5 ms·

> "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

> "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.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      > But, to absolutely steal the originators example -- the "superfragility" of crypto systems is the same as the superfragility of individual NYC restaurants What? That's not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about fragility for the user. When I buy something online even at a new and kinda dubiously run place, I'm only risking the $50 or whatnot I put in, and even then I can do a chargeback. And all the site knows is that John Smith spent $50 on their stuff. When I interact with crypto, I need an online wallet, which means everything and everyone knows what's the balance in it, and how much cash they'll get if they succeed in finding a bug, or an exploit, or to trick me into revealing my key, or they trick me into allowing more access to my wallet than I should. And then I'm not out of $50, I'm out of everything, and there's no recovery possible. That's what I mean by "superfragile". Crypto needs you to do everything right, consistently, forever, or the results of a lapse in security that somebody succeeds in taking advantage of are catastrophic. > 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. The era of crazy gains when somebody spent $5 on a lark and ended up with $500K is long over. Look at the stats. In modern times if you're really, really lucky you can double your money. But doubling $5 is insignificant. You need to risk a lot for the gain to actually be significant.
      - jrm4 4y ago
        Sure -- but again, your superfragile here doesn't mean never, it just means "not now for most people," not unlike e.g. manned flight.

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.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    > But, to absolutely steal the originators example -- the "superfragility" of crypto systems is the same as the superfragility of individual NYC restaurants What? That's not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about fragility for the user. When I buy something online even at a new and kinda dubiously run place, I'm only risking the $50 or whatnot I put in, and even then I can do a chargeback. And all the site knows is that John Smith spent $50 on their stuff. When I interact with crypto, I need an online wallet, which means everything and everyone knows what's the balance in it, and how much cash they'll get if they succeed in finding a bug, or an exploit, or to trick me into revealing my key, or they trick me into allowing more access to my wallet than I should. And then I'm not out of $50, I'm out of everything, and there's no recovery possible. That's what I mean by "superfragile". Crypto needs you to do everything right, consistently, forever, or the results of a lapse in security that somebody succeeds in taking advantage of are catastrophic. > 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. The era of crazy gains when somebody spent $5 on a lark and ended up with $500K is long over. Look at the stats. In modern times if you're really, really lucky you can double your money. But doubling $5 is insignificant. You need to risk a lot for the gain to actually be significant.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      Sure -- but again, your superfragile here doesn't mean never, it just means "not now for most people," not unlike e.g. manned flight.