Cars were also dangerous, unregulated, expensive and excessively polluting. It got a lot better on all these points, and not all due to the cars: some of it was a mind shift that mankind had to make.
Same will hold true for cryptocurrency.
Cryptocurrencies just don't. It's all smoke and mirrors, where everything would be better without the blockchain. Without irreversibility. Without everything about it.
There are whole books about how terrible and useless it is.
And please do what the article said: How much of your own money is dependent on you selling the lie of cryptocurrency or smart contract to the next level in this multi level marketing?
I sold my BTC when it was at $15k, because I felt disgusted in participating in this super-immoral going-nowhere-moral tech, so my balance is 0.
I made a profit, sure, but regret touching it at all.
> Same will hold true for cryptocurrency.
By this logic you could start kicking puppies, because "eventually something good will come out of kicking puppies", and just as baseless reasoning.
This is so true: cars have massive externalities but the 20th century was spend rebuilding the world around them because they were useful. You saw that immediately and the true costs only became more apparent years later.
Cryptocurrency is as if Robert Moses had redesigned NYC around pet rock warehousing on the theory that someone would later find a use for them, and the warehouses needed to burn coal continuously.
Well, no, not really.
While cars do have non-zero usefulness, the reason we rebuilt the world around them was because of car manufacturer lobbying, not because of some shared revelation about their value to society.
That's the problem with these kind of things: the early adopters see benefits but probably not the costs, that convinces other people to join them, and it quickly reaches the point where the easiest/most profitable is to continue down that path. If you're the average suburban homeowner, you might hate the effect that sitting in traffic has on your health and time but if you can't afford to live next to the office you're probably going to treat it as inevitable since dramatic changes affect your property values.
Many things do. Cryptocurrencies don't.
TBL transformed the world in a few years for a tiny fraction of the cost despite much higher barriers to adoption.
(obviously ignoring fees and such but they also dont go into anything its just paying someone for providing a service)
If you look at crypto as the huge trading space and you dont see it produce anything is simply because its not supposed to. You look at the space that just exchanges stuff. If you look at a grocery store and you dont see anything produced you are right. The store is just where people exchange stuff. Its not where value is created or where you would find innovation in producing something.
Your grocery store analogy illustrates why there are so many skeptics: I don't have to ask people whether they use a grocery store because they have food on their shelves and there's a steady stream of people entering and leaving the store. Blockchain systems, on the other hand, are never mentioned other than by people who have a vested interest in selling the system rather than doing anything with it. People say they're going shopping to buy something for dinner, but it's extremely hard to find someone saying they're buying cryptocurrency because there's something it helps them do faster/better/cheaper rather than just hoping they'll be able to sell the same token to someone else for more than they paid for it.
I'm certain millions of dollars has been spend and probably nothing or not much came out of it so far but there is no metric and nothing to compare it to so how can people come to the conclusion that too much was spend for too little return? I assume they look at hype and trading and all that and this is what leads to the concision. Whether the conclusion is wrong or not, we dont know but the reasoning is wrong.
Even trough there is nothing to compare it to, a huge junk of VC money is spend for things that eventually fail to give return. Its part of the game. And any sane person would agree that if it fails people stop to put more money in for the same ideas. So how do people think that VC are just stupid and shovel money in stuff for 10 years and counting with no return? Maybe just maybe this is not really the case and there is tremendous change coming for the way financial system work. Its just not something that happens quickly and it certainly not some ETF or anything the public talks about because they see numbers in $ value. That's just people playing around with what these systems allow them to make. Its like the chain-mails or ascii-art and all that stuff that hardly anyone could see as solving any problem but then again e-mail did solve a problem even trough the tech was (/is) horribly bad.
>Blockchain systems, on the other hand, are never mentioned other than by people who have a vested interest in selling the system rather than doing anything with it.
You dont hear people talk about how crypto helps them because it does not for the most part. They don't use it. Its also for the most part not meant to be used by them (the end user). They may use a product that's build on top of it some day. Or even already do [1] without knowing. DLTs are just global distributed databases where everyone can verify the state and rules. We have no clue what kind of problems this can solve but its probably not solving much of peoples everyday problems or if so only indirectly without them knowingly using the system. Just like most people never notices that they use TCP/IP. TCP/IP was once a very stupid idea if you would have tired to tell people what it is. They would have told you that phones already work and that TCP/IP at that time would not even allow you to make a phone call. Why would you encode some tiny messages to send over a wire if you could just call the other side instead.
