[dastx]

Bitcoin isn't claiming that it takes corruption out of the human psyche. Corrupt people stay corrupt. All bitcoin does is take unfounded trust away from individual organisations and governments, and instead puts that trust in maths and the collective. It never claimed that it will combat corruption, and likely never will.

NFTs are definitely switching me off from cryptocurrencies as I find the use of it ridiculous. Sure there are _some_ genuine use cases, but so far it's just been terrible, and does not fill me with confidence. Time will tell if NFTs are gonna become anything that's not silliness among the rich.

[Klinky]

> take unfounded trust away from individual organisations and governments, and instead puts that trust in maths and the collective

If by "collective" you mean a tiny portion of the community that are core developers, megaminers, megapools, exchanges and whales, uhh, then sure, but that doesn't seem much different than fiat. There is still an elite minority in control.

[dastx]

Sure, but not everyone can foresee everything. Email was meant to be a decentralised, self-hosted service, yet here we are, gmail, outlook have the majority of users.

In addition to that, most of those megaminers, and megapools, can't do much without working with a large chunk of other miners. Without it, the worse they can do is not fulfill individual transactions (which other miners can continue to accept).

Just because a minority is hoarding bitcoin, does not make bitcoin's core issue invalid, that is, don't trust financial institutions or governments.

Bitcoin never claimed to solve the issues that are at the core of monetary systems (greed, corruption etc). It solves the issue of trust. I don't have to trust a financial institutions or government to tell me how much money I own. Nor is there a government or bank that can freeze my account because I've been naughty (or, in certain cases, because the government deems you naughty because of $ideology). That's what bitcoin solves. Not the issues that are core to monetary systems. Issues that mostly come from human psyche.

[Klinky]

>It solves the issue of trust.

No it does not. There are already complaints of vested interests holding back technological advances to BTC. Nothing technically prevents vested interests from colluding to fork the chain ala the ETH DAO scandal. It's not a minority hoarding bitcoin, it's minority controlling bitcoin. You could say you haven't seen enough evidence of this being a problem, but then BTC hasn't been around for centuries or nor does it run a global economy at scale yet.

[dandanua]

Butcoin takes trust away from governments and bankers and puts it in the hands of crypto exchanges, that print fake dollars (Tether) to buy Bitcoin and raise its price. Nice transition.

[dastx]

You're clearly misunderstanding what bitcoin is about. No trust is put into crypto exchanges. Trust is put into cryptography, which miners help with. This kind of puts the trust in miners, but in order to do anything as a miner, you'd need to either break sha256, or you'd need 51% of the computing power. The latter is more likely, but it would make bitcoin useless because people will lose trust in the system, thus anything you'd do with the money you'd steal/double spend would be worthless.

On the other hand, individuals can still put their trust in crypto exchanges, but unlike the old system, you are not required to put your trust in an exchange.

[dandanua]

You are not required to trust exchanges. But in reality, it's them who rule the Bitcoin's world. And they are much worse than governments and banks.

[dastx]

What makes you say exchanges rule Bitcoin's world? If exchanges are the equivalent of banks, miners are the equivalent of governments. So if anyone "rules" "the" Bitcoin's world, then it would be miners. Not exchanges.