Bitcoin and other crypto-The CR thread

[GRHorn 105]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I get the idea that following El Salvador or Tonga may not seem like the path to riches. But the developed country govts are not going to be leading the charge to changing how countries manage their finances. That's like asking Buffet to lead the charge in raising death taxes to 90%. It ain't happening. The first people through the wall always get bloody. And some fail. 

El Salvador may fail in this endeavor but are they currently succeeding in the traditional model? Do they really have a chance to succeed in the traditional model? Their chances are greater than 0 but its not a good bet. What's the worst that would happen if the embrace bitcoin? Go bankrupt and default on their loans? Bitcoin also doesn't require an all or nothing bet.

Well said. The first countries to try this were always going to be the ones with the most to gain and least to lose. 
 

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

The biggest risk that I see with these countries going with bitcoin, are with their partners. There are shady people out there that will screw over a country for a dime. But obviously this scenario has also occurred when countries partner with major financial players as well.

I think the biggest risk is sanction or outright hostility from either the US or other international entities. I don’t think this is being taking as seriously as it should be, yet. 
 

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

Nah, I think it's volcanoes:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/el-salvador-bitcoin-mining-volcano-b1863065.html

 

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

More proof to steer clear.  If Abbot thinks it’s a good idea rest assured it sucks armadillo dick.

This is such a closed mindset and part of why I started this thread.
 

Currently a pretty good mix of people support Bitcoin, but it does seem to skew more libertarian or right. That’s mostly due to the hard money and individual sovereignty that it embodies. Politicians like Abbott like that it will attract capital and talent to the state. Still, there’s plenty of reason for progressives and people on the left in CR to support Bitcoin. Certainly Liz Warren shouldn’t be trashing it to protect the banking cartel she claims to want to reform. Yawn. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

What happens in your little world when the US loses global reserve currency status?  You think inflation is ticking up now, wait until then.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

What happens in your little world when the US loses global reserve currency status?  You think inflation is ticking up now, wait until then.

Perhaps the US needs to prepare for a world where USD is not the global reserve currency. If the US starts acting irrationally in order to maintain that status, the die is cast that we're losing that status. Protectionism always ends poorly.

There is also nothing preventing the US govt from buying bitcoins today.

[workswithseed 2103]

5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

What happens in your little world when the US loses global reserve currency status?  You think inflation is ticking up now, wait until then.

Diversify, and try to prepare for the worse.

[GRHorn 105]

9 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

What happens in your little world when the US loses global reserve currency status?  You think inflation is ticking up now, wait until then.

My base case is that is happening in the next 10-20 years, whether I think it’s smart or not. 

[RDCanecutter 26426]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

A lot of them lead those same countries.

The damn truth. Used to be that 14 families decided everything in El Salvador, but I believe the number is smaller now.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Diversify, and try to prepare for the worse.

This isn't your bullshit $2,500 gofundme account we're talking about.

[workswithseed 2103]

11 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This isn't your bullshit $2,500 gofundme account we're talking about.

Ask stupid questions, dumbass. You weren't always a dick. What did I do to you to hurt you so much?

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

mommy and daddy are fighting.

 

[Bullneck 19084]

On 6/11/2021 at 1:53 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

A lot of them lead those same countries.

Next on Glass Houses! 2016-2020 Edition

[GRHorn 105]

 

[GRHorn 105]

 

[GRHorn 105]

Interesting coincidence here. After El Salvador Bitcoin announcement, State Dept visits El Salvador and the 2 other Latin American countries that have most strongly signaled interest in something similar. 

Looks like they already had their meeting. 

So I wonder how it went?

Damn

 

Also, some other repercussions. 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by GRHorn

[Bullneck 19084]

 

 

[Bullneck 19084]

Oops. Sorry.  Wrong tweet.

 

 

[HenryJames 66048]

 

[Satoshi 129]

Bumping here for Austin related news. Some of you might have heard that there’s a MiamiCoin and a NYCCoin. MiamiCoin has generated enough funds that they will be paying a bitcoin dividend to residents. 
 

 

well I haven’t seen any announcement but looks like an AustinCoin is coming soon. Maybe airdropped BTC for Austin residents to follow?

 

https://www.citycoins.co/austincoin

 

also since I haven’t been here in a while, here’s a link with articles about bitcoin for progressives  

 

 

 

[washparkhorn 9939]

Crypto is the gateway drug to communism through UBI?

Edited November 12, 2021 by washparkhorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

58 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Good point. The internet is very centralized.

