This is typical crypto-hype.
Notice that although many points are raised, it doesn’t address the direct objections of the previous post.
Obfuscate, misdirect, and confuse the marks.
Notice that although many points are raised, it doesn’t address the direct objections of the previous post.
Obfuscate, misdirect, and confuse the marks.
But even given those cons we see benefits in things mentioned above. E.g. my colleague can send bitcoin to his brother in russia. Tell me what other options to transfer value there are at the moment between west and russia. Very similar for ukraine.
E.g. you want to support independent reporters in Russia. What can you do? Support your family? Maybe even foreign students there?
This is half-true. A wire transfer can't be reversed due to end-user error, which can be abused by fraudsters. However, Incorrect input on the bank's behalf does warrant a reversal.
I'd compare my bank screwing up vs a crypto exchange screwing up (Like getting hacked). I'm still not protected if the exchange gets hacked and my coin is exfiltrated. I am protected if my bank fatfingers a wire transfer.
Also, banks are insured by the FDIC against financial catastrophes. Savings accounts held in FDIC-regulated banks are insured up to $250k if the bank fails for some reason. I get no such protection holding crypto with an exchange. The FDIC turns around an audits banks to make sure they're compliant with liquidity requirements, loan quality measures, etc. Nobody in crypto is watching anyone else in crypto to make sure everything is kosher because that is fundamentally impossible in a system that is meant to be decentralized.
Scammers are everywhere and not nearly enough is being done to address it. It's not even clear whether it's possible or not to even address crypto scams.
Exchange risk is tempered somewhat by Coinbase which is more comparable to a standard bank in terms of risk (imo).
The true value and capability that’s distinct with crypto is self-custody and that is the important part of my comment.
The fine print does not bear this out at all. Coinbase states in their TOS that your funds may not replaced in the case of a breach because they do not insure the entirety of accounts, nor do they stipulate a guaranteed insured amount:[0]
> In case of a covered security event, we will endeavor to make you whole. However, total losses may exceed insurance recoveries so your funds may still be lost.
Comparing the risk profile of Coinbase to a bank is no different than blindly trusting a big bank not to fail. These are not analogous institutions from a risk management standpoint.
0: https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/other-topics/legal-pol...
> “Comparing the risk profile of Coinbase to a bank is no different than blindly trusting a big bank not to fail.”
That’s kind of my point? They share a similar risk.
The most interesting thing with crypto is the new capabilities it enables for self custody of wealth.
There’s also the non-government controlled supply and global store of value which are interesting too, but easier self-custody is the prerequisite differentiator imo. It’s also one of its core advantages over gold (the others being easier to transact with, easier to move/store which is related).
> The most interesting thing with crypto is the new capabilities it enables for self custody of wealth.
Serious question: what are the new capabilities that this opens up? These tokens are really unstable which makes them poor candidates to use as actual currency, research shows that decentralized networks are no less susceptible to market manipulation than traditional financial markets and there's an unbelievable amount of fraud everywhere in this space.
The whole reason the Federal Reserve was created was to weed out endemic fraudulent activity around the country during the era of "Wildcat Banking"[0], when banks were essentially creating their own currencies. Crypto is largely the digital reincarnation of this philosophy, and isn't really doing anything about shitcoins and other scams. Now, we're starting to see the legitimization of shitcoins through sports team fan tokens that provide no tangible value beyond the purely speculative "hodl" mentality.
No, this is a person sending money to their brother, who is presumably not engaged in "waging war."
Crypto bros telling us how great it is for the poor people in such countries to get money. Now we see the downside of this as well. Oligarchs protecting their assets as well.
Leveled playfield.
No added benefit from crypto anymore.
And yes right now for me, sanctioning is more critical to me to increase the pressure on Russia to stop killing people than Russian people being able to use crypto.
The more that financial repression and "cancellations" become mainstream, the more obvious crypto's use cases become - whether or not you support the individual examples of repression.
How much is a human life worth to you? How much are we all responsible for everything and nothing?
Collective punishment? It's just that there are limitations on tools global politics can use.
Independently of this perhaps my expectations on fellow humans are different than yours.
And at the end of the day crypto can be blocked and will be blocked sooner than later. every event like this which circumvent global mechanism will be worked against
This argument seems completely non-sensical to me.
