3 ms·

> Of course, you can always use Bitcoin / Ethereum and the Ethereum Name Service which is true, legitimate digital ownership. Why is this legitimate digital ow

> Of course, you can always use Bitcoin / Ethereum and the Ethereum Name Service which is true, legitimate digital ownership. Why is this legitimate digital ownership vs other forms? Bitcoin and ETH are stolen all the time, and it’s not recoverable, even if you can prove it rightfully belonged to you. People are wary of crypto because it’s controlled by a cabal of extraordinarily entrenched early adopters, many of whom established themselves on speculation, grift, and fraud. It’s no better than the centralized banking it purports to supplant, and worse in most measurable regards.

monero-xmr 3y ago
A lot of early people sold, it’s hard to buy and hold when you 10x. Then people in at $1 sell at $10, those buyers sell at $100, those at $1000, and so on. It takes deep, deep conviction to sit on 10000% gains and not sell. And those people are true believers in the tech, and IMO deserve their riches. Same as anyone who bought FB or AMZN or GOOG at IPO and held until now. As a separate issue, do the longer term holders pose a threat to the crypto ecosystem? You are so naïve - the traditional economic and banking system is the same! Except for centuries! Do I sound conspiratorial? Well, you said crypto has a “cabal”. Pot meet kettle. At least in crypto it’s open source, and the addresses and balances are public. A fundamentally more equitable system at its core.
- appplication 3y ago
  I have no love for the banks. But crypto is open source in name only. The deflationary nature of it ensures that expansion of adoption is exclusively to the enrichment of current holders. It’s a glorified ponzi scheme, posturing behind sham principles of openness and inclusion.
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    I feel like you are at an inflection point of understanding. The fiat economic system, which has been the global system since the gold standard went away, is a glorified Ponzi scheme! You are so close
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > gold standard Was an objectively awful system. The 19th century economy was on a permanent boom and bust cycle alternating between severe inflation and deflation. 2009, let alone what has happened over the last few years would've been very mild by gold standard standards. > I feel like you are at an inflection point of understanding It's funny that the edgy people who are so excited about the gold standard/bitcoin/deflation are so clueless about economic history.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      Neither is a ponzi scheme, but I think you're both trying to say that each rewards the already rich, which is true. But replacing one "rich get richer" economic system with another is not an improvement, except for a very few people who might become rich during the transition.
      - qwytw 3y ago
        > trying to say that each rewards the already rich, which is true However deflationary currencies reward them significantly more than inflationary ones.
      - monero-xmr 3y ago
        I am using a rhetorical technique to point to the traditional economic system to contrast it with the crypto system, and in this way crypto is at least equally bad (if not (much!) better). That technique is for observers of the thread. Unfortunately, if you have a problem with “rich get richer”, I believe you are arguing against fundamental requirement of technological improvement. It takes patience to do anything of value. Anything. Learning a skill, mastering a job, earning the trust of your peers, becoming a leader - this requires time, dedication, and discipline. A government cannot simply mandate that everyone can read, or everyone can be rich for that matter. All risk has tradeoff. It takes those with more stuff in order to risk enough stuff to subsidize a lot of experiments, some of which will bear fruit. I would argue that even in the smallest communities, with everyone starting equal, very soon some will have more and some have less. This is simply human nature.
mptest 3y ago
>controlled by a cabal of extraordinarily entrenched early adopters, many of whom established themselves on speculation, grift, and fraud Aka buying the stuff while you lot were laughing at it and calling them magic internet beans over on /r/buttcoin

monero-xmr 3y ago

A lot of early people sold, it’s hard to buy and hold when you 10x. Then people in at $1 sell at $10, those buyers sell at $100, those at $1000, and so on. It takes deep, deep conviction to sit on 10000% gains and not sell. And those people are true believers in the tech, and IMO deserve their riches. Same as anyone who bought FB or AMZN or GOOG at IPO and held until now. As a separate issue, do the longer term holders pose a threat to the crypto ecosystem? You are so naïve - the traditional economic and banking system is the same! Except for centuries! Do I sound conspiratorial? Well, you said crypto has a “cabal”. Pot meet kettle. At least in crypto it’s open source, and the addresses and balances are public. A fundamentally more equitable system at its core.

appplication 3y ago
I have no love for the banks. But crypto is open source in name only. The deflationary nature of it ensures that expansion of adoption is exclusively to the enrichment of current holders. It’s a glorified ponzi scheme, posturing behind sham principles of openness and inclusion.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  I feel like you are at an inflection point of understanding. The fiat economic system, which has been the global system since the gold standard went away, is a glorified Ponzi scheme! You are so close
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > gold standard Was an objectively awful system. The 19th century economy was on a permanent boom and bust cycle alternating between severe inflation and deflation. 2009, let alone what has happened over the last few years would've been very mild by gold standard standards. > I feel like you are at an inflection point of understanding It's funny that the edgy people who are so excited about the gold standard/bitcoin/deflation are so clueless about economic history.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Neither is a ponzi scheme, but I think you're both trying to say that each rewards the already rich, which is true. But replacing one "rich get richer" economic system with another is not an improvement, except for a very few people who might become rich during the transition.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > trying to say that each rewards the already rich, which is true However deflationary currencies reward them significantly more than inflationary ones.
    - monero-xmr 3y ago
      I am using a rhetorical technique to point to the traditional economic system to contrast it with the crypto system, and in this way crypto is at least equally bad (if not (much!) better). That technique is for observers of the thread. Unfortunately, if you have a problem with “rich get richer”, I believe you are arguing against fundamental requirement of technological improvement. It takes patience to do anything of value. Anything. Learning a skill, mastering a job, earning the trust of your peers, becoming a leader - this requires time, dedication, and discipline. A government cannot simply mandate that everyone can read, or everyone can be rich for that matter. All risk has tradeoff. It takes those with more stuff in order to risk enough stuff to subsidize a lot of experiments, some of which will bear fruit. I would argue that even in the smallest communities, with everyone starting equal, very soon some will have more and some have less. This is simply human nature.

mptest 3y ago

>controlled by a cabal of extraordinarily entrenched early adopters, many of whom established themselves on speculation, grift, and fraud Aka buying the stuff while you lot were laughing at it and calling them magic internet beans over on /r/buttcoin