3 ms·

Revolutionary tech gets packaged in some user friendly form for non-experts. A smartphone is chock full of amazing tech but is reasonably user friendly to use,

Revolutionary tech gets packaged in some user friendly form for non-experts. A smartphone is chock full of amazing tech but is reasonably user friendly to use, to the point that pretty much everyone has one. Crypto isn't really like that. The real stuff is deeply technical. The simplified stuff (eg, storing your coins at an exchange) loses the entire point of crypto. It also solves problems people have. Crypto aims at a very narrow, very ideological set of problems that the vast majority of people doesn't really need solving. Its tradeoffs only make sense if those are real problems you have. Eg, if you're a drug dealer the lack of customer service or law that can rescue you from your errors isn't a problem. The law is your enemy anyway, so you already made peace with that if somebody steals from you, going to the police isn't an option. Having a normal person put all their life's savings into crypto on the other hand is an absolutely terrible idea. Anyone doing that is risking a single error or a single bug ruining their life with next to zero chance of recovery.

jrm4 4y ago
"Life's savings" is disingenuous though. No one puts their life savings in much of anything. Moreover, what you're saying about crypto presumes that its competitors are all high-quality,and what I'm saying is there are likely enough low-quality competitors such that crypto becomes more attractive. Life-savings would be stupid. But part of an investment strategy on the other hand potentially makes a ton of sense, and that's all that's needed for survival/popularity.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > "Life's savings" is disingenuous though. No one puts their life savings in much of anything. There's a fair amount of that, actually: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/yy37cy/i_lost_my_life_savings_compilation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/yy37cy/i_lost_my_... > Moreover, what you're saying about crypto presumes that its competitors are all high-quality,and what I'm saying is there are likely enough low-quality competitors such that crypto becomes more attractive. What is lower quality out there than crypto? Crypto is appallingly low quality. Crypto-related businesses like exchanges go bust dramatically at an alarming rate. If your bank goes bust at least there's insurance for that. > But part of an investment strategy on the other hand potentially makes a ton of sense, and that's all that's needed for survival/popularity. But that comes back to the original problem: it's only a good investment if you can keep it safe, AND if it keeps on growing. Keeping safe in the space is an extremely difficult task as it is, as every wallet out there is a self-awarding bug bounty. As to growth it comes back to what I was saying before. First, there has to be increased value for it to grow. That's actually decreasing as crypto becomes more trackable and less safe for illegal activity over time. It's also at best a zero sum. Any money you get from such an investment can only come from the traditional economical system putting it in, and that just can't go on forever. And any gain you might make comes from somebody else's loss. You're just betting on that you won't be somebody else's gain.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Sure, safety's difficult -- but precisely because its the exact same issue as cryptography. Your point about bug bounties is a perfect example of antifragility -- and cryptos success in this regard is far more interesting than its failures (none of which have been fundamental to the concept) Increased value. Again, no different from any other financial instrument in any fundamental way. Every criticism you can make of crypto, you can make of bonds, etc. The zero-sum argument is especially bad in this regard.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      > Sure, safety's difficult -- but precisely because its the exact same issue as cryptography. Your point about bug bounties is a perfect example of antifragility -- and cryptos success in this regard is far more interesting than its failures (none of which have been fundamental to the concept) I don't where's the antifragility -- it's exactly the reverse, crypto systems are "superfragile". An online wallet is a juicy target for an attack every second it exists, and the moment defenses fail the result is catastrophic. It's even worse with modern crypto features like NFTs -- which require online wallets and have you actively advertise to everyone how much money there is. > Increased value. Again, no different from any other financial instrument in any fundamental way. Every criticism you can make of crypto, you can make of bonds, etc. The zero-sum argument is especially bad in this regard. For pretty much every crypto concept there exists a non-crypto analog that's far more user friendly and safer to work with. The question is why would crypto see increased adoption when to most people crypto doesn't have good tradeoffs. So if I wanted to make money from bonds, I'd just buy bonds. I'd need to be nuts to opt into the crypto equivalent.
      - jrm4 4y ago
        But, to absolutely steal the originators example -- the "superfragility" of crypto systems is the same as the superfragility of individual NYC restaurants; aka the precise reason NYC restaurants GENERALLY are so good. I agree, a ton of them will die. And also - the thing(s) that's left will be unstoppable. As for the second one, I mean, risk/return. Yes, other things will be more user-friendly and safer, which likely means lower return. I agree, you'd be nuts to throw a lot in. I just also think you'd be nuts to not throw a little in as well.

