[hardmoney99]

Bitcoin is the solution to the fundamentally broken debt-driven economy. Critics don't get it because they lump it together with "cryptocurrency". While technically a cryptocurrency, Bitcoin does not exhibit any of the ponzi, scam-like shenanigans that are easily observable in shitcoins. Yes, there is a lot of crazy stuff happening with wash trading - but this is a byproduct of lack of regulation and has nothing to do with the thing that is Bitcoin. Most critics just don't understand what problem Bitcoin solves. They think it has something to do with replacing currency, or sending payments. Bitcoin is a financial freedom tool for billions of people, the likes of which do not browse Hacker News. Those people get Bitcoin instantly. They don't need articles like this one to tell them why their needs are unmet by the traditional finance system. The thing that Bitcoin critics lack is the understanding of credit markets, central banking and manipulation of money - the source of a large number of problems in the world. To them, everything is fine. Reminds me of that meme where the place is on fire and the dog is sitting in the middle of the room - that's the Bitcoin critic.

[hnews_account_1]

I have a deep understanding of all of the latter. I work in capital markets daily. I do not know anyone serious with my level of experience in the actual markets who thinks bitcoin is the answer.

There are several issues with tradFi. Pointing that out is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. In some cases, people are working on a fix. In other cases, the inefficiency and criminal activity is not ceasing because the scale is too small for overburdened regulators to care about.

Not one of these uses bitcoin as a fix. Whoever is building it has almost never been in finance. They think tech bros can easily understand finance cos numbers! Except finance is extremely advanced. It’s like trying to join a full ML team after running a single random forest regression or something. The consequence of such hubris is sentences like this:

> Bitcoin is the solution to the fundamentally broken debt-driven economy.

The debt driven economy is by design. It’s not a fucking flaw like the hard money idiots listening to Peter Schiff daily want to believe. Sometimes it goes to excess and we get 2008. Doesn’t mean the older idea was better. There is no wealth distribution in a hard money paradigm that makes sense.

For simple terms since you’re obviously not in the field, ask yourself where is money created? If you say central banks, go back to Econ 101 and study better this time.

[tomputer]

> Except finance is extremely advanced.

Exactly. This is a problem. It can be so advanced that almost nobody understands it.

Now take a look at how advanced Bitcoin is:

  Total circulation will be 21,000,000 coins. It'll be distributed
  to network nodes when they make blocks, with the amount cut in half
  every 4 years.
  
  first 4 years: 10,500,000 coins
  next 4 years: 5,250,000 coins
  next 4 years: 2,625,000 coins
  next 4 years: 1,312,500 coins
  etc...
  
  When that runs out, the system can support transaction fees if
  needed. It's based on open market competition, and there will
  probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free.

  Satoshi Nakamoto

[hnews_account_1]

Your idea is KISS works for finance and the rest of humanity are idiots. As you sit down and type from a device created very much by the financial engineering “complications” of the modern market (and in turn being used to create further pockets of complexity).

[ephbit]

> As you sit down and type from a device created very much by the financial engineering “complications” of the modern market ...

That's a ridiculous claim.

As if the development of complex technical devices wouldn't have happened without complex financial markets and inscrutable financial business models.

Complexity in finance .. up to a certain degree it may well serve the purposes of society .. beyond some level though, excessive complexity mostly serves few big players who can manage and understand the complexity and gain an advantage over other actors with less resources (that'd be most of the rest of society).

[hnews_account_1]

I like your confidence. I happen to agree with the second part while I don’t want to explain the first part. See my other comments for nuance.

[ephbit]

> There is no wealth distribution in a hard money paradigm that makes sense.

Care to explain how one can come to this claim based on first principles?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this sentence of yours. I read it as: a hard money paradigm will inevitably lead to a very undesirable wealth distribuation (Gini coefficient --> 1) and there's no way to fix/prevent this other than moving from hard money to soft money.

I'd refute this claim. There are completely obvious ways to prevent Gini --> 1. Effective redistribution from wealthy to poor. The only hurdle to that is political systems, voters, governments or monarchs deciding to and then enacting it. Absolutely possible.

