Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bitcoin is still early

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by orthodds View Post

    There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Try googling “blockchain use in banking and finance”
    provide one good link to some evidence?

    Comment


    • orthodds great questions and discussion. I’ve been looking at crypto since 2017 and I’ve had the same questions.

      companies and banks can make their own crypto. Some of the top 20 crypto have only been in existence for the last year or so

      jacoavlu BTC in its current state seems difficult to use as its original use case of decentralized transactions at least for the older generation.

      Because there's no centralized authority, how do you retrieve money when you get scammed? Scammers have come with creative ways to take people's money. I know doctors who have become victims to charity scams through hacked facebook accounts. At least with a service like Chase, you can get your money back. Is that possible with BTC?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by chocolatebear11 View Post

        Because there's no centralized authority, how do you retrieve money when you get scammed?
        you don’t.

        permissionless and irreversible, feature not a bug

        Comment


        • not a bitcoin enthusiast, but i believe are starting to recycle arguments/points for and against (scammers, speed of transaction, etc) discussed earlier in this thread.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by billy View Post
            not a bitcoin enthusiast, but i believe are starting to recycle arguments/points for and against (scammers, speed of transaction, etc) discussed earlier in this thread.
            pretty much the story of bitcoin debate, novel criticisms are rare, a noncomprehensive list of those oft repeated

            speculative asset / doesn't produce anything / has no inherent value
            wastes energy / will consume all the energy and boil the oceans
            controlled by a few whales / ponzi scheme
            too slow / block time too long
            can't handle enough transactions / block size too small
            controlled by china
            quantum computers will break it
            govt will ban it
            inflated by tether / leverage / tulip bubble
            blockchain, not bitcoin
            myspace / bigger faster cleaner shinier crypto will replace it
            fees are too high
            illicit use
            not fancy enough smart contracts
            too volatile

            what did I miss?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by orthodds View Post

              So I don’t need to buy Bitcoin in order to use and benefit from the Bitcoin blockchain. So again, why would I pay to own Bitcoin?

              Benefitting a relatively small number of people: besides the winklevoss twins, I’m thinking generally Bitcoin is owned by either cryptography folks who were in early or more recently it’s been bought up by people with extra cash laying around (like wealthy physicians) who think “I guess I don’t want to be wrong on this Bitcoin thing so I’ll buy some.” The massive increases in the price of Bitcoin don’t benefit your average person in the US let along the rest of the world. For a tech that is often characterized as “egalitarian” it falls far
              short of that adjective.

              Clearly banks are interested in using blockchain tech and there are obvious inefficiencies in the current system (too many steps involved, too many fees attached) of moving money around that stand to be improved.

              So again, what is the concise rationale for buying Bitcoin?
              1. You don't have to "pay to own Bitcoin". You can mine it.
              2. Your assumption/assertion that a relatively small number of people own it/control it is incorrect. In fact the number of users/addresses is increasing significantly and the number of "whales" is decreasing every year. This will continue to re-appropriate with adoption, use and energy distribution. See the image below if you don't believe me.
              3. Stop conflating Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Cryptocurrencies. Jaco has already stated...but they are not the same.
              4. Banks will be fighting Bitcoin until the bitter end. Bitcoin will slowly obsolete banks.
              5. Use case is enormous outside of just buying it and NGU (number go up). Expand your knowledge and mind if you don't understand. Throw out your ethnocentric and egocentric views and
              6. What is the rationale for buying Bitcoin? Here are a few: Privacy, Durability, Portability, Limited Supply, etc etc etc.

              So here are a couple questions for you. Do you really believe that the world will put up with the US Dollar hegemony indefinitely? If yes, then I would argue that you are living in a dream world. If no, then you have to start to ask yourself what does the future hold? What are the possible ways for the world to transition in the future?

              I have dug fairly deep in to this exact question. I only see a few routes. 1. WW III 2. Return to a Global Gold Standard 3. Transition to a new financial system. IMO this would be Bitcoin.

              If WWIII occurs, none of our financial planning will matter. One can hedge with Gold in case of return to the Gold standard although I think this is far less likely than transition to BTC as BTC is better at 99% of the function of Gold. The remaining 1% function of gold is in jewelry and electronics for which Bitcoin doesn't need to compete.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NapoleanDynamite View Post


                The irony here is that people want to say the concentration is too high amongst the top and yet also claim it's a Ponzi. Can't have it both ways.

