|
|
|
|
|
by cocktailpeanuts
3034 days ago
|
|
> Then can you explain the economic utility that bitcoin provides because it is more innificient way to store and exchange "value" than what banks provide? Let me ask you back. Can you prove with 100% certainty that banks are more "efficient" than bitcoin? What does "efficient" even mean? Did you take into account all the jobs required to run the banks? Did you take into account all the energy these bank employees consume? Did you take into account all the side industries that arise around banking system? Did you take into account all the corruption that took place over and over and over throughout history that eventually took everything down to zero? This question is really meaningless when you consider all these factors. People tend to arrogantly think that they understand the world when they don't. All they do is try their best to make sense of things, and even with these scientific theories, nothing is absolute. Note that I'm not calling YOU arrogant. I'm calling humans as a whole. I am not saying PoW is better. I'm saying people who think PoS is absolutely better than PoW are leaving a lot of things out of the picture when they draw that conclusion. Nobody knows what's better or what's more efficient. Maybe banking IS more efficient, but maybe in the long term (as in 100 years) it may be more inefficient. (History shows that there's A LOT of invisible inefficiency in the banking system, manifested as economic depressions) |
|
What? I thought you said you were well versed in economics. This is literally one of the core concepts for the benefits of economics because you can evaluate things on their "efficiency" (costs) versus the value they provide (revenue). Every "job", "energy cost", and "side industries that arise around banking system" are evaluated in the cost to run the business and if they were greater than the value they provided, they would not be in bunessines because revenue would be less than sum of those costs.
> Did you take into account all the corruption that took place over and over and over throughout history that eventually took everything down to zero?
Obviously corruption is not good for our systems neither are other economic problems such as negative externalities [0]. However, I don't see how cryptocurrencies solve them in a way that makes them better than current solutions as a whole.
> This question is really meaningless when you consider all these factors.
I'm not asking you to write a phd. Just give me one good economic use case outside of illegal markets for cryptocurrencies that is better than current technological solutions.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative