3 ms·

Are those things you enjoy worth the massive transfer of wealth from many people to a few people that seems to be the result of crypto markets?

yieldcrv 4y ago
Yes, it is worth it. Crypto doesn't aim to solve what you just described about every market. Crypto has the same distributions seen in other markets and economies. Crypto just lets you watch it in real time. The efficacy of its transparency selling point is actually at the crux of criticisms. Whether its simple noticing there’s a big market for collectibles, but pretending crypto’s version of collectibles are uniquely speculative problems. Or seeing that the cryptocurrencies have wealth consolidated in the hands of a few, as if that undermines something about an infinitely divisible asset, while the criticism is describing state currencies. We can see the phishing attacks and hacks globally, compared to not being able to see and quantify that outside of crypto, we choose not to make an international headline every time someone falls for a scam outside of crypto.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  > Crypto has the same distributions seen in other markets and economies. I find that very hard to believe without data.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    you need proof that the 1% own the lions share of the currency in both systems? I think you can corroborate that easily, you’ve put your attention on the verifiable aspect of crypto and can already see the consolidation You haven’t seen the headlines about the traditional reality in a place you respect? Seems like thats the only missing piece for that specific criticism.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      ~2,000 addresses own ~45% of all bitcoins. * https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses....
      - yieldcrv 4y ago
        and the top 1% owns over 50% of all wealth https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-1-earners-hold-more-wealth-than-the-u-s-middle-class https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-1-ear... https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/wealth-inequality-oxfam-billionaires-elon-musk/ https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/wealth-inequality-o... Pick whichever source you respect more so A) we know its the same distribution with bitcoin B) now you know its the same distribution as with other markets C) knowing that and knowing that bitcoin didn't set out to change that, lets us focus on other things within the crypto ecosystem
        Eisenstein 4y ago
        The top 1% of the USA which you linked about is over 1.3million people. As opposed to fewer than a few thousand? And bitcoins can't don't inflate, so... those 2000 addresses (probably only 50 to 100 people, at most) own most of the bitcoins, forever. I don't think you realize how big of a deal that is.
        yieldcrv 4y ago
        its an infinitely divisible asset, and nodes can debate tail emissions all they want without any input from old holders. and it also depends on what you care about, what do you care about that makes you care about that? something about bitcoin being a universal reserve asset or something? because that has nothing to do with anything I care about.
        Eisenstein 4y ago
        Sure. Convince yourself that that an infinitely worse system is an improvement on a system that is already terrible. Either you are entrenched due to sunk cost fallacy, libertarian brain-rot, or you are naive. I hope the lesson you end up learning doesn't cost too much in the end.

yieldcrv 4y ago

Yes, it is worth it. Crypto doesn't aim to solve what you just described about every market. Crypto has the same distributions seen in other markets and economies. Crypto just lets you watch it in real time. The efficacy of its transparency selling point is actually at the crux of criticisms. Whether its simple noticing there’s a big market for collectibles, but pretending crypto’s version of collectibles are uniquely speculative problems. Or seeing that the cryptocurrencies have wealth consolidated in the hands of a few, as if that undermines something about an infinitely divisible asset, while the criticism is describing state currencies. We can see the phishing attacks and hacks globally, compared to not being able to see and quantify that outside of crypto, we choose not to make an international headline every time someone falls for a scam outside of crypto.

Eisenstein 4y ago
> Crypto has the same distributions seen in other markets and economies. I find that very hard to believe without data.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  you need proof that the 1% own the lions share of the currency in both systems? I think you can corroborate that easily, you’ve put your attention on the verifiable aspect of crypto and can already see the consolidation You haven’t seen the headlines about the traditional reality in a place you respect? Seems like thats the only missing piece for that specific criticism.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    ~2,000 addresses own ~45% of all bitcoins. * https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses....
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      and the top 1% owns over 50% of all wealth https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-1-earners-hold-more-wealth-than-the-u-s-middle-class https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-1-ear... https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/wealth-inequality-oxfam-billionaires-elon-musk/ https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/wealth-inequality-o... Pick whichever source you respect more so A) we know its the same distribution with bitcoin B) now you know its the same distribution as with other markets C) knowing that and knowing that bitcoin didn't set out to change that, lets us focus on other things within the crypto ecosystem
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        The top 1% of the USA which you linked about is over 1.3million people. As opposed to fewer than a few thousand? And bitcoins can't don't inflate, so... those 2000 addresses (probably only 50 to 100 people, at most) own most of the bitcoins, forever. I don't think you realize how big of a deal that is.
        yieldcrv 4y ago
        its an infinitely divisible asset, and nodes can debate tail emissions all they want without any input from old holders. and it also depends on what you care about, what do you care about that makes you care about that? something about bitcoin being a universal reserve asset or something? because that has nothing to do with anything I care about.
        Eisenstein 4y ago
        Sure. Convince yourself that that an infinitely worse system is an improvement on a system that is already terrible. Either you are entrenched due to sunk cost fallacy, libertarian brain-rot, or you are naive. I hope the lesson you end up learning doesn't cost too much in the end.