                If it's a Ponzi, then the distribution would have completely and quickly gone from whales to shrimp and crabs -- especially considering it has appreciated a million% and has been around for 13 years. In fact, BTC is not only an anti-Ponzi, but it is the hardest form of money ever created and consequently every bitcoiner wants more of it -- even those that hold 8 and 9 figure dollar amounts of it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jacoavlu View Post

                  pretty much the story of bitcoin debate, novel criticisms are rare, a noncomprehensive list of those oft repeated

                  speculative asset / doesn't produce anything / has no inherent value
                  wastes energy / will consume all the energy and boil the oceans
                  controlled by a few whales / ponzi scheme
                  too slow / block time too long
                  can't handle enough transactions / block size too small
                  controlled by china
                  quantum computers will break it
                  govt will ban it
                  inflated by tether / leverage / tulip bubble
                  blockchain, not bitcoin
                  myspace / bigger faster cleaner shinier crypto will replace it
                  fees are too high
                  illicit use
                  not fancy enough smart contracts
                  too volatile

                  what did I miss?
                  These are the majority of the garbage arguments that have all been debunked.

                  A couple arguments against BTC in the "short" term that are valid IMO:

                  1. Exchanges/Custody of Bitcoin. More people need to custody their own bitcoin. The development of the lightning network and ability for the average person to run their own node and transfer their bitcoin without the use of an exchange is a short term risk. If a major exchange (like Coinbase) has a serious problem with security/stolen coins then the price of bitcoin will be dramatically affected. Large/Institutional investors that custody their coins on exchanges would likely lose significant trust in the system if this were to occur which could dramatically affect price in the short term. As adoption occurs this becomes less of a risk, but is still a significant risk at this time.

                  2. Governments could individually or join together to regulate Bitcoin. A universal world wide ban is pretty much out of the realm of possibility. However, as Bitcoin threatens various governments and their ability to exert financial control they will fight back. How this plays out will definitely affect the price of Bitcoin. The best case scenario for BTC is that Bitcoin develops slowly and "trojan horses" so far into the existing system that by the time governments want to fight it, they will not be able to. But in the short term the US/Eurozone financial players can affect the price if they choose to try. They likely will at some point. The questions are when, how, and what will they choose to do.

                  Comment


                  • Sorry for rehashing some of the arguments against BTC. I believe in it and am invested, but I think currently it’s hard difficult for average person to use safely.

                    like previously mentioned, to send a large sum of money, I would be at more peace of mind to know that theres an authority that I can speak to if something goes wrong.


                    I’m interested in it’s store of value proposition even though I don’t think that was the intended use case.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by chocolatebear11 View Post
                      Sorry for rehashing some of the arguments against BTC. I believe in it and am invested, but I think currently it’s hard difficult for average person to use safely.

                      like previously mentioned, to send a large sum of money, I would be at more peace of mind to know that theres an authority that I can speak to if something goes wrong.


                      I’m interested in it’s store of value proposition even though I don’t think that was the intended use case.
                      This is where Bitcoin development needs to keep improving. But there is trade off between security/self sovereignty and "peace of mind" relying on someone else to insure your ability.

                      I can assure you that after you start with small amounts and realize how easy it is to reliably and quickly send money, you eventually get more comfortable doing the same with very large amounts of money. And it is magical. And I'm not even talking about the large type of money that institutions deal with...just personally large.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by chucki View Post

                        The irony here is that people want to say the concentration is too high amongst the top and yet also claim it's a Ponzi. Can't have it both ways.

                        If it's a Ponzi, then the distribution would have completely and quickly gone from whales to shrimp and crabs -- especially considering it has appreciated a million% and has been around for 13 years. In fact, BTC is not only an anti-Ponzi, but it is the hardest form of money ever created and consequently every bitcoiner wants more of it -- even those that hold 8 and 9 figure dollar amounts of it.
                        This is great...I never thought about combating the FUD in this fashion. But you are absolutely correct that people cannot claim it to be both a Ponzi and also say it is too concentrated at the top. Thank you for this!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by chocolatebear11 View Post
                          Sorry for rehashing some of the arguments against BTC. I believe in it and am invested, but I think currently it’s hard difficult for average person to use safely.