One of the end-user focused ideas that may become reality in the next years is web monetization [2] where your browser steams fraction of cents while you watch anything on the web. Maybe its payed content only or may it removes the ads if you pay. The idea itself is old (subscriptions). But subscriptions do not scale. No one wants subscription for every website and online service. If you could pay them directly as you use, it would work for all who implement this. No prepaid or monthly billing. Pay as you use or donate as you use. This stuff is pioneered by "crypto people" because it relies on p2p value transfer. The current way we move value can not handle micropayment. You can not stream fraction of cents to someone if everything has to go to a third party first and that third party has to find a way to get the money to the recipient who may or may not be a customer of them. Its slow expensive or completely impossible due to d incompatible jurisdictions and such stuff. Its kinda works like phones did once and it should move on to work like the internet does.
[1]https://twitter.com/mercury_fx_ltd/status/108591501163618713... They are using crypto to settle peoples transaction within seconds. Obviously their customers wont know or care but if they pay less is somewhats solving a real problem.
[2] https://webmonetization.org/ Proposed as a W3C standard.
The aspect of direct "peer to peer" electronic cash, coupled with plausible deniability of ownership and no need for trusted parties, are tremendously positive characteristics in poor, corrupt and developing nations where everyday crypto adoption is running high.
There is nothing else available to solve many of these problems, hence Bitcoin and others filling the void.
There are many other potential positives too, but to say there are none - even right now - is ill-informed.
https://decrypt.co/49088/us-government-use-usdc-stablecoin-b...
Also, the US government sending cryptocurrency to South America honestly doesn't sound like a definite positive. Even recently, the US doesn't have a great track record with their interventions in that region of the world.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-government-enlists-usdc-gl...
Regardless of a given view on the politics of this particular intervention, accepting the intervention occurs at all, also accepts crypto's utility for this purpose of circumventing systemic centralised corruption, which was the point of the example.
> super-immoral going-nowhere-moral tech
lol what? Is US dollar moral? Is it not also "smoke-and-mirrors" by your definition since it's just paper that we all believe has value?
US Dollar and other "real" currencies are and can be used for payments and transactions (money in exchange for goods, services etc.). Cryptocurrencies are only converted to/from other currencies to make profits based on speculation.
I was curious about this comment, because I know FOREX is a massive market. According to [1] the daily volume of FOREX in USD is $6.1 trillion. According to [2], the average 'consumer unit' (ugh... I guess that means 'person'?) in the US spends about $63k per year. Let me know if my maths or methodology here is wrong because, and I cannot stress this enough, I am a moron acting in good faith but a moron nonetheless... (63 000 / 365) * 330 000 000 (the US population) = 56958904109.6, or $57bn. That's a lot but it's only (conveniently) about 1% of the volume of the FOREX market. Which means what, the vast majority of USD changing hands is in the form of 'converted to/from other currencies to make profits based on speculation'?
Again, please let me know if my methodology is broken, my sources are shit, whatever.
[1] https://www.compareforexbrokers.com/forex-trading/statistics... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/247407/average-annual-co...
A rich person can move more money than whole towns combined. We are left with the question: Which one does better reflect the "actual" usage of money? 2-3 rich people doing speculations or thousands of "regular" people (living expenses, entertainment, work supplies etc.) with way less money?
Compared to that there is the problem that something like bitcoin is actively harmful towards practical usage due to the extremely high transaction cost, slow transactions, volatility, absolute lack of privacy, extremely high energy cost (that already surpasses whole countries with only very few people using it).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
Surely it means 'household'? There's no way the average American spends $63k per year. That's more than the average salary.
What exactly is your argument?
> Is it not also "smoke-and-mirrors" by your definition since it's just paper that we all believe has value?
USD is backed by the mostly aligned incentives of the whole world in general, and the biggest company in the world in particular, and by the largest military might and nuclear arsenal, ultimately.
USD is paper and bits we believe has value. BTC is bits that most people believe doesn't have value. And that everyone knows will never displace USD because (see above) won't allow it.
