5 ms·

When they say "crypto", what do they mean. No, I understand that it's something to do with cryptocurrencies; but, confusingly, they must mean something more spe

When they say "crypto", what do they mean. No, I understand that it's something to do with cryptocurrencies; but, confusingly, they must mean something more specific than that; because isn't bitcoin the OG of cryptocurrencies? And doesn't it still hold the promise of a parallel peer-to-peer non-inflationary currency, suitable for self-custody, which is totally orthogonal to the meltdown of a cryptoexchange? Does The Atlantic want us to forget about it as well? I am confused.

esperent 4y ago
> doesn't it still hold the promise of a parallel peer-to-peer non-inflationary currency, suitable for self-custody, which is totally orthogonal to the meltdown of a cryptoexchange? In my experience whenever some poses a convoluted leading question like this, it's because they have already decided the answer. But let me try a simpler version: > doesn't it still hold the promise of a... currency Did it ever? Has any crypto ever actually been successfully used as a currency for something other than the black/grey market? That's my own convoluted leading question, and I'm fairly confident the answer is no. But if you feel I'm wrong please share a counterexample.
- azangru 4y ago
  > In my experience whenever some poses a convoluted leading question like this, it's because they have already decided the answer. No; I am genuinely undecided. On the one hand, I hear the arguments of bitcoin advocates from 5-10 years ago (Andreas Antonopoulos; authors of college-level courses on cryptocurrencies and bitcoin; as well as random podcasters); and they still make sense to me — which I tried to inject into the question, and which, you say, made it convoluted. On the other hand, I don't yet have a dog in the fight; I am just observing the space with some curiosity. > Has any crypto ever actually been successfully used as a currency for something other than the black/grey market? Genuine question: why is the use on a black or a grey market a put-down for a currency? Isn't it, on the contrary, a true testament to the value of a currency, if it is sought after, as a means of exchange, on a black market?
  - shigawire 4y ago
    >why is the use on a black or a grey market a put-down for a currency? The lack of accountability in black market transactions is a feature. In regular transactions this is a hindrance. The basic examples I can think of would be preventing funding terrorism or human trafficking - which I personally think is a net good. Or even more basically the ability to contest and reverse charges.
thr0wawayf00 4y ago
> And doesn't it still hold the promise of a parallel peer-to-peer non-inflationary currency, suitable for self-custody, which is totally orthogonal to the meltdown of a cryptoexchange? The meltdown of FTX is not orthogonal to bitcoin, it's an outright vulnerability of the system. You can't have a crypto exchange crash without underlying crypto tokens, period. If you're going to argue the merits of the design of crypto protocols, you must also acknowledge the failure to address this system of recklessness that drove the price of Bitcoin to astronomical heights only to crash. The trustless nature of cryptocurrencies makes them susceptible to manipulation and there's nothing anyone can really do to mitigate that once it happens.
- azangru 4y ago
  > system of recklessness that drove the price of Bitcoin to astronomical heights only to crash. I am probably going to sound extremely naive and uneducated; but when we say "price of Bitcoin", don't we normally mean its value relative to fiat currencies? And isn't it true that our regular fiat currencies are inherently inflationary, and thus not a good long-term storage of value? Wouldn't the lack of trust in fiat currencies drive the price of Bitcoin too?
  - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
    Yes, fiat currencies are inflationary and not a good long-term storage of value. > Wouldn't the lack of trust in fiat currencies drive the price of Bitcoin too? Only if the market believed that bitcoin is safer than fiat currency (which it's not). This is one aspect of the hyperinflation argument that gets overlooked. In order to have a hyperinflationary event, there must be an inherently more stable storage of value that everyone is trying to migrate to, which drives the value of the hyperinflated currency down. As it stands, fiat currencies are still way more trustworthy than crypto, primarily because crypto markets itself as a currency while being traded like a speculative asset. Currencies need to be stable in order to be trusted, bitcoin is not.
- stiltzkin 4y ago
  Bitcoin was not created to run with CEX, blockchains as Bitcoin, Monero or Ethereum are built to run decentralized.

esperent 4y ago

> doesn't it still hold the promise of a parallel peer-to-peer non-inflationary currency, suitable for self-custody, which is totally orthogonal to the meltdown of a cryptoexchange? In my experience whenever some poses a convoluted leading question like this, it's because they have already decided the answer. But let me try a simpler version: > doesn't it still hold the promise of a... currency Did it ever? Has any crypto ever actually been successfully used as a currency for something other than the black/grey market? That's my own convoluted leading question, and I'm fairly confident the answer is no. But if you feel I'm wrong please share a counterexample.

azangru 4y ago
> In my experience whenever some poses a convoluted leading question like this, it's because they have already decided the answer. No; I am genuinely undecided. On the one hand, I hear the arguments of bitcoin advocates from 5-10 years ago (Andreas Antonopoulos; authors of college-level courses on cryptocurrencies and bitcoin; as well as random podcasters); and they still make sense to me — which I tried to inject into the question, and which, you say, made it convoluted. On the other hand, I don't yet have a dog in the fight; I am just observing the space with some curiosity. > Has any crypto ever actually been successfully used as a currency for something other than the black/grey market? Genuine question: why is the use on a black or a grey market a put-down for a currency? Isn't it, on the contrary, a true testament to the value of a currency, if it is sought after, as a means of exchange, on a black market?
- shigawire 4y ago
  >why is the use on a black or a grey market a put-down for a currency? The lack of accountability in black market transactions is a feature. In regular transactions this is a hindrance. The basic examples I can think of would be preventing funding terrorism or human trafficking - which I personally think is a net good. Or even more basically the ability to contest and reverse charges.

thr0wawayf00 4y ago

> And doesn't it still hold the promise of a parallel peer-to-peer non-inflationary currency, suitable for self-custody, which is totally orthogonal to the meltdown of a cryptoexchange? The meltdown of FTX is not orthogonal to bitcoin, it's an outright vulnerability of the system. You can't have a crypto exchange crash without underlying crypto tokens, period. If you're going to argue the merits of the design of crypto protocols, you must also acknowledge the failure to address this system of recklessness that drove the price of Bitcoin to astronomical heights only to crash. The trustless nature of cryptocurrencies makes them susceptible to manipulation and there's nothing anyone can really do to mitigate that once it happens.

azangru 4y ago
> system of recklessness that drove the price of Bitcoin to astronomical heights only to crash. I am probably going to sound extremely naive and uneducated; but when we say "price of Bitcoin", don't we normally mean its value relative to fiat currencies? And isn't it true that our regular fiat currencies are inherently inflationary, and thus not a good long-term storage of value? Wouldn't the lack of trust in fiat currencies drive the price of Bitcoin too?
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  Yes, fiat currencies are inflationary and not a good long-term storage of value. > Wouldn't the lack of trust in fiat currencies drive the price of Bitcoin too? Only if the market believed that bitcoin is safer than fiat currency (which it's not). This is one aspect of the hyperinflation argument that gets overlooked. In order to have a hyperinflationary event, there must be an inherently more stable storage of value that everyone is trying to migrate to, which drives the value of the hyperinflated currency down. As it stands, fiat currencies are still way more trustworthy than crypto, primarily because crypto markets itself as a currency while being traded like a speculative asset. Currencies need to be stable in order to be trusted, bitcoin is not.
stiltzkin 4y ago
Bitcoin was not created to run with CEX, blockchains as Bitcoin, Monero or Ethereum are built to run decentralized.