3 ms·
Bitcoin doesn't need to be money, especially not on layer 1, to have value. USD doesn't get its value as a currency from slow and expensive wire transfers, and
by mattwilsonn888 4y ago
Bitcoin doesn't need to be money, especially not on layer 1, to have value. USD doesn't get its value as a currency from slow and expensive wire transfers, and it gets very little value at all from being a store of value.
Even if Bitcoin was primarily transferred between custodians between clients, it would still be better than USD (assuming a stable market cap) and give clients far more options while also forcing banks to disclose reserves.
- thelamest 4y agoTransfers can be dirt cheap with normal money (e.g.: Single Euro Payment Area), and your banking system can be transparent enough (the US one already is), if your regulating body cares about it. The average individual neither can change it, nor cares. If many people can’t help themselves but get fleeced, as happened recently on a large scale in the crypto space, at best you can struggle to recreate regulatory agencies in some kludgey crypto form. Most egregiously, all this is still worse than pointless, because the true differential value-add in crypto comes from enabling value flows for undesirable activities like crime, and it’s only possible thanks to horrible incentive system that rewards wasting energy.
- mattwilsonn888 4y agoYou have admitted that I was correct in refuting you: all desired qualities of the current system can exist on Bitcoin no problem. Then you moved the goal post. If Bitcoin is pointless because it has no use case, you would have started with that point and not been drawn into critiquing an aspect reliant on the assumption it is useful.