[Nursie]

I also predict some utter idiots will indeed take out low interest loans and stake them in the heavily manipulated, volatile casino that is the cryptocurrency market.

Then they will find themselves with a pile of debt and no way to pay it off, just as many have before when 'investing' in hokey schemes and outright scams.

[Melting_Harps]

> Then they will find themselves with a pile of debt and no way to pay it off, just as many have before when 'investing' in hokey schemes and outright scams.

Oh, you mean like the rest of the entire banking and financial markets that led to all of the bailouts in the first place? And enriched and further consolidated the power of the 'too big to fail' institutions that continue to be rewarded for their corruption.

I'm not going to engage with the same tired arguments we had last time, and I don't doubt the scenario above happening either now that the Federal Reserve essentially got Carte Blanche to buy up so many loans should they go bad from the Banks, but given the current situation you have to at least see the BLATANT irony in your statement.

The SEC shuts down the mainly algo-trained, bot-trading driven stock market because they're taking on too many loses and you're decrying Crypto as the hotbed of malfeasance and manipulation?

If you can't see regulatory capture when it stares at you in the face this way, maybe you should really be looking at another more pertinent axe to grind.

[gridlockd]

Whataboutism does not strengthen your own position.

Cryptocurrencies still suck as currencies and they are always just one regulatory action away from becoming practically useless for non-criminals.

[NhanH]

I don't care much about cryptocurrencies, but everything is always just one regulatory action away from becoming practically useless for non-criminals.

[JoeAltmaier]

Isn't that backward? Regulation doesn't affect criminals. Look at 'gun control' attempts.

[Melting_Harps]

> Whataboutism does not strengthen your own position.

Granted, but what you may fail to see is that Cryptocurrency is reactionary to the blatant corruption that has been normalized, the very same beahviour that the poster decries is plaguing Cryptocurrenices without providing much of an argument.

When in reality, currencies like Bitcoin continue to follow the Network's protocol that it derives its value from and has not detracted from it, despite the continuous polemics and external threats and attacks.

Sucks in what way exactly?

Because this is always a point of contention for most of its detractors. They aggregate all Cryptocurrencies into a single group, which is absurd.

Telling me how easy it is to lose a private key, thus your ability to move your funds, may be a valid point to your argument as functional (read: entirely fool-proof) key storage is still why I think its not ready for global mainstream use, in my opinion; but telling me about how a celebrity influencer Marketed alt/ICO didn't 1000x overnight as projected and instead crashed and burned as the creators absconded with the money that you read a blurb on techcrunch's twitter account is not.

Because from where I'm standing: I continue to have access to a low cost, friction-less token on an immutable ledger operating on the World's most secure Network on my phone, that I can use anywhere with wifi, and I can pay anyone who currently accepts Bitcoin and it operates 24/7 without anyone's permission.

And I can program it to do various things on top of that should I need it to, with built in trustless systems; and is also one that I can use to divide my unit of currency to 8 decimal points and still be able to operate on said network(s).

All of which incentivizes not only fair commerce and a real usecase for triple bottom line accounting, as it spurs on renewable energy as its main source as it continues to grow but also allows for previously marginalized/undocumented people into an economic system to be on boarded; unlike the exclusionary, war and fossil fueled driven fiat based system that is used to props up the Institutions I think we all know have outlived their purpose.

[gridlockd]

> Sucks in what way exactly?

You can't really use them as currencies. They're too unstable. Cryptocurrency transactions are taxable events in the US. That alone is too much of hassle to make them worthwhile.

They're usually backed by nothing, which makes them a purely speculative risk asset. The most stable coins are backed, ironically, by fiat. Sometimes with fractional reserve. I've looked into crypto backed by precious metals, but liquidity is awful.

So they're useless as currencies, they're useless as a hedge, the only use for cryptocurrency is to speculate on cryptocurrency.

> Because from where I'm standing: I continue to have access to a low cost, friction-less token on an immutable ledger operating on the World's most secure Network on my phone, that I can use anywhere with wifi, and I can pay anyone who currently accepts Bitcoin and it operates 24/7 without anyone's permission.

Yes, that's the gimmick. I get it.

> And I can program it to do various things on top of that should I need it to, with built in trustless systems

All your "trustless" system can do is shift around entries on digital ledgers. That's not that useful. Most systems require some degree of real world trust and accountability.

For example, how does cryptocurrency deal with fraud and theft? Quite poorly, if you ask me.

> All of which incentivizes not only fair commerce and a real usecase for triple bottom line accounting, as it spurs on renewable energy as its main source as it continues to grow but also allows for previously marginalized/undocumented people into an economic system to be on boarded

I don't see any evidence that it actually does that. Sounds more like wishful thinking.