jrm4 4y ago

"Life's savings" is disingenuous though. No one puts their life savings in much of anything. Moreover, what you're saying about crypto presumes that its competitors are all high-quality,and what I'm saying is there are likely enough low-quality competitors such that crypto becomes more attractive. Life-savings would be stupid. But part of an investment strategy on the other hand potentially makes a ton of sense, and that's all that's needed for survival/popularity.

dale_glass 4y ago
> "Life's savings" is disingenuous though. No one puts their life savings in much of anything. There's a fair amount of that, actually: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/yy37cy/i_lost_my_life_savings_compilation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/yy37cy/i_lost_my_... > Moreover, what you're saying about crypto presumes that its competitors are all high-quality,and what I'm saying is there are likely enough low-quality competitors such that crypto becomes more attractive. What is lower quality out there than crypto? Crypto is appallingly low quality. Crypto-related businesses like exchanges go bust dramatically at an alarming rate. If your bank goes bust at least there's insurance for that. > But part of an investment strategy on the other hand potentially makes a ton of sense, and that's all that's needed for survival/popularity. But that comes back to the original problem: it's only a good investment if you can keep it safe, AND if it keeps on growing. Keeping safe in the space is an extremely difficult task as it is, as every wallet out there is a self-awarding bug bounty. As to growth it comes back to what I was saying before. First, there has to be increased value for it to grow. That's actually decreasing as crypto becomes more trackable and less safe for illegal activity over time. It's also at best a zero sum. Any money you get from such an investment can only come from the traditional economical system putting it in, and that just can't go on forever. And any gain you might make comes from somebody else's loss. You're just betting on that you won't be somebody else's gain.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Sure, safety's difficult -- but precisely because its the exact same issue as cryptography. Your point about bug bounties is a perfect example of antifragility -- and cryptos success in this regard is far more interesting than its failures (none of which have been fundamental to the concept) Increased value. Again, no different from any other financial instrument in any fundamental way. Every criticism you can make of crypto, you can make of bonds, etc. The zero-sum argument is especially bad in this regard.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    > Sure, safety's difficult -- but precisely because its the exact same issue as cryptography. Your point about bug bounties is a perfect example of antifragility -- and cryptos success in this regard is far more interesting than its failures (none of which have been fundamental to the concept) I don't where's the antifragility -- it's exactly the reverse, crypto systems are "superfragile". An online wallet is a juicy target for an attack every second it exists, and the moment defenses fail the result is catastrophic. It's even worse with modern crypto features like NFTs -- which require online wallets and have you actively advertise to everyone how much money there is. > Increased value. Again, no different from any other financial instrument in any fundamental way. Every criticism you can make of crypto, you can make of bonds, etc. The zero-sum argument is especially bad in this regard. For pretty much every crypto concept there exists a non-crypto analog that's far more user friendly and safer to work with. The question is why would crypto see increased adoption when to most people crypto doesn't have good tradeoffs. So if I wanted to make money from bonds, I'd just buy bonds. I'd need to be nuts to opt into the crypto equivalent.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      But, to absolutely steal the originators example -- the "superfragility" of crypto systems is the same as the superfragility of individual NYC restaurants; aka the precise reason NYC restaurants GENERALLY are so good. I agree, a ton of them will die. And also - the thing(s) that's left will be unstoppable. As for the second one, I mean, risk/return. Yes, other things will be more user-friendly and safer, which likely means lower return. I agree, you'd be nuts to throw a lot in. I just also think you'd be nuts to not throw a little in as well.