[ephbit]

My point here is: concerns with undesirable wealth distribution (in a hard money system) make IMO no sound argument against hard money. Because there's ways to redistribute wealth through the state.

Besides that, if the current wealth distribution (under non hard money) isn't all but a calamity, then what is it?

Also most states are currently doing effective redistribution of wealth so it's clearly something that can be done. One issue though in most states is that the redistribution is getting outpaced by countering effects, so it's insufficient.

[hnews_account_1]

Good luck forcing redistribution using central authorities. The very reason for the existence of modern loans is to bypass their stupidity. You do not comprehend the literal scale of the problem. You have to replace every fucking bank employee with a govt employee (in simple terms). If you think a central body is bloated now…

[ephbit]

> You do not comprehend the literal scale of the problem.

Phew, OK, if you write so.

> You have to replace every fucking bank employee with a govt employee ..

No, all it needs is a reasonable tax system without loopholes and where taxes are well balanced and of course reasonable services provided by the state funded by these taxes.

[hnews_account_1]

Ok so I’m going to start making up theories by assuming the second law of thermodynamics is false and we can have infinite free energy.

[ephbit]

Do I get this right?

You have a rather pessimistic view of the world that leads you to believe that while such tax systems might be possible they allegedly haven't ever been observed in the real world. So you go on to infer that what hasn't been observed is not possible.

I think it's a stretch to draw a parallel here to the unyielding character of physical laws.

I assume the world has seen reasonable tax systems in the past but since politics/science/tech/societies/culture is constantly evolving this "state" was not stable. That it wasn't, doesn't prove it's not possible. Future societies with more knowledge on the whole subject (of creating beneficial equilibria in society) might find ways to keep desirable states over long periods of time.

[kloch]

> For simple terms since you’re obviously not in the field, ask yourself where is money created? If you say central banks, go back to Econ 101 and study better this time.

The Fed itself directly created 8T USD since 2009 (QE). Some of it in the past two years even went straight to consumer's pockets via the Treasury in the form of stimmies and forgivable PPP loans (helicopter money/MMT).

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...

That's a non-trivial amount, 41% of total M2 and 61% of the increase in M2 since 2009:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL

Where did the rest of the increase in M2 come from? Fractional reserve lending by banks -- at interest rates artificially suppressed by Fed policies specifically to encourage lending/money creation.

Before the Fed was created in 1913, USD was created by fractional reserve lending by banks at market determined interest rates and the marginal increase in monetary gold and silver from mining output (typically 1-2%/yr).

This historic monetary system was dynamically unstable as mining output was uncorrelated with natural business cycles and unbackstopped banks were subject to runs during downturns. The Fed was created to solve these problems, specifically the panic of 1907.

Over time it's mission evolved from being a lender of last resort to actively targeting employment and consumer prices. Since the 1987 crash however, this official mandate was effectively replaced with one targeting asset prices - primarily stocks and houses (wealth effect targeting).

Normal business cycles were now increasingly distorted by the fed Fed responding to (or not wanting to hurt) asset prices for fear it would psychologically affect consumer and business spending and eventually employment.

This lead to a new instability: bigger booms created or exaggerated by easy Fed money, followed by bigger busts during the tightening phase.

Each boom/bust cycle led to more micromanagement by the Fed and thus more instability. Since 2008 (QE), and especially after 2020 (helicopter money) they have gone completely off the rails as seen by the M2 chart above and soaring consumer prices. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon - Milton Friedman"

[hnews_account_1]

Also just to be clear, almost every measure of banking and economic crisis has reduced after the advent of central banking in most countries. 2008 still happens and we should hold everyone accountable etc but if you think living pre 1971 was some dream time with everyone eating a full meal and heavy technological innovation, you’re misguided. It’s not to say the lack of innovation was a monetary issue but removing those obstacles sure as fuck didn’t hurt.

[hnews_account_1]

That fact that you conflate the QE and fiscal stimulus is reason enough not the read the rest of this diatribe.