[viklove]

> So they're useless as currencies

Maybe to you, just like the INR is useless to you as a currency (because you don't live in India). Many people do use Bitcoin as currency, and transact with it every day.

[gridlockd]

> Maybe to you, just like the INR is useless to you as a currency (because you don't live in India).

Apples and Oranges.

> Many people do use Bitcoin as currency, and transact with it every day.

Do they really? To buy what? Other cryptocurrencies?

Virtually nobody accepts Bitcoin as a currency. Some shops accept Bitcoin as the vehicle for transactions in USD or EUR, or whatever. They use services like Bitpay, who pay out in ordinary currencies. Prices are calculated based on the Bitcoin market price in ordinary currencies - plus a markup for volatility and transaction fees, which is generally more expensive than just using the ordinary currencies themselves.

That's not Bitcoin being used like a currency, that's Bitcoin being used like a payment provider, like PayPal. Millions of people transact with PayPal every day, but PayPal is not a currency.

Of course, that one time some guy bought a Pizza or even a House with Bitcoin. That's Bitcoin being used "like a currency". Exceptions to the rule.

[Nursie]

The 'fiat' system of floated currencies is able to adapt and change to changing economic circumstances, and be managed to keep the economy ticking over, preventing either the under or over abundance of currency by managing the supply.

In contrast cryptocurrency is fixed, static and inflexible, hampers new entrants to the economy in favour of those with established wealth, and would likely lead to the same stunted, constrained economic circumstances we can see from history, worsen crashes, and generally create the same conditions that lead to abandonment of systems like the gold standard in the past.

[heartbeats]

It's the future they chose.

You can't both clamp down on freedom, and then complain when people pick other alternatives.

[Nursie]

Quick! Look over there! It's huge distraction!

Cryptocurrency is indeed a hotbed of malfeasance and manipulation. Nothing you've said even addresses that point, let alone refutes it.

[Melting_Harps]

You always use that red herring tactic, rather than make a cogent argument--mainly because I don't think you have an actual argument but rather sensationalist knee-jerk reactions masquerading as one--but look below: I actually outlined how and why I think it is a system can actually combat the very pitfalls I listed with current features.

Will corrupt actors use this technology to steal/scheme, sure, of course that much is inevitable of any technology; but condemning the entire protocol and aggregating them altogether as a collective failure because of that is about as useful as saying the Internet should be seen as nothing more than a den of thieves, child pornographers and counter-fitters: when we clearly know it is much more than that.

[Nursie]

They are a collective failure, particularly the places in which they are traded which is what we are talking about here.

You are the one throwing around red herrings and handwaving frantically about corruption elsewhere.

Talking about the value derived from the bitcoin protocol in this situation is absurd - the protocol itself is largely irrelevant, the corruption and manipulation are at the exchanges. The 'value' of your tokens derives more from their manipulation and hype than anywhere else, which is trivial to show because cryptocurrencies are not used anywhere else (besides the dark markets I guess, and even they have moved towards privacycoins).

Your bleating about renewable energy and trustlessness is also bullshit. The claims to use of renewable energy are based on conjecture amd estimation, not measurement. As a counterpoint there is a fossil fuel plant in upstate new york that has recently been kitted out for mining.

Secondly there is no such thing as 'trustless' with cryptocurrency - you must place all trust in people you are transacting with, rather than using a trusted intermediary. I trust established banks far more than J Random Retailer on the web.

Neither is there any compelling case that cryptocurrency has any effect on "banking the unbanked". "The unbanked" have no way to get into the system in the first place, nor the tech stacks to use it.

Your entire post, your entire worldview on this is wishful thinking and practically a set of coiner memes with no basis in reality.

[Melting_Harps]

> They are a collective failure, particularly the places in which they are traded which is what we are talking about here.

Funny, I'll just point to the BTC-e vs MT Gox example as what to expect when the State gets involved and steals the funds of an exchange outside its jurisdiction and what that outcome was, and the outcome of one that is incorporated and left to in the hands of a bunch bureaucrats to solve under a rehabilitation process.

You do the legwork and see what and how these 'failures' are caused.

> Talking about the value derived from the bitcoin protocol in this situation is absurd - the protocol itself is largely irrelevant, the corruption and manipulation are at the exchanges. The 'value' of your tokens derives more from their manipulation and hype than anywhere else, which is trivial to show because cryptocurrencies are not used anywhere else (besides the dark markets I guess, and even they have moved towards privacycoins).

Why, because you say it is? The truth is that: one bitcoin is still one bitcoin, and carries all of the functionality and security of the protocol, be it at $2 or $20k exchange price. This is critical in understanding what you're dealing with, and your refusal to accept that only exposes the weakness in your arguments even further. But lets continue...

