Sorry lol. They were offline when I posted though
1,066 karma · joined November 12, 2022
https://old.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/
Or there would be, if reddit weren't offline
I wonder if "protection" will start becoming a euphemism for surveillance.
"Oh, you're from Europe? What language do they speak in Europe?"
EDIT: and my school district was staggered the wrong direction. High school started earliest, then middle school, then primary school was latest. That's backwards from how it should have been, if anyone in my city had understood how the circadian rhythm changes during adolescence.
1> Here's a paper that calculates the average lifespan of humans. The average lifespan is 75 years.
2> That's because the vast majority of humans eat junk food lmao. What do you think the lifespan of a human is? I'd be willing to be it's less than 10 years, maybe even 100 years
1> You don't have to bet, the data is in the paper. 75 years.
2> The paper only looks at the Americas, Eurasia, Africa, and mainland Australia. It doesn't even look at Tasmania. You're making up bogus statistics that aren't supported by your sources in the way that you say they are.
1> Maybe so. I put forward my sources, but there could be a better way of calculating it. If you had to calculate that same statistic, what methodology would you use?
2> One time I saw someone die from a heart attack when they were 45 years old, and 45 is way less than 75. Why would I spend my time digging up data to quantify things are incredibly obvious from observation, when you're willing to lie and make up facts to support your narrative?
1> Your personal observations are not universal objective reality. That's why data is important when running a society at scale. Why exactly do you believe the inclusion of data from Tasmania would significantly change the results? Do you have any sources for your wild claims?
2> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you at least had a basic understanding of geography. If you don't even understand that humans live in Tasmania, then I don't think this conversation is worth continuing. When talking about the lifespan of humans on earth, the lifespan of humans in most countries on earth is a complete non-sequitur.
Anyway, if you don't understand why data is important when discussing policy, there's not much to be gained here. I hope you find truth if you're looking for it, and peace otherwise. Cheers.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fidelity-marks-down-stripe-r...
They're so eager to screw over their users, they couldn't even wait until after the IPO payday to torpedo their own business
> Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database, and records additional context for your commands.
Of course not. If you disagree, at least try to present a coherent argument instead of just talking about squirrels. What entities do you think are missing from the list: exchanges or exchange-like entities such as on-line wallets, OTC desks, and large institutional traders
That might be overcounting even, since online wallets have nothing to do with speculation. So I'll correct myself: speculation is at most 75%, definitely a bit less.
> trying to shut down any actual data-driven discussion
I responded with exactly the data you asked for, just read it again :) If you need me to do the math for you:
75% speculation (at most) + 3% crime = 78%. 100% - 78% = 22%. 0.78:0.22 = 3.55:1 (at most)
> And then you have the audacity to ask for a source
Yes I do, since all data presented so far disagrees with your unsourced (though very strongly held) opinion.
Here's one example of how reality may be counterintuitive: High-frequency traders can make thousands of trades per second. How many people do you know who receive thousands of paychecks per second? From that alone it's plausible, obvious even, that forex speculation volume is substantially higher.
What's obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone else. That's why, in order to build a larger society, we need to set aside our biases and look at objective data in order to make informed decisions.
> Now compare that to crypto, where the entire marketing apparatus is built not upon its current value proposition but instead the idea that value will go up.
That doesn't sound too different from all modern investing. The stock market is also fueled by the illusion of the possibility infinite exponential growth. Bogleheads don't care about index funds' current value proposition. The grocery store won't accept your VTSAX as payment for a gallon of milk. You're just hoping that later you can sell your VTSAX to a greater fool.
Maybe the problem is you take everything the "marketing apparatus" says at face value? If one day you saw a TV advert for a pill that didn't work, would you also decide the entire medical industry is a scam?
> Why would I spend my time digging up data to quantify things are incredibly obvious from observation
Reality can be counterintuitive. It was once incredibly obvious that the earth was the center of the universe. Why should I spend my time digging up data when it's incredibly obvious from observation that the sun revolves around the earth?
HN is a place to engage with our curiosity, rise above anecdata, get out of our limited personal bubbles, and maybe even learn a thing or two along the way! Your immediate personal experience is not the objective reality for everyone on the planet. If you're just here to think with your emotions, ignore data, and rant about how much you hate change, you might feel more at home on Facebook or Twitter.
