[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.