12 ms·

Lumping diagonally opposed things (centralized coins like FTT or decentralized coins like BTC) under the same category (crypto) is quite misleading. > How long

Lumping diagonally opposed things (centralized coins like FTT or decentralized coins like BTC) under the same category (crypto) is quite misleading. > How long do we have to wait to see crypto working? BTC (on chain) is still working as intended, after all these years.

bmitc 4y ago
> Lumping diagonally opposed things (centralized coins like FTT or decentralized coins like BTC) under the same category (crypto) is quite misleading. Crypto generally means digital currency, does it not? I think leaving them out would be actually misleading. > BTC (on chain) is still working as intended, after all these years. Working in what sense?
- wsc981 4y ago
  > Working in what sense? That you can securely and cheaply transact value without a third party being involved? That governments can’t directly block your account the way Trudeau blocked protestors bank accounts? Probably a few other ways as well ...
  - Stention314 4y ago
    Bitcoin fees are often not cheap at all. Just a week ago someone got cought and the fbi took his 3 billion dollar worth of BTC. Sending crypto to someone in Iran or Russia is against the law independent of how you do it. And just because you can send BTC to Iran someone in Iran also needs to exchange it to something real again. While banking is more restrictive, when you go to your bank with your passport, you actually can recover your account. I know someone who lost 10k because he lost his key. For most people it's saver and easier and they are not affected and don't care about all those BTC/crypto benefits at all
    - kevinak 4y ago
      You need to start backing up your statements with facts. Please show us that bitcoin fees are "often not" cheap at all. Here's some actual data you can look at: https://mempool.space/graphs/mining/block-fee-rates#all https://mempool.space/graphs/mining/block-fee-rates#all Look at the "Min" fee rate; regularly very close to 1. That's $0.02 at current prices.
      - Stention314 4y ago
        Sources? I was buying and transferring bitcoins over 8 years as I bought weed through it. Of course you can even pay 0 but you know it's not the normal someone would wait days for the transaction going through. You clearly did not use Bitcoin often enough otherwise you could just looked the spikes up yourself. That first corona year was even worse with the fees.
        kevinak 4y ago
        That's not a source. I literally posted a source showing you it's very cheap. The minimum fee is the lowest fee you'll pay to get into the next block. I used Bitcoin way back in 2010. Though I don't understand why that makes a difference since you can look up the prices in hindsight.
    - wsc981 4y ago
      > Sending crypto to someone in Iran or Russia is against the law independent of how you do it. One thing to keep in mind: laws are not always just. I believe it's okay to sometimes not follow the law, if the law is unjust. One example: in WW2 Germany there were many laws against minorities that were unjust [0]. Most law obedient people would follow these laws regardless. Perhaps a person want to support his family in Iran or Russia that's going through difficult times. And perhaps crypto is the only way to help. In such cases I think it's okay to oppose the law. --- [0]: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremberg-race-laws https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremb...
YossarianFrPrez 4y ago
It's an interesting level of abstraction question. On a fine-grained level, yes, BTC works algorithmically as you have pointed out, and FFT is not the exact same thing as BTC. The question the is whether either of these things work socially / for society. Whether it's accurate or not, I imagine non-experts would regard the difference between BTC and FFT as pretty negligible, perhaps akin to the difference between "social media" and IG vs. Reddit.
- Bootvis 4y ago
  The creation, distribution and governance are completely different. The public may not care but in the long run we mow see it matters.
  - Bootvis 4y ago
    To support my point: https://mobile.twitter.com/whale_alert/status/1591616598280122368 https://mobile.twitter.com/whale_alert/status/15916165982801... This doesn’t happen with BTC because it wasn’t created out of thin air.
grumpyprole 4y ago
> BTC (on chain) is still working as intended, after all these years. It's certainly working on destroying the planet with its obscene energy requirements.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  I am not a fan of "destroying the planet" arguments mainly because anything goes, super ambiguious and not very precise. Buy our razors because cartridge razors are destroying the planet! https://bandisposablerazors.org/ https://bandisposablerazors.org/ Destroying the planet = Can't question it, can't argue about it, it is the end all of all arguments. How could you ever oppose something that destroys the planet? They all sound the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
  - kevinak 4y ago
    On top of being hard to argue against, it just isn't true. It's a net positive for the environment, at least it will be in a couple of years: https://batcoinz.com/50-landfills-mining-bitcoin-a-zero-emission-bitcoin-network/ https://batcoinz.com/50-landfills-mining-bitcoin-a-zero-emis...
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      Generally though, conceptually the argument goes like this "You can't do X because it destroys the planet. Since we cannot destroy the planet, there is no other option but to accept banning of X". But, there is no limits or guards to this. You can easily go down the slippery slope and say X is the city of Chicago that needs to be destroyed for the collective good. It consumes too many resources. Riddled with subjectivism. You cannot do less since there are no objective limits to what is "acceptable levels of destruction of the planet" means. It has a different subjective weight to different entities arguing the position. In the limit, this would mean we erase humanity all together and leave the planet alone. You can bully a lot of things your way before any one can speak up against it. There is a level of insidious moral superiority built into it which makes it prime for exploitation. Corporations are doing exactly that.