                          like previously mentioned, to send a large sum of money, I would be at more peace of mind to know that theres an authority that I can speak to if something goes wrong.
                          People don’t want freedom, just a fair master.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jacoavlu View Post

                            pretty much the story of bitcoin debate, novel criticisms are rare, a noncomprehensive list of those oft repeated

                            speculative asset / doesn't produce anything / has no inherent value
                            wastes energy / will consume all the energy and boil the oceans
                            controlled by a few whales / ponzi scheme
                            too slow / block time too long
                            can't handle enough transactions / block size too small
                            controlled by china
                            quantum computers will break it
                            govt will ban it
                            inflated by tether / leverage / tulip bubble
                            blockchain, not bitcoin
                            myspace / bigger faster cleaner shinier crypto will replace it
                            fees are too high
                            illicit use
                            not fancy enough smart contracts
                            too volatile

                            what did I miss?
                            okay I will bite:

                            - I have heard that L2s such as Lightning and Liquid are more centralized. Not only that, but I believe Liquid is centralized and private! Is this true? If so, how do you reconcile this with the ethos behind bitcoin?

                            - While its true that Bitcoin network is the most decentralized, the mining nodes are not - it is heavily centralized and consolidated amongst just a few miners.

                            - Similarly, whales control a sizable portion of the bitcoin in circulation - it does not ameliorate wealth inequality, but exacerbates it. The graph posted above by ND kinda makes my point: there are fewer humpbacks, but more whales, sharks, dolphins. It's sorta analogous to saying there are less billionaries but more deca and centi-millionaires. Doesn't really help the masses vis-a-vis income inequality.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NapoleanDynamite View Post
                              So here are a couple questions for you. Do you really believe that the world will put up with the US Dollar hegemony indefinitely? If yes, then I would argue that you are living in a dream world. If no, then you have to start to ask yourself what does the future hold? What are the possible ways for the world to transition in the future?

                              I have dug fairly deep in to this exact question. I only see a few routes. 1. WW III 2. Return to a Global Gold Standard 3. Transition to a new financial system. IMO this would be Bitcoin.

                              If WWIII occurs, none of our financial planning will matter. One can hedge with Gold in case of return to the Gold standard although I think this is far less likely than transition to BTC as BTC is better at 99% of the function of Gold. The remaining 1% function of gold is in jewelry and electronics for which Bitcoin doesn't need to compete.
                              You are partly correct that US will not retain its global currency hegemony forever - all empires crumble someday. It's even possible that there is a developing new world order already in progress.

                              BUT: we will never go back to the gold standard. It was abandoned due to its volatility, limitations it placed on govt, particularly in recessions where it hindered expansionist monetary policies. It was a short-lived experiment in world history, never to be replicated again.

                              "A true international gold standard existed for less than 50 years—from 1871 to 1914—in a time of world peace and prosperity that coincided with a dramatic increase in the supply of gold. The gold standard was the symptom and not the cause of this peace and prosperity."

                              Re: bitcoin - It would be very far-fetched to think that a new currency could arise that is not accepted by any major country to pay taxes. Without this crucial prerequisite, it is impossible for any currency to be replaced. The best bet for bitcoin going forward is a potential store of value to supersede gold potentially.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by xraygoggles View Post

                                okay I will bite:

                                - I have heard that L2s such as Lightning and Liquid are more centralized. Not only that, but I believe Liquid is centralized and private! Is this true? If so, how do you reconcile this with the ethos behind bitcoin?

                                - While its true that Bitcoin network is the most decentralized, the mining nodes are not - it is heavily centralized and consolidated amongst just a few miners.

                                - Similarly, whales control a sizable portion of the bitcoin in circulation - it does not ameliorate wealth inequality, but exacerbates it. The graph posted above by ND kinda makes my point: there are fewer humpbacks, but more whales, sharks, dolphins. It's sorta analogous to saying there are less billionaries but more deca and centi-millionaires. Doesn't really help the masses vis-a-vis income inequality.
                                Good questions.

                                1. Liquid and Lightning are very different. Liquid is definitely more centralized. Lightning is growing and is/will become more decentralized with adoption. But there are trade-offs from Bitcoin Layer 1 to Layers 2 and 3 like Lightning and Liquid. FWIW Liquid is not doing much at this point and may never. Lightning is growing rapidly and will likely prove vital to the network moving forward. I reconcile these trade offs with the knowledge that I can always fall back on Bitcoin Core for security and wealth preservation when/if needed. But I will still need to participate in exchange for services. Lightning is already better than the current system IMO.

                                2. A quality argument against miner centralization can and should be made. (Miners and nodes are separate though FWIW). Competition and Game Theory should help decentralize the mining network over the next 5-50 years.

                                3. Bitcoin does not claim to ameliorate wealth inequality. However, it does is help to appropriately reward those who invest energy/work with the appropriate level of compensation. Slowly with time, wealth inequality will be improved but this is an effect of Bitcoin adoption, not a requirement for adoption.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X