Western governments have been arguing for 3+ decades that we do business with countries like China because integrating them into the global economic system will encourage them to change. But now we're making the same argument that we need to expel Russia from the global economic system because it will encourage them to change. What? At least crypto doesn't flip-flop on what it's moral or ethical purpose is. It's just a tool and an exchange of value, not a weapon.
The sanctions mean nothing if you haven't already integrated the countries into the global economic system, because they won't be losing anything.
I'll grant the implementation leaves a lot to be desired, but the principle is quite sound.
Not all governments are good, not all laws are just. It’s easy to roll eyes at this in the west, but a lot of countries in the world are lead by bad people acting in their own self-interest.
The other bit you get from Bitcoin at least is programmatic guarantees of supply. This protects you from increases in supply inflating your savings away. It makes it a better store of value than fiat.
A standard currency is not always available. The same is true for safe financial systems. This is more relevant for people trying to save in places like Venezuela. Crypto provides new capabilities that may be your best option.
If one potential future is authoritarian governments leveraging total control on their citizens financial transactions via centralized financial systems (what the ccp is trying to build) - crypto is a technology that provides a relief valve from that. It’s a good thing it exists imo.
Limited supply is not irrelevant or “factually wrong” for a long term store of value (like gold) which is more the role BTC plays specifically.
[1] https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e17377_2a348fd21fc543f9a0...
We’re talking about advantages and capabilities - specifically granted by crypto of which self-custody is a prerequisite (yes technically true of stock, but not indexes and not as comparable). Within that context it has advantages over other options and more capabilities.
I’m not pretending it’s better at everything or it should be 100% of your holdings or anything like that, but it is better at some things and the new capabilities it provides are interesting and valuable.
That chart is a limited slice of time. The nice thing about economic bets is it doesn’t really matter what you (or I) think, the market will play it out. I suspect you’re probably wrong, but we’ll see.
Focusing on this despite the rest of what I wrote is still kind of missing my point.
There’s not really much point in further discussion, there’s not much more to say. We just don’t agree.
But feel free to disagree, of course. The evidence doesn't care if you don't agree with it. It's still there, for everyone to see.
You have a clear motivated reasoning bias (crypto = bad and useless) paired without understanding the basics of how crypto works.
You don’t have conversations with people, you just ignore details that disagree with your pre-existing conclusion and focus on digressions you think prove your point (typically against a strawman argument I’m not making).
Your submissions betray this bias too. Crypto (and conversation) is more interesting when considering the nuanced bits even if it may disagree with “your side”.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb...
You’re right about one thing though, the evidence is there for people to see.
That isn't exactly arguing in good faith, to use your own words.
Crypto wallet owners can be entirely hidden and impossible to sue.
Have you ever worked a retail/food chain job and gotten to see how many CC transactions are invalid/fraudulent resulting in the business losing money? I worked at a pizza place where 5-10% of CC transactions were bogus (college town). Checks were more like 20%.
All financial transactions are trust relationships. Some are higher trust than others. If you could buy groceries at Wal-Mart or a new iPhone from apple.com with bitcoin you would have no concern about that. If you send money to a rando on the internet, well it doesn't matter all that much whether it's crypto or dollars.
Sometimes you will have third party intermediaries, like VISA, who will offer certain guarantees/insurance for a fee. It's as simple as that.
It's silly to compare transactions with known/trusted entities like a physical business or trusted insurance provider/intermediary like VISA with sending your money to a random anonymous bitcoin address. You would not generally be wiring money to a random anonymous bank account either.
If you could buy stuff with it and it wasn't an absolute headache (install app, pay transaction fees) and it was easier, it would be more popular.
That would also remove the "it's a speculative asset bubble" problem.
For the interim, using it as a private bank, assuming you can cache it out at an exchange for local legal tender, is the next best thing.
The only true way to make it a currency is for it to have its own country - bunch of people somewhere decide to use it for all their stuff, trade goods and services. Problem with that OFC is a lack of free land and energy.
So maybe when we live in space, and need a long term store of value, but don't really want to carry around bars of gold or platinum, it can have some serious uses. Until them it is exactly like buying oil - technically asset trading but really hard to realize the value in any meaningful way.
You can choose to ignore the nuance, but it exists anyway.