Basically you did answer where the M2 increase is coming from but you have no idea what is the difference between M2 and real money. If you’re following the idiots on finance twitter tweeting daily about velocity of money charts, stop, pick up a modern macro textbook and read in detail.

[olalonde]

Just for your interest, you just called a few recipients of the Nobel Prize in Economics idiots.

[hnews_account_1]

Thanks. I’d call them that again. But just for my curiosity, please, who is the econ Nobel winner shilling crypto?

[olalonde]

That's a loaded question, don't you think? What I meant was that there are several respected economics scholars who have endorsed "hard money" and/or competition among currencies. Regarding "shilling", Milton Friedman didn't quite do that but he largely predicted a system like Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leqjwiQidlk

[mikestaub]

Bitcoin is not ever going to replace the fiat economy, it simply solves the wealth preservation problem by acting as gold v2.0. This is a huge deal as most empires in history have risen and fallen via currency manipulation, hurting millions of people in the process. The life preservers have finally arrived, just in time.

[ephbit]

> The debt driven economy is by design.

People should ask "whose design?" then. Who's the beneficiary of this design?

What do you think is more likely to be true?

A. The wealthy/influencial/powerful/elites use their (disproportionate) power to influence the design of fundamentals of society - such as the monetary system - in a way that benefits/stabilizes their position at the top.

B. The wealthy/influencial/powerful/elites just let the design of fundamentals of society - such as the monetary system - be in whatever way it's shaped by society or political processes.

[immigrantheart]

There are economists with deep understanding of finance and economy that disagree with you.

[throwawash]

Where can I read their points of view? Can you provide some links by any chance?

[jkepler]

Read Rothbart's Mystery of Banking, https://mises.org/library/mystery-banking. Or Mises' Human Action.

[ephbit]

Safedean Ammous isn't 100 % studied economist. But according to his CV he studied at London School of Economics, also gave economics lectures and was/is assistant professor of economics at Lebanese American University (Beirut). [1]

I'd recommend listening to his interview with Lex Fridman. [2]

[1] https://capitalism.columbia.edu/files/ccs/person/cv/2015/amm...

[2] https://lexfridman.com/saifedean-ammous/

[hnews_account_1]

Do not read idiots like Ammous. I don’t like to restrict people’s reading choices but this is equivalent to reading Deepak Chopra for economics. Between that and someone like Lee Smolin who is also extremely anti establishment, only one of them is an incredibly deep thinker.

People’s appearance on Lex Fridman shouldn’t be used as an indicator of anything. He interviews very widely and he does it well. But he isn’t very selective about guests.

[ephbit]

A comparison of Safedean Ammous to Deepak Chopra isn't useful IMO. Chopra does likely have views on economics but it's not the focus of his work. Ammous' work is about economics.

Thus it appears you're merely trying to discredit one person by comparing them to another person whose views (on a totally different topic) are ridiculed/controversial (for potentially legitimate reasons).

As to Lee Smolin .. he appears rather off-topic to me in this discussion. I like his view on "There is only one universe." though [1]. Makes him stand out from the many many people who handle the meaning of words with insufficient rigor and then come up with useless conclusions.

> People’s appearance on Lex Fridman shouldn’t be used as an indicator of anything.

I was just linking to this interview because it's reasonably well done and Ammous' views come over, not because it was done by Fridman.

> But he isn’t very selective about guests.

Which is IMO a good thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin#Views

[throwawash]

hmm, no government in the world supports his thesis I guess. From what I understand of his position: deflational currency is the best type of currency. Any inflation is bad etc. The reason governments create inflation is to keep population poor and control them I guess?

Putting aside the weird trash-talking of status quo economists, in order to evaluate the correctness of his position, I would have to do way too much homework.

His prediction of human behavior under a deflational currency though does raise some flags. He says people will buy stuff regardless. If know I can use the same money to buy two cars next year instead of buying a car this year, I will not buy a car this year. He seems to say I will.

[ephbit]

> The reason governments create inflation is to keep population poor and control them I guess?

When I listened to the interview I didn't hear him say that.

My view on this: governments simply cannot help increasing debt to spend more on whatever purpose they deem right at a certain time. It's simply the easiest way (least opposition from voters) for them to enact their programmes. The only other option (cutting other spending to increase spending on what's current high priority) doesn't get them reelected.

