4 ms·
The issue isn't that it solves the wrong problem. The issue is that crypto boosters (including a few already here) claim it solves a whole host of other proble
by wisty 10mo ago
The issue isn't that it solves the wrong problem.
The issue is that crypto boosters (including a few already here) claim it solves a whole host of other problems without thinking things through, kind of like some communists. Then if you argue enough they'll point out that things can be fixed ... but bitcoin is now indistinguishable from any other currency, other than its payment system that will no longer be widely used.
Like, you can make it easy to use if there are banks. And those banks will be subject to regulations. Boom, now you have banks and regulations.
You can get a loan from those banks. Now there's fractional reserve banking, with something like a virtual gold standard.
If it ever gets big enough, the fed can write bitcoin denominated bonds, and it's now prerty much a fiat currency, not even virtual gold.
Yes you still have a shadow sector where you can use bitcoin to buy drugs or dodge the taxman. But all the other supposed benefits have gone.
- immibis 10mo agoUltra-capitalist libertarians are communists... riiiiiight... btw I was banned from r/bitcoin Discord for saying that exchanges are banks.
- wisty 10mo agoBoth are idealists, doomed to be forced to recreate worse versions of the solutions they think are problems if their dreams ever progess far enough to come into contact with reality. Things like banks and governments. Or incentives and heirarchy.
- Imustaskforhelp 10mo ago> Yes you still have a shadow sector where you can use bitcoin to buy drugs or dodge the taxman. But all the other supposed benefits have gone. You use monero to do those things or zano or freedomusd and similar things for these but I didnt understand the conclusion of this statement Basically you are saying crypto is just an less regulated fiat nowadays? A legal curry of tech jargon just meant to replace laws and regulations?
- wisty 10mo agoPretty much. People say it's meant to replace laws and regulations, but if it's successful then it won't. The US has a large bitcoin strategic reserve. Banks offer bitcoin accounts (in some countries). You can get a loan backed by your bitcoin. We're not yet at the point where you can get a credit card and 60 year home loan denominated in bitcoin, with the fed writing bonds or even issuing fiat to stabilise rates, but if it was more popular then is there any technical reason we couldn't get there?
- verzali 10mo agoWhat purpose does a bitcoin strategic reserve serve?
- wisty 10mo agoTrump did it, so frankly it's probably just a brain fart. However, the US having a strategic reserve of a currency makes it a lot like other currencies. The next logical step is that banks can use it (already in the works - also Trump). If you can get a bank account it bitcoin, the next logical step is towards a fractional reserve system (loans, banks effectively "printing money"). The strategic reserve can cover a run on banks - think interbank lending, bailouts. Then the fed can offer bonds and IOUs (fiat). All the things q lot of bitcoin advocates say bitcoin should stop, but you can't stop the government writing an IOU and demanding everyone treat it as currency.
- Dilettante_ 10mo agoYour argument here appears to be "crypto is no better than fiat, because you can build the same systems on top of them." What you put on top is not the core value proposition of cryptocurrencies? It's what's underneath that's different, that was always the point. Fiat currency is built on a foundation of gov't control, whether it's the physical currency or the money in your bank account. Cryptocurrencies, fundamentally, are under no such control. If you're stupid enough to go get a 5mil loan in bitcoin from a bank who is only holding 1.7mil, and the delivery of said bitcoin is a slip of paper saying "iou btc lol" that's not the currency failing you, it's you acting stupidly.
- user34283 10mo agoThe financial system being under government control is the only proposition consistent with reality. We, the people, make the rules. Replacing our democratic processes with finance controlled by the one with the most computing power, control of the software, or having horded the most of the tokens, is in no way desirable or realistic. Even if the proposition wasn't borderline idiotic in the first place, there is no clear explanation how such a system should reward early adopters and allow them to cash out at a profit many times exceeding inflation. It's all a scam.
- Dilettante_ 10mo agoI'm gonna first of all disagree with the notion that our entire democracy rests on control of the financial system, secondly point out that you seem to make some wild leaps about how decentralized currencies work, and thirdly ask how the hell you're getting the idea that early adopters would need to be "cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation"(Participation in the new system is the point of adopting it, how is this unclear). Finally: We, the people, make the rules. If you truly believe that, you are (and I realize this is not the level of discourse I should strive for on HN) beyond redemption.
- user34283 10mo agoI said the financial system must be controlled by our democratic system, not that democracy rests on control of the financial system. No idea where I'm supposedly making "wild leaps" here. You on the other hand... And guess where "the hell" I am getting the idea that early adopters would need to be cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation: reality. As cashing out at a large profit is exactly what has been happening for over a decade. It is the sole reason for virtually all participants joining the scheme in the first place.