[shagymoe]

The value of Bitcoin would not fluctuate wildly if it were the default currency. You're not even attempting to argue in good faith or imagine how things could be different.

What you call "angsty" is what I call "rational". I see you're happy to continue experiencing these crises which are, in fact, happening.

Also, I don't think you know what grifterism means, if that's even a word.

[jeezfrk]

magical thinking about very un-tethered and highly manipulated currency is not a help.

imagining it will change for an entire economy ... is quite irrational.

no magic will make a constantly shifting ice floe into boring bedrock.

[shagymoe]

The current system is more irrational, unless you're benefiting from the corrupt system. Bitcoin is democratic and you vote with a node.

[roarcher]

Yes, and its voters vote for their own profits, which makes it swing wildly. Being "democratic" doesn't make something immune to greed.

[shagymoe]

It's clear you don't understand how nodes or "voting" works. There's no mechanism there which would induce wild swings.

[roarcher]

I do, actually. I never said there was a mechanism that induces swings--there doesn't need to be one. The users do it through speculation, just like with any other asset, only it's worse with Bitcoin because it isn't tied to anything of real value, even theoretically (unless you think wasted CPU/GPU cycles are valuable). Being "democratic" doesn't magically safeguard against that.

I'm not a fan of the fed and I think some sort of decentralized currency would be great. Bitcoin was a good idea and I'm glad we're experimenting along those lines, but it's a failed experiment. It's never going to work as a mainstream currency. Maybe some future iteration of the cryptocurrency idea will be the solution, but Bitcoin ain't it.

[latchkey]

Bitcoin has been using ASICs for over 9 years now.

Maybe you're thinking of Ethereum, which just moved off GPUs last year and as a result, destroyed the economics around mining with GPUs. So, that whole wasted cycles argument doesn't really hold up any longer.

Bitcoin is a store of value. I can borrow against it as collateral, which gives it real value in finance.

[latchkey]

HN can't think past price goes up/down and see that a lot of crypto is a valuable resource that you can use as collateral and borrow against it without having to go to a bank and beg for permission.

[philipwhiuk]

You still need permission from the person/company on the other side to use crypto as collateral.

[latchkey]

Maybe I'm not explaining myself correctly.

I can take crypto (and I'm talking about BTC/ETH, but can be others) and lend it out (generally for a positive APY). I can then borrow (typically USD*, but can be many other tokens) against that collateral (sometimes even for a positive APY!).

No permission needed and happens in the scope of transactions that cost pennies.

This is a massively important aspect of finance that goes beyond daily price swings. It is a relatively new aspect in crypto that has only been around for the last ~3 years or so.

Example: https://aave.com/ ($8.2b locked up right now)

[red-iron-pine]

And there have been a lot of painful lessons lately as to why that's a bad idea.

[csomar]

> The value of Bitcoin would not fluctuate wildly if it were the default currency.

I wouldn't think so. Many of our "crisis" are due to the value of "cash" or liquidity to fluctuate significantly. This is the case in the recent banking crisis. In the case of Bitcoin, this will be a deep dive in price. Now which one is better? I don't know.