> Putting aside the weird trash-talking of status quo economists ...

Yeah, I admit he does too much of that, not optimal. But that doesn't mean the message is wrong.

> He says people will buy stuff regardless.

You won't? If your car breaks down, you won't let it get fixed right now but next month because it's cheaper? If you're hungry today you'll wait till next week to buy food because it costs 0,005 % less? You'll wait 10 years to fly to Fiji because it'll be cheaper? Oh wow, you must be a special person then.

> If know I can use the same money to buy two cars next year instead of buying a car this year, I will not buy a car this year.

You sure? You just watch everybody drive around? Besides: same money, next year worth 2x is dramatically exaggerated. What are typical gains of efficiency through technological advances? Maybe 5 % per year? I say you're putting up a strawman here. With 5 % deflation you'll have 2x the buying power in ~ 14 years .. you're going to wait this long?

> He seems to say I will.

Nope, as I understood what he says, he just says it somewhat shifts time preference.

[NoticeMeSenpai]

Who? And disagree about what exactly?

[Rerarom]

What do you think of the endogenous money theory that is being promoted from time to time?

[hnews_account_1]

I obviously think it’s a better alternative than hard money. But it has several drawbacks, same as many other things in capitalism.

[achow]

> Bitcoin is a financial freedom tool for billions of people, the likes of which do not browse Hacker News

These people are most vulnerable of the lot. They live hand to mouth, don't posses computing devices (may be cheap China smartphone). I cannot fathom how this demography manages bitcoin assets, manages to purchase their basic needs (which is all they can afford) using coins and not to mention this market crash when even millionaires are feeling the pinch.

[hardmoney99]

What you describe here is grouping of thousands of different types of demographics into one. The reality is very different depending where you live, and your level of technology access varies. A fleeing Ukrainian is very well versed in Bitcoin - Ukraine has one of the highest levels of adoption. A Nigerian is also very versed in Bitcoin - despite their government's attempt at curtailing use, they still find a way. A kid in Congo may or may not have access to a smart phone - that I have no way of knowing, but I do know that cell phone access is ubiquitous in Africa despite what many imagine or believe. Sure, their needs may be better served by a stable coin, but that does not relieve bitcoin of value. A Salvadorian may or may not understand Bitcoin - but this is like asking the population to understand how your email protocol works - there's a lot to learn. Even in a country like Japan, Bitcoin is becoming a safe haven with the Yen losing 20% of its value when comparing to USD.

Going back to the topic of the "most vulnerable", a bank that you and I take for granted is a luxury in many of Africa's nations. Bitcoin is a permission-less banking system. Does it have technological hurdles for the average person to overcome? Yes. But this is all being worked on right now by people I talk to every day. The same way that most people have no idea how SMTP works, you won't really need to understand behind the scenes of Bitcoin. There are various levels of autonomy and people will fall on the spectrum of where they are comfortable, with the level of privacy / security that most fits their Bitcoin education.

You might find this short video interesting (only 10 seconds or so): https://twitter.com/HODLneverSODL/status/1518134911244320769...

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> A kid in Congo may or may not have access to a smart phone - that I have no way of knowing, ... a bank that you and I take for granted is a luxury in many of Africa's nations.

What do you know about the existing problems, that you want to solve? When were you last in the region?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> fincial freedom tool for billions of people, the likes of which do not browse Hacker News.

Citation needed (to put it mildly). How is Bitcoin improving on e.g. M-Pesa?

Is there much adoption compared to M-Pesa, outside of fantasy?

If you're not familiar with M-Pesa, then you don't know this subject at all.

> Those people get Bitcoin instantly.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jun/17/jay-z-bitcoin-...

[olalonde]

> How is Bitcoin improving on e.g. M-Pesa?

M-Pesa only works in some African countries? And it relies on the benevolence of Vodafone Group and governments?

[forum_ghost]

Nigeria, just one country, has 34 million crypto users. mpesa has 30.

