[kgin]

USD gets its value from the legal requirement that taxes are paid in USD. Anyone who lives or wants to do business in the United States has to have dollars. That sets a floor of demand that more demand can be built on.

Cryptos often have limited supply but have no floor on demand. For USD to go to zero, the United States as we know it would have to collapse. Most cryptos could go to zero with no real world change aside from people finding a different asset to speculate on.

[TomSwirly]

> Cryptos often have limited supply

There are 6500 cryptocurrencies today. Anyone would wanted to create a new one, could in an instant.

[Bombthecat]

I know! What i meant, was, that crypto was made because the gold baking was gone. (one of the reasons and anonymity etc) now, we have tether beeing printed out of thin air and no one gives a shit :)

[saurik]

Crypto-currencies are selling you a service: linearizing database transactions. This is like arguing that Apple could arbitrarily go to zero because the world would find a different phone to use, and while that's true it seems to miss the point that Apple is unlikely to go to zero until after someone makes a better phone or makes phones obsolete. The world of decentralized database transactions--particularly the turing complete ones you get from systems like Ethereum--isn't some random speculative asset like artwork or baseball cards.

[EdwardDiego]

...so why is it that the world of "decentralized database transactions" is being used near exclusively for speculative assets like the various cryotocoins and, err, NFTs containing alleged artwork?

Also, what real world usage do you actually see for "decentralized database transactions"?

Beyond massive speculation and pictures of apes?

[saurik]

Some people--me included--believe that centralized systems for basic things are bad because of their single points of failure, whether physical or merely administrative. If you believe that centralized databases have value, and you believe that decentralization has value, then decentralized databases sound useful.

Honestly, most centralized databases are used for silly things you would disagree with also, and the ones that aren't are often used for financial services that you are going to claim are somehow not ok when decentralized but totally fine when centralized :/.

FWIW, I've been using it as a fully distributed replacement for the Tor directory servers (which are run by 9 people as a form of charity, with no plan when I have talked to them for how to deal with people coming by with crowbars to threaten them) and then people pay for their bandwidth (allowing for both fair allocation of resources and well as incentivization of supply), which of course fundamentally requires a programmable decentralized currency (which is itself just a program running on the programmable decentralized database).

[jtbayly]

I know tons of people speculating in Ethereum. I know nobody using it as a database.

[saurik]

I know a ton of people who speak English and I know literally no one who speaks Swahili: that doesn't mean that no one speaks it :/.

[jtbayly]

I never said it did. I never said nobody actually uses Ethereum. I pointed out that its value is actually largely based on speculation. You may claim that there is a floor because it has inherent value as a database. You'd be right. Remove all the speculation and the floor is very very low, though.

[TomSwirly]

> Crypto-currencies are selling you a service: linearizing database transactions.

That service is worth zero dollars to me and 99.9% of the world.

Also, the cryptocurrency doesn't sell this service, and doesn't make any money.

[koonsolo]

> USD gets its value from the legal requirement that taxes are paid in USD

How long will that last? Miami and El Salvador are already proving you wrong.

> For USD to go to zero, the United States as we know it would have to collapse

Not if your government and country switches to crypto before the fiat collapse.

[javert]

> How long will that last? Miami and El Salvador are already proving you wrong.

No, they don't prove him wrong. You need to argue against the best possible version of your opponent's position. Otherwise it's just, as they say, words in the wind.