bmitc 4y ago

> Lumping diagonally opposed things (centralized coins like FTT or decentralized coins like BTC) under the same category (crypto) is quite misleading. Crypto generally means digital currency, does it not? I think leaving them out would be actually misleading. > BTC (on chain) is still working as intended, after all these years. Working in what sense?

wsc981 4y ago
> Working in what sense? That you can securely and cheaply transact value without a third party being involved? That governments can’t directly block your account the way Trudeau blocked protestors bank accounts? Probably a few other ways as well ...
- Stention314 4y ago
  Bitcoin fees are often not cheap at all. Just a week ago someone got cought and the fbi took his 3 billion dollar worth of BTC. Sending crypto to someone in Iran or Russia is against the law independent of how you do it. And just because you can send BTC to Iran someone in Iran also needs to exchange it to something real again. While banking is more restrictive, when you go to your bank with your passport, you actually can recover your account. I know someone who lost 10k because he lost his key. For most people it's saver and easier and they are not affected and don't care about all those BTC/crypto benefits at all
  - kevinak 4y ago
    You need to start backing up your statements with facts. Please show us that bitcoin fees are "often not" cheap at all. Here's some actual data you can look at: https://mempool.space/graphs/mining/block-fee-rates#all https://mempool.space/graphs/mining/block-fee-rates#all Look at the "Min" fee rate; regularly very close to 1. That's $0.02 at current prices.
    - Stention314 4y ago
      Sources? I was buying and transferring bitcoins over 8 years as I bought weed through it. Of course you can even pay 0 but you know it's not the normal someone would wait days for the transaction going through. You clearly did not use Bitcoin often enough otherwise you could just looked the spikes up yourself. That first corona year was even worse with the fees.
      - kevinak 4y ago
        That's not a source. I literally posted a source showing you it's very cheap. The minimum fee is the lowest fee you'll pay to get into the next block. I used Bitcoin way back in 2010. Though I don't understand why that makes a difference since you can look up the prices in hindsight.
  - wsc981 4y ago
    > Sending crypto to someone in Iran or Russia is against the law independent of how you do it. One thing to keep in mind: laws are not always just. I believe it's okay to sometimes not follow the law, if the law is unjust. One example: in WW2 Germany there were many laws against minorities that were unjust [0]. Most law obedient people would follow these laws regardless. Perhaps a person want to support his family in Iran or Russia that's going through difficult times. And perhaps crypto is the only way to help. In such cases I think it's okay to oppose the law. --- [0]: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremberg-race-laws https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremb...

YossarianFrPrez 4y ago

It's an interesting level of abstraction question. On a fine-grained level, yes, BTC works algorithmically as you have pointed out, and FFT is not the exact same thing as BTC. The question the is whether either of these things work socially / for society. Whether it's accurate or not, I imagine non-experts would regard the difference between BTC and FFT as pretty negligible, perhaps akin to the difference between "social media" and IG vs. Reddit.

Bootvis 4y ago
The creation, distribution and governance are completely different. The public may not care but in the long run we mow see it matters.
- Bootvis 4y ago
  To support my point: https://mobile.twitter.com/whale_alert/status/1591616598280122368 https://mobile.twitter.com/whale_alert/status/15916165982801... This doesn’t happen with BTC because it wasn’t created out of thin air.

grumpyprole 4y ago

> BTC (on chain) is still working as intended, after all these years. It's certainly working on destroying the planet with its obscene energy requirements.

systemvoltage 4y ago
I am not a fan of "destroying the planet" arguments mainly because anything goes, super ambiguious and not very precise. Buy our razors because cartridge razors are destroying the planet! https://bandisposablerazors.org/ https://bandisposablerazors.org/ Destroying the planet = Can't question it, can't argue about it, it is the end all of all arguments. How could you ever oppose something that destroys the planet? They all sound the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
- kevinak 4y ago
  On top of being hard to argue against, it just isn't true. It's a net positive for the environment, at least it will be in a couple of years: https://batcoinz.com/50-landfills-mining-bitcoin-a-zero-emission-bitcoin-network/ https://batcoinz.com/50-landfills-mining-bitcoin-a-zero-emis...
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Generally though, conceptually the argument goes like this "You can't do X because it destroys the planet. Since we cannot destroy the planet, there is no other option but to accept banning of X". But, there is no limits or guards to this. You can easily go down the slippery slope and say X is the city of Chicago that needs to be destroyed for the collective good. It consumes too many resources. Riddled with subjectivism. You cannot do less since there are no objective limits to what is "acceptable levels of destruction of the planet" means. It has a different subjective weight to different entities arguing the position. In the limit, this would mean we erase humanity all together and leave the planet alone. You can bully a lot of things your way before any one can speak up against it. There is a level of insidious moral superiority built into it which makes it prime for exploitation. Corporations are doing exactly that.