|
|
|
|
|
|
by iamben
1961 days ago
|
|
|
Taking neither side, but just thinking of my parents - neither of who are anything 'tech' or anything 'finance'. Completely normal in most regards. For them, someone actively controlling the supply of money is probably a good thing. Anything they have is pretty safe in a bank and somewhat covered by the government. Their taxes pay for police, sewage, the bins to be taken away, their roads to be repaired. I love the idea that people are seeking to do incredible things in the crypto space, but all too often it seems to be lumped in with people's desire to transfer money across borders (again, useless for the everyperson) or avoid taxes - which if we all did would probably be a big negative. Assuming the government didn't step in pretty quickly, because what government wants to lose control? As soon as you start talking about cryptocurrency with oversight to protect my mum and dad, where people aren't just trying to get rich quickly and make sure taxes are paid - people seem to dial out pretty quickly. |
|
|
There is literally no role for the key feature of blockchain - decentralised ledger, proof of work-backed transactions - in this case. You might as well use a trusted, regulated party with a database. You know, like Visa do.
The "incredible things" are also pointless things. That also burn energy like there's no tomorrow. Double meaning intended.