They're not used in anything else? Do you realize Square got 1/2 of its profits from the buy/sale of Bitcoin, equal to that of its fiat Cash App feature(s), which is quite a popular fintech app and a common way to send money via mobile:

https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-drove-half-of-squares-cash-...

> Your bleating about renewable energy and trustlessness is also bullshit. The claims to use of renewable energy are based on conjecture amd estimation, not measurement. As a counterpoint there is a fossil fuel plant in upstate new york that has recently been kitted out for mining.

Then explain just these projects and what direction Bitcoin has taken for nearly 7 years before that:

https://fortune.com/2019/10/15/what-is-bitcoin-mining-layer1...

https://insidebitcoins.com/news/us-county-extends-regulation...

I can go on, but, it just goes to show just how shallow your understanding of the topic you're attempting to rebuttal is. No one said it was 100% on renewable, so a single example of a fossil based doesn't diminish those findings, and that its 70%+ and growing, as it seeks to source the lowest energy cost for the greatest return on on investment: which as it turns out is renewable energy, be it solar, wind, or thermal as is the case in Iceland.

> Secondly there is no such thing as 'trustless' with cryptocurrency - you must place all trust in people you are transacting with, rather than using a trusted intermediary. I trust established banks far more than J Random Retailer on the web.

Really? I guess you're saying I can't create 2-3 multisig address to transact, because this was one of the earliest BIPs and is documented here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016_QA

And I can have that wallet operate on my own that I run from my own node, without the need to use 3rd party services.

> Neither is there any compelling case that cryptocurrency has any effect on "banking the unbanked". "The unbanked" have no way to get into the system in the first place, nor the tech stacks to use it.

> Your entire post, your entire worldview on this is wishful thinking and practically a set of coiner memes with no basis in reality.

Really? Ever heard of Bitpesa, a Bitcoin based alternative to M-pesa which has DEEP penetration in Africa and relies on equally low tech solutions to operate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitPesa

And also note Jack Dorsey has made Africa on the Square/Cash App roadmap:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/12/01/jack-...

I just hope now you can take the time to look deeper than skimming some headline about how crypto is a failure and repeat it as fact when you can't seem to be able differentiate utility from certain examples of hype cycle alt-coin exit scams and paint both with a very broad brush strokes to suit your narrative.

Again all of this is sensationalist, reactionary conjecture from someone who see's no personal utility from crypto, and so assumes it must hold true for others.

[Nursie]

Yes, I've heard of bitpesa, it's not even an m-pesa alternative or competitor (as declared by its founder), it's an international remittance product and cryptocurrency exchange, AFAICT and one thing we know is that, despite crowing from folks such as yourselves, international remittance has failed to embrace cryptocurrency in any significant volume because (as in basically every other arena) cryptocurrency doesn't actually address any problems people actually have, and introduces a whole load more.

Sure you can create multisig addresses, introducing more points of trust. And if you're reintroducing more points of trust, the whole thing becomes... well, pointless, we already have those systems, they work well and are regulated well. Like I said, "trustlessness" is a lie, you're just moving trust around the system in various ways.

Honestly, you read like a propaganda machine.

[cryptica]

But think about it. What does bankrupcy actually mean if all of the bankrupt person's assets are in crypto and only they know the private key? The bank/creditors cannot recover these assets.

So by that definition, is the person actually bankrupt if they still control all of these crypto assets?

One could argue that crypto makes reckless individuals bankruptcy-proof.

[cesarb]

> What does bankrupcy actually mean if all of the bankrupt person's assets are in crypto and only they know the private key? The bank cannot recover these assets.

There are two cases: either the person declares these assets, or the person tries to hide these assets. If these assets are declared, they must be sold to pay as much as possible of the debts, or the debts won't be forgiven. If the person tries to hide these assets, the consequences are much worse; a quick web search tells me the debts won't be forgiven (or the forgiveness will be revoked after the fact), these debts cannot be forgiven later on another bankruptcy, and the person can even be arrested and/or pay a heavy fine (source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/bankruptcy/hiding-as...).

[cryptica]

They can probably leave their home country and go to some country like Russia or China (or they could probably do the reverse and come to the US if their creditors are in China) and take their crypto with them. Even in the absolute worst case, some countries won't extradite to others.

Even the UK willingly accepts money from rich Russians. A lot of properties in London were bought with dirty Russian money; Russia can't get it back.

[Nursie]

Yes, transplanting your entire life somewhere else is definitely better than obeying the law and participating honestly in bankrupcy proceedings, which are there to provide help to people unable to service their debts by providing a reset mechanism.

It's like you think bankrupcy is worse than the alternative - your debts following you everywhere, forever, even when you're utterly insolvent.

[sweeneyrod]

You can just bury money in your backyard and not tell your creditors if you're willing to break the law.