3 ms·

The issue with those promises is that they're pretty much empty promises because while they are true at their core, they don't hold much basis in reality for ev

by Teandw 4y ago

The issue with those promises is that they're pretty much empty promises because while they are true at their core, they don't hold much basis in reality for every day use. "P2P money/value transfer, no banks, no intermediary => delivered;" At it's core, yes. For any sort of adoption/usage ability for the 'average day person', there will always be a requirement for some sort of intermediary company. "nobody owns Bitcoin network => delivered;" At it's core, yes. However, having no 'owner' is rather meaningless as governments can regulate it and decide how Bitcoin is used; which has the same effects/problems as an 'owner'. "no government with no amount of regulation can stop a transaction from happening" At it's core, yes. However, again, this is pretty much meaningless because they can make it illegal for a transaction to happen or they can make transactions allowed but under their rules. - everybody can take a part in Bitcoin network, you don't need anyone permission to join (ie. oppressive government) At it's core, yes. But again it's not based on reality of life. If an oppressive government outlawed bitcoin, you wouldn't be able to take part in the Bitcoin network unless you wanted to break the law. Bitcoin would be on its knees if the only people that could use it were purely illegal users. (compared to its current situation)

ecmascript 4y ago
> At it's core, yes. For any sort of adoption/usage ability for the 'average day person', there will always be a requirement for some sort of intermediary company. Even if this may be true, these services can still be decentralized for the most part. For example there is localbitcoins where you can trade bitcoins without ever having to go to any other third party except the listing on the site. > At it's core, yes. However, having no 'owner' is rather meaningless as governments can regulate it and decide how Bitcoin is used; which has the same effects/problems as an 'owner'. > [...] However, again, this is pretty much meaningless because they can make it illegal for a transaction to happen or they can make transactions allowed but under their rules. Governments can regulate it but it's going to be hard to follow through if you take proper precautions. If you live in an oppressive state you most likely break the law all the time any way. That's the thing about oppressive regimes, it's almost impossible to abide by the law completely and life a proper life. > But again it's not based on reality of life. If an oppressive government outlawed bitcoin, you wouldn't be able to take part in the Bitcoin network unless you wanted to break the law. Bitcoin would be on its knees if the only people that could use it were purely illegal users. (compared to its current situation) You don't even need to live in an oppressive government. I live in a western society and still see the value of cryptocurrencies. Whenever I talk to a bank I have a strong feeling that cryptocurrencies are the future and my recent connections with my bank completely convinced me. I don't know where you live, but in my country banks are open like 10am to 2pm, there is no handling of cash at all basically and their customer service is completely shit. It's obvious that their power over the society is so strong that they feel they can treat their customers like total crap and get away with it. I know of many people that have had their accounts closed because they have incorrect political opinions, use too much cash or doesn't want to answer questions about what they're going to use their money for. If I have cash, I cannot submit them to my bank account without being harassed and there is a very small limit on the amount of cash I can deposit even if I take the harassment. I also have to travel quite far to a special office with open hours like a couple of hours per week and call them before hand to inform them that I want to do a cash deposit. That is only for deposits, but the same rules also apply for withdrawals where people simply get denied from withdrawing money from the accounts. If you go to an automated place, usually you can only withdraw about $200-$500 if you're lucky. If you want to withdraw more you need again go to a special office with horrible opening hours where they again will harass you, ask you a bunch of questions. My father that does this regularly usually loudly claims he's going to buy sex toys in order circumvent the system and shame the person into stop asking more questions. This is a description of real life in the western democracy of Sweden which is often described like a poster child for western democracies. This is why I believe in cryptocurrencies, because even in one of the most open societies on earth you get treated as a criminal while the banks themselves launder millions. I used to be negative towards cryptocurrencies, but I am totally convinced that it is the future now because there is no other real alternative that's not a dystopia.
- not_kurt_godel 4y ago
  > For example there is localbitcoins where you can trade bitcoins without ever having to go to any other third party except the listing on the site. Localbitcoins is an exchange though? Bitcoin started out decentralized. It has quickly evolved into a centralized ecosystem because it is not practical for it to be decentralized. The core premise of decentralization has been proven bunk.
phil21 4y ago
Pretty much all these arguments boil down to "yeah, but Bitcoin wouldn't be worth as much if X happened". I don't think you'd find anyone to disagree with you. There are absolutely drawbacks and tradeoffs. If Bitcoin becomes banned/regulated by a significant number of countries it will still perform exactly as it is doing so today in those conditions. It just might be "worth" 1/100th of what it is today. If you take "price speculation" out of the picture, I think your rebuttals here are entirely invalidated.

