I have no idea. But not the govt so it’s awesome!
Ah so now you’re just talking about you, personally? A second ago you were speaking for the motives of “most people buying BTC”. Buying pizza is also not a reason why the vast majority of people buy BTC in 2020.
The “niche markets” you’re talking about are worth infinite. You remind me of people that say nobody cares about internet memes and tik tok celebs while billions of dollars continue to get funneled to 8 year olds shilling slime on Youtube.
This is a little like asking why everyone didn’t have a home computer in 1982. Bitcoin is a really new tech. It’s hardly surprising it’s not widespread.
The value of the network increases as more people use it (Metcalfe’s law). The real moral analysis is whether new users substantively get all of the same privileges as the older users. If not, aren’t we just perpetuating the same inequalities inherent to the centralized systems?
Different coins have different answers to this question.
The environmental cost of BTC is (slightly) overblown and mostly considered an externality to those investing in it - much like climate catastrophes and human misery are widely ignored in modern resource extraction.
I don’t see any downside to accepting it. I’m not morally, ethically, or fundamentally opposed to btc or crypto currencies in general. I’m skeptical about various aspects of them, but I’m not anti-crypto.
alex, or canada, or edc5036 probably have better insight as to whether you should accept it or not.
Money isn’t even close to the best use of the blockchain technology… In my opinion that’s identity verification. Identity theft is a huge global problem not just because of the cost of fraud, but because of all the friction it creates through fraud prevention. A lot of stuff doesn’t happen because of trust, and technology that is fundamentally trustless has the potential to really make progress on this.
Bitcoin isn’t a competitor for fiat currency, it’s a competitor for gold and diamonds. It’s a store of value that can be moved around fairly easily compared to cash. It has better liquidity than diamonds and better portability/security than gold. If you’re running an illegal enterprise it’s not as good as it looks though. Gold is better for money laundering and diamonds are a good bit less traceable.
Where it makes less sense is the energy consumption side. It’s a very inefficient way to do transactions vs conventional banking… which doesn’t mean that it’s not viable, it just means that only certain types of transactions are going to make sense with it. You’ll never buy a pizza with bitcoin, but if you’re looking to bet 2M on the presidential election it’s fine. The transaction just has to be big enough to make the transaction costs not matter. The transaction costs are probably a good bit lower than the security/transport costs of moving around large sums of gold/gems, so basically any transaction where people would want to use those it’s going to do fine with.
3 Likes
Do you mean specifically btc’s growth, or cryptos in general?
I guess both to some extent. I am agnostic as to whether Bitcoin will be the ultimate or sole winner in the crypto landscape. I just think values of privacy, security, decentralization, independence from the traditional banking/finance system, anti-nationalism, and verification (could be facts, could be votes, could be reputation) appeal to many, including here.
Just remembered I bought $100 worth when it was like 6k and recovered my pin lol. I guess I’ll just let it ride since it’s so small.
PM for investment advice.
1 Like
I suppose it depends on your opinion of oppression.
But, also, maybe all systems have some degree of oppression and a centralized state can be less oppressive than others. A properly-designed centralized state could be less oppressive than an unregulated free-market economy that is a libertarian paradise. Those certainly aren’t the only two options, but the state can be a strategy for minimizing oppression compared to the alternatives.
Which coin or coins have the best answers to this question?
Comparing the negative impact of a BTC externality to resource extraction/climate catastrophe, seems to be a point against BTC. Granted in comparison to Exxon or Shell, I’m assuming that BTC’s impact is quite a bit smaller. But considering the negative externality brought about from BTC is due to the unnecessary busy work of “mining” BTC, it seems that the externality is unnecessary as well.
I agree that there are better uses for blockchain tech than as money. Which leads to the question, why are many of the major players in the crypto space attempting to present themselves as an alternate form of currency, and why are many of the crypto “evangelists”(I swear I’ve seen people on LinkedIn describe themselves this way) effectively acting as hype-men for its value as an investment or store of value. It causes me to get a very MLM-type vibe from them to say the least.
How come no one is taking me up on this?
I will start the collective off with one free hour of labor. Travel time is on the clock, so if the work is more than half an hour away all you get is travel. Better be something remote workable. As Fredo said, “I can handle things. I’m smart!”.
Collective central bank account balance stands at 1 microbet hour.
I vote that this thread be more appropriately renamed: “Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrency Discussion.”
1 Like
Alright, I can’t help myself with this sort of thing.
workforeachother.com is the future home of the labor note exchange. Of course it’s a worker cooperative!
2 Likes
Boy… who coulda seen that coming?