Speak for yourself.
> BTC is bits that most people believe doesn't have value.
This is changing rapidly, is it not?
> Speak for yourself.
Raaa-haaaight. Next time you don't believe USD has value you'll skip picking up that $100 bill on the street. When you get robbed you'll laugh and give the robber your worthless USD and say "good luck using this for anything!".
>> BTC is bits that most people believe doesn't have value.
> This is changing rapidly, is it not?
I wouldn't say so, no.
And then you are fine with it.
Good luck with the ignorance.
Cryptocurrencies are not currencies. Bitcoin might be priced at $63,000 today (or $48,000 or 53,000 or oops 30,000 tomorrow?) but it's worth is $0.
You dont get to decide what has value. The market does. Crypto apparently has value.
> By this logic you could start kicking puppies, because "eventually something good will come out of kicking puppies", and just as baseless reasoning.
Worst argument I've read all month.
If you dont see potential in crypto: feel free to do without. Others do. Thankfully we have some freedom.
(Disclosure: I hold no cryptocurrencies, nor have any financial stake in the industry)
Is there value in nonreversibility? No, that "feature" has negative value, and it's the reason people trust credit cards.
Value in anonymity? Not at this scale, no. On net that feature just is not workable in a society built on anything other than libertarian-anarchy. And most people actually want a structured society, not fiefdoms.
Take KYC and AML laws, for example. What percentage of people do you think would say we should abolish them, if you explain what they are, and what they are for.
Open Source? The functioning of our traditional economy is pretty open in its working. It's complex, yes. But you are welcome to understand it, and participate in the process.
The "code" that the economy works on is legal code. I think where I disagree with you is that computer code is inherently more suitable. I say that as a professional programmer, who's been programming for decades.
Here's the thing: "The programs" was never the problem.
I can illustrate this best with smart contracts. They're a solution to a non-problem, while making the actual problem much worse. Contract disputes mainly come from disagreements about what the contract means, and errors in codifying intention as text.
Ability to enforce was never the biggest problem. Never. And by forcing the enforcement by using a smart contract it's actually making the problem worse, where "that's not what I meant". Yes, the default action in a real contract, without contextual evidence, is to take the wording of a contract literally (and oxford commas matter). But if there is other evidence, then yes a court will take that into account. Do you not want that? Do you honestly want a maliciously injected underhanded bug in a contract to be enforced, with no recourse?
I think the problem with your question is that people who ask it don't actually know what they're asking.
In the libertarian-anarchist utopia based on this infrastructure the enforcement methods are beyond the reach of the police. So what do you do when someone robs you? When someone uses a bug in a smart contract to take your house?
Just as a reminder (from someone who admittedly knows little about cryptocurrencies aside from this): BTC and other cryptocurrencies are not anonymous. They are, at the most, pseudonymous, and because of their very nature, the trail linking whatever online identity you used to make the transaction lives forever on the blockchain.
This is not theoretical. This is happening. Its destroying any service which dares to offer free tiers of generic compute. Its had a significant impact on a global silicon shortage the likes of which we've never seen, impacting products from graphics cards and work computers to cars and defense hardware.
That's it; there's no other correct opinion, only incorrect ones. If you support cryptocurrency, you support the environmental collapse of our planet. We don't need it; its die-hard supporters are either profit-motivated or have nothing beyond a grade-school understanding of historical macroeconomic trends and the broad, undeniably negative impact immutable currencies like Gold & Silver had on the average person's standard of living during economic downturns.
Crypto may not be the answer, personally I'm sure Bitcoin is not. But the problem is real.
Ironically this is also why gold-backed currencies are not an acceptable replacement for dollars either - just substitute China with Australia (which is of course politically a far more benign country than China, but you're still outsourcing control of your currency).
The problem of currency stability is real, but crypto is not a solution at all.
Cryptocurrency invents value out of nothing. It's a scam, a fraud, a ponzi scheme, and nothing more than counterfeit money. And it should be treated as such by the governments of the world.
Cryptocurrency has had plenty of time to find a legitimate use and has completely failed. It is not a functional currency and it does not solve any real problems for non-criminals.
Not only does it waste energy and computing resources, it has helped fund a significant amount of the digital threats that the average person will encounter.
Mostly it was due to regulation.