moreover, the users of a currency don't care about the supply of that currency, because that's not an observable quantity. What matters, instead, is price stability. And to maintain price stability you need a competent authority in charge of managing the money supply, which is antithetical to the very idea of decentralised currency.
- gonehome 5y ago
  I didn’t call it the future of money. Limited supply is not irrelevant or “factually wrong” for a long term store of value (like gold) which is more the role BTC plays specifically.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Gold isn't particularly attractive as a store of value. Historically it's lost value over long periods (see [1]). And bitcoin is likely to do worse than gold, because it's a purely virtual asset that relies entirely on a particular technology, and therefore is liable to become obsolescent eventually. [1] https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a076183b459bca82~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_581,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a076183b459bca82~mv2.jpg https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a0...
    - gonehome 5y ago
      I’m assuming good faith, but I feel like you’re intentionally ignoring and redirecting away to prove some existing conclusion. We’re talking about advantages and capabilities - specifically granted by crypto of which self-custody is a prerequisite (yes technically true of stock, but not indexes and not as comparable). Within that context it has advantages over other options and more capabilities. I’m not pretending it’s better at everything or it should be 100% of your holdings or anything like that, but it is better at some things and the new capabilities it provides are interesting and valuable. That chart is a limited slice of time. The nice thing about economic bets is it doesn’t really matter what you (or I) think, the market will play it out. I suspect you’re probably wrong, but we’ll see.
      - lottin 5y ago
        A "limited slice of time" comprising of the last 200 years. It provides pretty damning evidence against gold (and by extension against virtual commodities that are purported to be gold-like).
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        gonehome 5y ago
        200yrs is nothing (and fiat was backed by gold as recently as 50yrs ago). Focusing on this despite the rest of what I wrote is still kind of missing my point. There’s not really much point in further discussion, there’s not much more to say. We just don’t agree.

lottin 5y ago

Okay, just don't call it the future of money. A form of money that is worse at everything except clandestine transactions is not the future of money. Regarding the supposed guarantees of limited supply, this is both irrelevant and factually wrong. The issuer of a currency (e.g. a central bank, or the "bitcoin protocol" in the case of bitcoin) does not control the supply of the currency. This is because fractional reserve banking results in new money being created when banks lend, a process that inflates (or deflates, when the demand for loans falls) the money supply. Moreover, the users of a currency don't care about the supply of that currency, because that's not an observable quantity. What matters, instead, is price stability. And to maintain price stability you need a competent authority in charge of managing the money supply, which is antithetical to the very idea of decentralised currency.

gonehome 5y ago
I didn’t call it the future of money. Limited supply is not irrelevant or “factually wrong” for a long term store of value (like gold) which is more the role BTC plays specifically.
- lottin 5y ago
  Gold isn't particularly attractive as a store of value. Historically it's lost value over long periods (see [1]). And bitcoin is likely to do worse than gold, because it's a purely virtual asset that relies entirely on a particular technology, and therefore is liable to become obsolescent eventually. [1] https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a076183b459bca82~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_581,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a076183b459bca82~mv2.jpg https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a0...
  - gonehome 5y ago
    I’m assuming good faith, but I feel like you’re intentionally ignoring and redirecting away to prove some existing conclusion. We’re talking about advantages and capabilities - specifically granted by crypto of which self-custody is a prerequisite (yes technically true of stock, but not indexes and not as comparable). Within that context it has advantages over other options and more capabilities. I’m not pretending it’s better at everything or it should be 100% of your holdings or anything like that, but it is better at some things and the new capabilities it provides are interesting and valuable. That chart is a limited slice of time. The nice thing about economic bets is it doesn’t really matter what you (or I) think, the market will play it out. I suspect you’re probably wrong, but we’ll see.
    - lottin 5y ago
      A "limited slice of time" comprising of the last 200 years. It provides pretty damning evidence against gold (and by extension against virtual commodities that are purported to be gold-like).
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - gonehome 5y ago
        200yrs is nothing (and fiat was backed by gold as recently as 50yrs ago). Focusing on this despite the rest of what I wrote is still kind of missing my point. There’s not really much point in further discussion, there’s not much more to say. We just don’t agree.