[dotty-]

Whether or not you agree with the greater philosophical goal of Bitcoin, Bitcoin proved the ability to create a system of value using basically just cryptography and with a built-in reward system to incentivize the decentralization of the network -- and it grew enough that it can now operate as a standalone method of payment. It's an amazing feat.

Snowden is correct here: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1759304612664779247

[ezrast]

It had done all that by 2010, no? The real hype was about what would come after.

I don't think the thesis of most Bitcoin critics is that the math and social engineering involved aren't interesting.

[dotty-]

I don't disagree with you. But the original post was about 1) cryptocurrency as a whole being busted and 2) that cryptocurrency had never provided any kind of value. Those are what I disagree with.

[CatWChainsaw]

Yeah it just requires massive investment in computer components, ridiculous amounts of carbon burning, servers in the Arctic to lower cooling costs, and a few towns full of people subject to more sound than jet engines at all hours of the day. Innovation!

[skydhash]

> Bitcoin proved the ability to create a system of value using basically just cryptography and with a built-in reward system to incentivize the decentralization of the network

AKA micro transactions in games.

[dotty-]

No, because micro transactions in games is a centralized system involving zero cryptography, usually powered by a centralized database by the game developer. Bitcoin is decentralized.

[seba_dos1]

> Bitcoin is decentralized.

Barely, if at all. Technically it can be decentralized, but Bitcoin's design promotes centralization, and the result is that currently Bitcoin can be controlled by either two entities (AntPool and Foundry USA) or three (one of the former ones plus F2Pool and ViaBTC) - and it's not going to get better.

[serial_dev]

... A solution for which problem...