34 > 30

is that much adoption?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

I'll assume that like me, you googled that. So, this is technically correct, but:

30 or 34 m users out of 206m isn't the whole market, not close.

Nigeria is an outlier, with low M-Pesa adoption as:

> The reason why this incredible product (M-Pesa) can’t be replicated in Nigeria with such success is perhaps due to what you and I as Nigerians enjoy today, the Nigerian Interbank Settlement System (NIBSS)

https://nairametrics.com/2017/09/26/why-the-m-pesa-miracle-h...

https://nibss-plc.com.ng/

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nigeria-inter-bank-s...

So to sum up, the huge Nigerian domestic market is covered by a SEPA-like product. It's not a bitcoin thing. Omitting that seems intentionally misleading.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Bitcoin is a financial freedom tool

Usually when describing something in the face of scrutiny, one describes a use case. If someone questions the validity of hammers, the solution isn't to say "we call this a hammer." It's to show how hammers are used.

I doubt most crypto folks have any idea of credit markets or central banking. What they have expertise in is the manipulation of money. Bitcoin, and all of crypto, is Wall Street's love interest for a reason.

[jkepler]

Some of us have read Bastiat (in French!), Mises, Hayek, Rothbart, Solerno, and other "heterodox" Austrian economists, and have a better understanding of how money arises and how central bank interference in monetary and credit markets creates the boom and bust business cycles.

Bitcoin, with its Austrian hard money roots, stands head and shoulders above the crazy scammy mess of all the centralized altcoins (or "crypto" if you lile) that you right to criticize. Please don't lump real technological and computer science innovation in with a the crypto rug-pulls.

[trashtester]

Most of them watched some youtube video providing a conspiracy theory view on banking, "fiat" currencies and debt-as-money.

They think they have deep insights when saying "banks create money out of thin air", or "there is not enough money in the economy to pay down all debt". They also use the word "fiat" as if it's bad that a currency is backed by a government.

All the above are strong indication that there is something fundamental about the monetary system that someone fails to understand.

A lot of crypto has been bought because the buyer were under such illusions.

[snuckr]

The use case is digital money that doesn't require banks.

[NoticeMeSenpai]

>Bitcoin is the solution to the fundamentally broken debt-driven economy.

Sorry this is all too vague. How do you define "broken" and what does this post-debt-driven economy look like?

>They don't need articles like this one to tell them why their needs are unmet by the traditional finance system.

Whats the use case here exactly?

[hardmoney99]

>Sorry this is all too vague. How do you define "broken" and what does this post-debt-driven economy look like?

Look up % of world population living in hyperinlationary environments to get your answer. The post-debt driven economy is one where a handful of people cannot devalue your labor with a press of a button.

> Whats the use case here exactly? Freedom from corrupt governments that debase your currency into oblivion, only to adopt another currency which suffers from the same ultimate fate. Financial inclusion is the use case. It's broad, it's ambitious and ultimately to entrepreneurial interpretation.

[trashtester]

If you look into the details of a hyper-inflation environment (such as Germany in 1922-23), labor tends to retain its value pretty well under such conditions. Laborers would re-negotiate their salary every morning, and tended to do pretty well.

Bank deposits go to 0 though, as would most savings that did not grant control of some inflation-resistent revenue-flow.

Anyway, true hyperinflation is extremely rare. The most recent case I'm aware of, was Venezuela around 2013. To my knowledge, 0% of the pupulation lives under true hyperinflation today.

[NoticeMeSenpai]

>Look up % of world population living in hyperinlationary environments to get your answer. The post-debt driven economy is one where a handful of people cannot devalue your labor with a press of a button.

Ok so lets say the production costs increases and drives inflation. How does bitcoin make my life easier in this scenario?

[jkepler]

Accept bitcoin for your products and services, and when you run your books, look at it from the perspective of bitcoin to see if you're profitable or not, even if you legally still need to keep your books in your local government's currency. The dollars (and the other fiat currencies) inflate too quickly to be useful monetary measures.

[ChicagoDave]

So basically, criminals that love the idea of hiding their illicit transactions from government oversight so they can traffic humans and drugs.

