4 ms·

The fact the tweet exists disproves the premise. Thankfully, society has progressed to a point where it's socially acceptable to call out fools changing the go

The fact the tweet exists disproves the premise. Thankfully, society has progressed to a point where it's socially acceptable to call out fools changing the goal post.

colesantiago 4y ago
> The fact the tweet exists disproves your premise. No. You would like to think that, however after seeing what happened since 2022 (FTX, Luna, low NFT usage, crypto rugpulls, crypto layoffs) i'm afraid these examples cement crypto as completely useless. In fact, nothing that crypto does is entirely novel nor it is a legitimate significant improvement to the current financial system, in fact it is even worse since it isn't even regulated.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  You're clearly arguing in bad faith. You asserted "[t]here really and objectively is no reason for cryptocurrencies to exist at all." Evidence was provided demonstrating the assertion is false. Burying your head in the sand won't change that.
  - colesantiago 4y ago
    And I provided an example that I can donate to Ukraine directly with just regular fiat which is fast, easy and secure. What is exactly new here that crypto is legitimately offering that is better than the current system? Since there is nothing new or novel that crypto is doing, your 'evidence' is completely moot.
    - infamouscow 4y ago
      > And I provided an example that I can donate to Ukraine directly with just regular fiat which is fast, easy and secure. I must have missed it -- can you link it here? > What is exactly new here that crypto is legitimately offering that is better than the current system? Bitcoin has no middleman taking a cut. My bank changes me 40 USD for outgoing foreign wire transfers. That's 40 USD that I'd prefer go to Ukraine over bankers. > Since there is nothing new or novel that crypto is doing, your 'evidence' is completely moot. So why exactly did the government of Ukraine tweet about accepting Bitcoin on their official Twitter account if it has no purpose?
      - colesantiago 4y ago
        I donated to Ukraine using Apple Pay with no fees at all, I also donated here: https://donate.redcross.org.uk/appeal/ukraine-crisis-appeal https://donate.redcross.org.uk/appeal/ukraine-crisis-appeal Very simple, quick, easy and secure no complicated strings of garbage that doesn't burn up the planet or lose half of your donation due to volatility which is what Bitcoin, Ethereum does. > So why exactly did the government of Ukraine tweet about accepting Bitcoin on their official Twitter account if it has no purpose? Simple. Marketing, hype and grifting. Crypto is perfect for this especially if you want to offer useless airdrops for other crypto grifters to profit off. The fact they offered this is already a red flag to stay away from crypto as I would strongly assume that they have been completely hacked as most normal people already assume. It is also laughable that a computer game raised more money than crypto did for Ukraine, shows how much of a non impact crypto is. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60983344 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60983344
        infamouscow 4y ago
        It's great that you were able to donate without barriers or middlemen, but the 1.7 billion unbanked people in the world don't have the same access to financial institutions like you think they do. A significant chunk of their finances are taken by bankers for remittances and other fees. Rather than conceding, you're in the position of asserting three things simultaneously: 1. The gov of Ukraine is using crypto donations for illegitimate purposes, but only the crypto donations. 2. Non-crypto donations are legitimate, but only those donations. 3. Even if the crypto donations were legitimate, unless the donations were ten times what was actually raised (~ 14M USD), it still has no reason to exist.
        colesantiago 4y ago
        > It's great that you were able to donate without barriers or middlemen, but the 1.7 billion unbanked people in the world don't have the same access to financial institutions like you think they do. A significant chunk of their finances are taken by bankers for remittances and other fees. You mean innovations such as UPI, Pix, PromptPay, PayNow and MPesa that are used by more than 1BN+ real people collectively and growing? My point is what is crypto doing significantly differently that makes it better than the current financial system? Donating via crypto is completely moot point since I mentioned I can do the same thing without middlemen.

The fact the tweet exists disproves the premise. Thankfully, society has progressed to a point where it's socially acceptable to call out fools changing the goal post.

colesantiago 4y ago

> The fact the tweet exists disproves your premise. No. You would like to think that, however after seeing what happened since 2022 (FTX, Luna, low NFT usage, crypto rugpulls, crypto layoffs) i'm afraid these examples cement crypto as completely useless. In fact, nothing that crypto does is entirely novel nor it is a legitimate significant improvement to the current financial system, in fact it is even worse since it isn't even regulated.

infamouscow 4y ago
You're clearly arguing in bad faith. You asserted "[t]here really and objectively is no reason for cryptocurrencies to exist at all." Evidence was provided demonstrating the assertion is false. Burying your head in the sand won't change that.
- colesantiago 4y ago
  And I provided an example that I can donate to Ukraine directly with just regular fiat which is fast, easy and secure. What is exactly new here that crypto is legitimately offering that is better than the current system? Since there is nothing new or novel that crypto is doing, your 'evidence' is completely moot.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    > And I provided an example that I can donate to Ukraine directly with just regular fiat which is fast, easy and secure. I must have missed it -- can you link it here? > What is exactly new here that crypto is legitimately offering that is better than the current system? Bitcoin has no middleman taking a cut. My bank changes me 40 USD for outgoing foreign wire transfers. That's 40 USD that I'd prefer go to Ukraine over bankers. > Since there is nothing new or novel that crypto is doing, your 'evidence' is completely moot. So why exactly did the government of Ukraine tweet about accepting Bitcoin on their official Twitter account if it has no purpose?
    - colesantiago 4y ago
      I donated to Ukraine using Apple Pay with no fees at all, I also donated here: https://donate.redcross.org.uk/appeal/ukraine-crisis-appeal https://donate.redcross.org.uk/appeal/ukraine-crisis-appeal Very simple, quick, easy and secure no complicated strings of garbage that doesn't burn up the planet or lose half of your donation due to volatility which is what Bitcoin, Ethereum does. > So why exactly did the government of Ukraine tweet about accepting Bitcoin on their official Twitter account if it has no purpose? Simple. Marketing, hype and grifting. Crypto is perfect for this especially if you want to offer useless airdrops for other crypto grifters to profit off. The fact they offered this is already a red flag to stay away from crypto as I would strongly assume that they have been completely hacked as most normal people already assume. It is also laughable that a computer game raised more money than crypto did for Ukraine, shows how much of a non impact crypto is. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60983344 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60983344
      - infamouscow 4y ago
        It's great that you were able to donate without barriers or middlemen, but the 1.7 billion unbanked people in the world don't have the same access to financial institutions like you think they do. A significant chunk of their finances are taken by bankers for remittances and other fees. Rather than conceding, you're in the position of asserting three things simultaneously: 1. The gov of Ukraine is using crypto donations for illegitimate purposes, but only the crypto donations. 2. Non-crypto donations are legitimate, but only those donations. 3. Even if the crypto donations were legitimate, unless the donations were ten times what was actually raised (~ 14M USD), it still has no reason to exist.
        colesantiago 4y ago
        > It's great that you were able to donate without barriers or middlemen, but the 1.7 billion unbanked people in the world don't have the same access to financial institutions like you think they do. A significant chunk of their finances are taken by bankers for remittances and other fees. You mean innovations such as UPI, Pix, PromptPay, PayNow and MPesa that are used by more than 1BN+ real people collectively and growing? My point is what is crypto doing significantly differently that makes it better than the current financial system? Donating via crypto is completely moot point since I mentioned I can do the same thing without middlemen.