Faced with these choices, the status quo isn’t so bad after all. The other day I saw a news report that Wise (formerly Transferwise) does over $100 billion in money transfer volume annually. A classic startup seems to have been able to fix the problem of expensive international transfers much better than crypto-anything.
15.8 Trillion dollars worth of Bitcoin was transferred between 2020 and 2021.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-transfer-volume-now-...
This volume isn’t at all comparable to the actual usage Wise sees.
You are making a baseless assumption on the intent of transfers to push an argument without merit.
It's all L1.
I've seen people complain about certain open source software based on their experience in 2016, as if nothing might have changed in the intervening years.
There is continuous work being done on scaling. Things take time.
We didn't have broadband internet immediately, there was a very long period of dialup, then slow DSL, ADSL and then eventually fast broadband.
There was no way you could stream video on the early Internet. I wonder whether people back then also complained that it will never be able to replace television, actually... I'm pretty sure those people existed.
The supposed lightning network tends to centralisation inevitably which defeats the purpose of Bitcoin being decentralised.
All the while the current system has been working very well.
There’s no reason to think that the two should take anywhere close to the same length of time to reach adoption. Just look at the iPhone and Android that came out in the same year as bitcoin. If something’s good and useful you don’t need to proselytize and make excuses.
I'm not making an argument against the Internet. :)
The internet already had utility back when everyone used dialup, and Bitcoin already has utility now and is in many respects a massive success, especially given all the eulogies it's received over the years.
Incumbents have moved on from ignoring, and then laughing to now fighting.
[1] https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_transactions_per_day
> The supposed lightning network tends to centralisation
Well, let's put Bitcoin aside. The argument you are using here can also apply to Ethereum scaling solutions, and it is misguided at best and dishonest at worst.
Yes, scaling solutions sacrifice some decentralization in favor of performance. But to argue that it "defeats the purpose" is like saying "the Internet is not decentralized because most people access it through a handful of service providers" and that the only "right" way to access the Internet is by mesh networks.
Decentralization by itself is not a goal. The goal is to have a system that is censorship resistant and that can be an alternative to the status quo. If most people achieve these goals by using (regulated and well-managed) exchanges, or if smaller communities pool their resources to participate in the economy, you are still "centralizing" but you are not "defeating the purpose".
Another way to put it: say that you want to serve a community that is not served on underserved by the main banks. What would be the cost to fund and operate a credit cooperative? On the other hand, what would be the cost to setup and operate a Raiden or a Hub20 node to give people a custodial wallet?
Have you considered the possibility that the status quo only improved because it started facing pressure from an outside force, namely a decentralized system that could transfer value without having banks acting as middlemen?
I'm always here saying that the important thing about crypto is that it gives people alternatives. Consider crypto as an insurance policy against (potentially) corrupt institutions. The cost of this policy is high at the moment, but it will come down to the point where it will make sense to be more widely adopted, even if just as an insurance.
Americans need better financial consumer policy, but that's their problem.
You do understand that there is a whole 6 billion people living outside of Europe and North America?
You misspelled "the most efficient state surveillance mechanism ever deployed".
If that is your idea of "acceptable solution from the status quo", then it is easy to justify anything.
I sincerely hope cryptocurrency delivers on its promises, but right now, there are too many ponzi schems, pyramid schemes, pump and dump schemes, fraud funds, fragile funds (all riding the hype train) to really make a case for it. Someday, perhaps? Until then (and regardless of one's affiliations), the stance that due to the resources cryptocurrency drains, it is best avoided or even boycotted, sounds reasonable to me.
All other cryptos are some variation of those scams you mentioned.
It's worth taking the time to understand why Bitcoin is different.
It's rather pointless to point out that other things exist besides the thing being criticized.
"Murder is bad". "Yes, but food sharing exists".
If his criticism was specific to Bitcoin (or other popular PoW-based systems), then it would hold. But when he acknowledges alternatives and make it sound that they don't exist yet, then it is dishonest.
PoS's mere existence doesn't affect that axis. I can complaign[1] about how polluting power plants are, knowing full well there exist nuclear power plants, and it wouldn't make me a hypocrite. Sth else might, but not this.
1: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Complaign
Which is a bullshit criteria. It is like saying that you are not going to support electric cars until there exists no combustion engine and you are concern about emissions. If you are against cars as a whole, then state so, but don't use one subclass of them as prejudice against all of them.
Crypto has been around almost as long as the smartphone and so far the only applications which have emerged are crime and wild speculation. After fourteen years, any rational person should be pretty skeptical that any application that isn't "evading regulations" or speculation will ever appear.
Every. Fucking. Thread.
I was using Bitcoin in 2012 as a means to transfer money between US and Brazil, using perfectly legal exchanges, and that was costing me less than any bank or remittance service would charge me. Was that "crime" or "wild speculation"?
When someone in Argentina can receive payments in USD-equivalent crypto without having to deal with the bullshit manipulated exchange rate from the government, is that "crime" or "wild speculation"?
When someone wants to use crypto to accept payments because PayPal cut them off without reasonable explanation, is that "crime" or "wild speculation"?
There is always someone who is going to throw this "there is no use case" line, and you can be sure that is someone who has no clue what they are talking about.
Use cases already exist. It's not just because your privileged bubble never saw it that it doesn't mean they are not valid. And what I am saying is just the tip of the iceberg. As the UX around scaling solutions improve and transaction fees come down, more use cases will be possible (micropayments, streaming subscriptions, NFTs as authz/authn for services), and I can bet that you will still be talking like "no use cases exist".
There are plenty of things to criticize, but this shit you are doing is tiring, man. Can you please at least find something where you have a chance of being right?
[edit] so we can move forward let me make this easier for you. I echo and restate and agree with everything they said and I have zero economic incentive one way or the other to say that.
In theory, sure, but I'm not sure this has been demonstrated as in any way a practical/immediate concern that would influence the maintainer's views.
I've heard this one before, but it was about "retail chains being threatened by the vastly superior multi-level marketing".
The license doesn't forbid anyone to use the software, so cryptocurrency companies are still able to benefit from the library.
But that's not really the point though is it? Electricity use is not the problem. Carbon emissions are.
If renewables are competitive with fossil fuels (hint: they are), and profit-driven Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out the cheapest sources of energy, then Bitcoin mining should be one of the "greenest" industries on the planet.
Guess what? It already is greener than many other industries, with close to 60% of it's energy coming from renewable sources AND on top of that there are lots of operations popping up to capture and burn flared gas (i.e. methane, which is a far worse GHG than CO2).
https://medium.com/@magusperivallon/a-financial-hail-mary-fo...
Only 30% of the world's electricity comes from renewables, so your claim seems really far-fetched.
Your link does not mention the word "renewable" at all. Indeed, it seems barely related to your argument and wildly discursive.
Citation for your wildly unbelievable claim?
And if I sound angry, I am - every single Bitcoin advocate seems to think nothing of just making up facts whenever they please. It's appalling and unethical.
That will be true as soon as people start using cryptocurrency for something other than gambling on its value in traditional fiat currency going up or scams.
Not mutually exclusive.
Crypto is a digital evil with no observable practical value, which reminds me of child-pornography.
The only thing threatened by such things is the amount of time and money that devotees pour into them.
The bank / payment services company the author works at isn't building a distributed pyramid scheme where people lose their money.