[hardmoney99]

You literally have to go through a regulated exchange to onboard and unload your illicit transactions. Not to mention your entire transaction history is public up to the exchange event. The biggest money launderers of today are literally the world's biggest banks. Go look up Deuche Bank money laundering fines.

[behringer]

Or anyone that wants to travel without having their 5 or 10k in savings confiscated under asset forfeiture laws.

[ChicagoDave]

But why on earth would a legit person have anything seized?

[behringer]

I don't know, you'd have to ask the police why they keep funding their police department with seized assets from people without trial or even suspicion.

[ChicagoDave]

100% separate issue from the credibility behind crypto users evading the law.

[behringer]

Well it's a problem that crypto solves.

[olalonde]

Yes, same reason neo-nazis love the idea of free speech so they can spread their hateful ideology.

[Nursie]

> Bitcoin is the solution

It's the solution to nothing. Nothing.

This is pretty hilarious though, Bitcoin is exactly the same as a variety of other cryptocurrencies, which are carbon copies of it. Identical. But right on cue here come the bitcoin maximalists to explain that theirs is special.

Here's the only reason it's special - brand recognition. That's it. That's what you have over the various forks and clones. First mover advantage.

And this is what tells me that the technology isn't really solving anything, and nobody actually gives a fuck about it - other coins fix problems with BTC, they either make it more anonymous, or resolve transactions faster, or more of them, or all sorts of other things. But BTC still rules the roost because the whole thing is built on hype and sentiment and nothing more.

[jkepler]

Actually, what you call brand recognition could be monetary adoption, as every nongovernmental money such as gold or silver had widespread adoption on their merits.

Bitcoin solved the Byzantine generals' problem in adversarial network contexts, by its innovative deployment of proof-of-work. Thus, bitcoin invented thermodynamically secured property rights, and property rights are a fundamental building block for human flourishing. Bitcoin provides a decentralized trustless source of truth, and none of the other cryptos do that because they're not nearly as widely adopted.

Bitcoin is a strong base layer that faster more anonymous payments can be based upon, such as Lightning or Liquid, and things like CoinJoin and PayJoin, which are trust less and noncustodial. You can't start with a squishly base layer and then build stable systems, but if you start with solid fundamentals, privacy and better user experiences can be built on top.

Bitcoin is also currently solving the natural gas industry's problem of flaring methane... portable mining rigs use the methane to generate electricity to provide network security to the Bitcoin network, while making natural gas extraction cleaner. Bitcoin mining is also incentivising and paying for the production of clean renewable energy on larger scales than anyone had figured how to fund. And some people use bitcoin mining to provide home heating in the winter. No other crypto is doing those things.

[Nursie]

> Bitcoin solved ...

Its inventors came up with a solution to it, sure, and that is innovative. It's inelegant, it's massively wasteful, but as a technical curiosity it's certainly interesting.

> Thus, bitcoin invented thermodynamically secured property rights

Fucking LOL. You say that as if it tapped into the laws of physics themselves, when actually a quantum computer could cause havoc here. It's using mathematics to achieve consensus, not writing data into the fabric of the universe, and as with all of your other points, it's just first mover advantage again. All of the other cryptocurrencies do the same.

> Bitcoin provides a decentralized trustless source of truth

No, it provides consensus, not truth.

> Bitcoin is a strong base layer

Exactly the same as its clones, forks and children.

> and none of the other cryptos do that because they're not nearly as widely adopted.

They do exactly the same. Adoption is a matter of degree, not absolute.

> Bitcoin mining is also incentivising and paying for the production of clean renewable energy

No, no it isn't. Bitcoin mining is filthy and getting worse.

We don't need more incentives for green energy, the world is already full of those. Bitcoin mining, on the other hand, uses dirty coal in Kazakhstan.

> No other crypto is doing those things.

EVERY other cryptocurrency is doing EXACTLY those same things. It's all just brand recognition.

[iLoveOncall]

> Bitcoin does not exhibit any of the ponzi shenanigans

Really? How do you call something where there is no underlying product generating value, and you need to have someone else put money in to get your money out? It's literally the definition of a ponzi pyramid.