> when you're willing to lie and make up facts to support your narrative?
Source?
The paper literally says, "75% of the real bitcoin volume has been linked to exchanges or exchange-like entities"
You may think the source isn't perfect, but at least I'm bringing some objective data to the conversation. If you disagree, please show me some data of your own instead of just repeating your preconceived bias (which I'm aware of already)
I repeat: If you had to calculate that same statistic, what methodology would you use?
> This type of transaction is much more common in the fiat world than it is in the crypto world
Source?
> where speculation and wash trading drive the majority of transactions
Source?
> Currency speculators make up a tiny portion of the real-world economy
Source?
> while they make up the vast majority of the crypto economy.
Source?
Those were some mighty bold claims.
Sure. And there's plenty of non-speculative activity outside of those entities as well. The paper explicitly looks at on-chain activity only.
> Because those metrics are terrible proxies for "global financial activity" or "speculation"
Maybe so. I put forward my sources, but there could be a better way of calculating it. My broader point was that speculation is the majority of activity, and I doubt that's any different whether you're talking about fiat, gold, oil, crypto, or any other widely used asset/asset class.
If you had to calculate that same statistic, what methodology would you use?
> You should also understand that all forex activity is not speculation. I would think that global trade would fall under the bucket of "economically meaningful activity", no?
In one sense it is meaningful, in another sense it's just a middleman market maker taking their cut, due to the inefficiency of humans having multiple currencies. Either way I don't see how the meaningfulness of trade changes once you introduce crypto.
Say I'm subscribed to a Australian musician's patreon. I send her USD, then a middleman sells that USD and gives her AUD. I also support a French musician. I send him BTC. He (or a middleman) sells that BTC for EUR. How can you say either of those situations is more or less economically meaningful?
There's the list so far. Definitely some heavy hitters in there.
Note that if you want to see the full list you'll have to click through to the second thread, since they hit the character limit :)
If you don't: why is it productive when I buy a car using dollars, but not productive when I buy a car using bitcoin?
If you do: why must a currency's worth be tied to one particular country's GDP? Why can't it instead be tied to the global production of everyone on earth, in any country, who has chosen to use that currency? I think it's actually a sign of strength when someone goes out of their way to adopt a global non-politcal currency, instead of succumbing to inertia and using the currency that was foisted on them by the geographical circumstances of their birth.
What level of speculation would you say is high enough to justify throwing away the remaining productive uses of an asset class?
---
In 2019, forex volume was $6.6T per day[1], or $1716T per year. In 2019, global GDP was $87.3T[2]. That's less than 5% economically meaningful activity.
[1]: https://www.financemagnates.com/institutional-forex/executio...
[2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268750/global-gross-dome...
For bitcoin specifically, a notable crypto skeptic Igor Makarov determined[1]:
> illegal transactions, scams and gambling together make up less than 3% of volume
To me, 3% is an acceptable level. It's a lower percentage than the black market in many countries even.
The reasons people contribute to crypto projects are as diverse as the reasons people contribute to open source in general. Some people want to get rich overnight, others contribute as part of their day job so they can go home at 5pm, and others are genuinely altruistic, though you may not believe it. It's reductive to paint everyone with the same broad brush.
[1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3942181
- https://time.com/5486673/bitcoin-venezuela-authoritarian/
- https://coincodecap.com/danish-reporters-in-ukraine-buy-used...
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33644090
People from wealthy countries tend to reject the legitimacy of these uses because "my country is stable and could never have these problems", or "if buying food is illegal, you shouldn't buy food, you financial criminal", or "I have no trouble sending fiat money where I need to at the click of a button", but that doesn't mean everyone on the planet is in as fortunate a position as you. It's quite selfish to say a technology is useless unless it benefits you personally. I wish humanity as a species could rise above that level of selfishness. Crypto gets its value from being a system that continues working quietly and reliably in the background when other centralized systems falter or turn against their users. As long as it's still helping people, we should keep building it.
If you really don't want to self-custody, probably the next safest option is to skip all the new crypto companies and instead use one of the traditional finance companies that's starting to branch into crypto (like Fidelity)
I use an exchange occasionally, but I don't keep money parked there long-term like a bank. Deposit fiat, trade for crypto, withdraw crypto. I'm never exposed for more than an hour.
(These are the hard truths they won't tell you in the super bowl commercials)