by Teandw 4y ago

ecmascript 4y ago

> At it's core, yes. For any sort of adoption/usage ability for the 'average day person', there will always be a requirement for some sort of intermediary company. Even if this may be true, these services can still be decentralized for the most part. For example there is localbitcoins where you can trade bitcoins without ever having to go to any other third party except the listing on the site. > At it's core, yes. However, having no 'owner' is rather meaningless as governments can regulate it and decide how Bitcoin is used; which has the same effects/problems as an 'owner'. > [...] However, again, this is pretty much meaningless because they can make it illegal for a transaction to happen or they can make transactions allowed but under their rules. Governments can regulate it but it's going to be hard to follow through if you take proper precautions. If you live in an oppressive state you most likely break the law all the time any way. That's the thing about oppressive regimes, it's almost impossible to abide by the law completely and life a proper life. > But again it's not based on reality of life. If an oppressive government outlawed bitcoin, you wouldn't be able to take part in the Bitcoin network unless you wanted to break the law. Bitcoin would be on its knees if the only people that could use it were purely illegal users. (compared to its current situation) You don't even need to live in an oppressive government. I live in a western society and still see the value of cryptocurrencies. Whenever I talk to a bank I have a strong feeling that cryptocurrencies are the future and my recent connections with my bank completely convinced me. I don't know where you live, but in my country banks are open like 10am to 2pm, there is no handling of cash at all basically and their customer service is completely shit. It's obvious that their power over the society is so strong that they feel they can treat their customers like total crap and get away with it. I know of many people that have had their accounts closed because they have incorrect political opinions, use too much cash or doesn't want to answer questions about what they're going to use their money for. If I have cash, I cannot submit them to my bank account without being harassed and there is a very small limit on the amount of cash I can deposit even if I take the harassment. I also have to travel quite far to a special office with open hours like a couple of hours per week and call them before hand to inform them that I want to do a cash deposit. That is only for deposits, but the same rules also apply for withdrawals where people simply get denied from withdrawing money from the accounts. If you go to an automated place, usually you can only withdraw about $200-$500 if you're lucky. If you want to withdraw more you need again go to a special office with horrible opening hours where they again will harass you, ask you a bunch of questions. My father that does this regularly usually loudly claims he's going to buy sex toys in order circumvent the system and shame the person into stop asking more questions. This is a description of real life in the western democracy of Sweden which is often described like a poster child for western democracies. This is why I believe in cryptocurrencies, because even in one of the most open societies on earth you get treated as a criminal while the banks themselves launder millions. I used to be negative towards cryptocurrencies, but I am totally convinced that it is the future now because there is no other real alternative that's not a dystopia.

not_kurt_godel 4y ago
> For example there is localbitcoins where you can trade bitcoins without ever having to go to any other third party except the listing on the site. Localbitcoins is an exchange though? Bitcoin started out decentralized. It has quickly evolved into a centralized ecosystem because it is not practical for it to be decentralized. The core premise of decentralization has been proven bunk.

phil21 4y ago

Pretty much all these arguments boil down to "yeah, but Bitcoin wouldn't be worth as much if X happened". I don't think you'd find anyone to disagree with you. There are absolutely drawbacks and tradeoffs. If Bitcoin becomes banned/regulated by a significant number of countries it will still perform exactly as it is doing so today in those conditions. It just might be "worth" 1/100th of what it is today. If you take "price speculation" out of the picture, I think your rebuttals here are entirely invalidated.