[hardmoney99]

Bitcoin is voluntary. The goal is better money. If you take on that big of a challenge, you kinda need people to participate with their "old" money. It's called adoption. Just like internet would have no value if nobody participated, bitcoin has no value if nobody participates. Do you send email to yourself? No. Do you shop from a non-existing platform? no.

[NoticeMeSenpai]

>Bitcoin is voluntary

Scams can be voluntary.

>The goal is better money

There is no clear path to that goal.

>If you take on that big of a challenge, you kinda need people to participate with their "old" money.

"Old" as in the USD?

>Just like internet would have no value if nobody participated, bitcoin has no value if nobody participates.

Unlike the internet you can only trade bitcoins. You cant use them for anything else.

[olalonde]

> Scams can be voluntary.

I disagree, a scam must involve some level of deception.

[Lionga]

"My Ponzi" is voluntary. The goal is better money. If you take on that big of a challenge, you kinda need people to participate with their "old" money. It's called adoption. Just like internet would have no value if nobody participated, "My Ponzi" has no value if nobody participates. Do you send email to yourself? No. Do you shop from a non-existing platform? no.

[Nursie]

> The goal is better money.

Except when someone points out it's terrible at that, its goal magically becomes something else. Which it's probably terrible at, and then the goal shifts again.

[hardmoney99]

You're confusing money with currency. Bitcoin is excellent money, the best there is. Currency? not so much due to current fluctuations. With adoption that will subside, so will the yields, and it may start behaving more like currency (or not). It's quite possible it becomes money but not currency with something like a stable coin taking place of currency. That doesn't mean that it won't try or won't make it. When you try to take on the entire finance system of the world, it's obviously going to take time and we may not see the fruit's of Satoshi's labor in our lifetime. The last block is not mined until 2140.

For anyone else reading these comments, HN will not let me reply to all of your as I'm posting too fast. I would love to reply to every comment here. All very valid concerns and criticisms, although misplaced, deeply misunderstood. I don't blame you. If I were a skeptic of something, I would probably not put 1000 hours of educating myself on that subject. I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Don't buy bitcoin. In fact, buy the short ETF out (today?) if you are so convinced it's not going anywhere positive. I really don't care. It would be great if more people were less emotional about Bitcoin just because it has monetary properties and seems like a ponzi, and actually took the time to think about it more deeply - but I understand that you're busy and would rather dismiss it. Fine by me.

Proshares etf to short bitcoin: https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/BITO Vote with your conviction.

[Nursie]

> You're confusing money with currency.

No, you're using nonsense distinctions that come from the 'Austrian school', that you think make you smart and you believe gives you an understanding of economics denied to most people, even those who study economics to a high level and make careers in that space. Unfortunately it's a patchwork of old and poor ideas that don't really hold up.

By the way I love the condescending addendum, sure, the only reason that anyone could possibly be negative about Bitcoin is that they haven't learned enough about it. LOL.

> Vote with your conviction.

Any move into the manipulated casino that is cryptocurrency is a bad move.

[hardmoney99]

> No, you're using nonsense distinctions that come from the 'Austrian school', Do you have an actual rebuttal to anything I've said or will you resort to emotional and ideological attachment to what others have decided for you?

>By the way I love the condescending addendum, sure, the only reason that anyone could possibly be negative about Bitcoin is that they haven't learned enough about it. LOL.

Another reason people might view Bitcoin negatively is because they let others think for them (reaching flawed, uneducated conclusions, passed down onto you).

Or conflict of interest. Financial privilege. Not biting the hand that feeds you. Fitting in with your peers who have the same herd mentality. Take your pick.

[immigrantheart]

> Bitcoin is voluntary

This is the single most important paradigm that will set crypto believers vs non believers. Either you get it or not. There is nothing in between.

If non believers don't get this one, then there is no point in explaining.

[scotty79]

Key factor of Ponzi is that it guarantees you high (height arbitrarily made up by scheme organizer) periodic return on your investment and promises you get your money back eventually.

Bitcoin makes no such promises. It routinely had >80% drops in price.