[wildcat09 29353]

Dan Olson is the one acceptable exception to the "don't post extremely long Youtube videos on forums" rule.

[RDCanecutter 26426]

NFTs are valuable in that they are a break from people who don't buy comic books always asking "Why don't you do a comic book?" Now it's people who don't buy NFTs asking "Why don't you do some NFTs?"

[Captainant 27660]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Dan Olson is the one acceptable exception to the "don't post extremely long Youtube videos on forums" rule.

This came across my recommendations - I'm about half way through it. Really good technical discussion with well-supported commentary.

It's kinda funny - when I was a computer science undergrad at UT when BTC and ETH were emerging technologies I was WAY more gung-ho and making many of the fallacious arguments that are debunked here. Shit, I mined several BTC and bought GPU's (Radeon 7970's FTW) with my proceeds - I was drinking the kool-aid lol. It's crazy to see a technology be proposed, implemented, scaled up, and really see the endgame all in realtime. And especially to have my own opinions and views on it change so much as the tech has been used to exploit lower and lower information people into giving their money away

 

EDIT: the comparison to the 2008 financial crisis really resonated with me - much like the derivatives markets leading up to the crash, crypto markets are chock full of dumb money that don't understand what's happening aside from "line goes up". 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Captainant

[JohnnyRage 1617]

I don't follow Crypto very much, but saw that Bitcoin has lost half its value over the past 6 months. It seems like you either have to trust certificates of commodities, the U.S. Dollar, Property, the stock market, or hoard heavy things under a mattress.

I'm upside down and did myself no favors over the past 3 months, but what is the vibe that everyone is getting on the future - shaky stability, bubble, move into the Metaverse, or time to get out the guns and ammo?

[Captainant 27660]

19 minutes ago, JohnnyRage said:

I don't follow Crypto very much, but saw that Bitcoin has lost half its value over the past 6 months. It seems like you either have to trust certificates of commodities, the U.S. Dollar, Property, the stock market, or hoard heavy things under a mattress.

I'm upside down and did myself no favors over the past 3 months, but what is the vibe that everyone is getting on the future - shaky stability, bubble, move into the Metaverse, or time to get out the guns and ammo?

So fundamentally, cryptocurrency is a capitalization of electricity usage. That's what underpins what miners are willing to sell their coins/tokens for. You should definitely watch the linked vid because it lays out the relationship, but it boils down to: cashing out of crypto is a zero sum game. For you to get your money out, you have to hope someone is willing to pay a premium higher than you paid.

So you should ask yourself: do you think the crypto you're holding has any intrinsic value that may motivate someone else to buy it from you? Or are you just holding it for speculative purposes? If it's the latter, I can't say that I'd keep HODLing.

NFT's and web3.0 apps and all that are mechanisms to drive demand for crypto, but neither NFT's or web3.0 apps are any better or more functional than existing tech. 

[gyroprotagonist 2592]

16 minutes ago, JohnnyRage said:

I don't follow Crypto very much, but saw that Bitcoin has lost half its value over the past 6 months. It seems like you either have to trust certificates of commodities, the U.S. Dollar, Property, the stock market, or hoard heavy things under a mattress.

I'm upside down and did myself no favors over the past 3 months, but what is the vibe that everyone is getting on the future - shaky stability, bubble, move into the Metaverse, or time to get out the guns and ammo?

it basically just whales getting greedy.  they will push it back up again and more fomo will be created to produce buyers at the top.  i would not put anything you ever need to live/retire into crypto but it's worth speculating into, imo.  just take profit when it's there, lol.  I am like 95% in cash but will get back in for the ride up.

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

So fundamentally, cryptocurrency is a capitalization of electricity usage. That's what underpins what miners are willing to sell their coins/tokens for. You should definitely watch the linked vid because it lays out the relationship, but it boils down to: cashing out of crypto is a zero sum game. For you to get your money out, you have to hope someone is willing to pay a premium higher than you paid.

So you should ask yourself: do you think the crypto you're holding has any intrinsic value that may motivate someone else to buy it from you? Or are you just holding it for speculative purposes? If it's the latter, I can't say that I'd keep HODLing.

NFT's and web3.0 apps and all that are mechanisms to drive demand for crypto, but neither NFT's or web3.0 apps are any better or more functional than existing tech. 

i don't know about that.  i'll just say that the blockchain allows for different structures than what was available.  legal or not, web3 allows for instant VC money to pour into a project and record who owns what.  yes, some of projects are animal cartoon jpgs or outright fraudulent money grabs, but others are funding some interesting ideas (gaming, fashion, gambling, defi, art, music) that might not ever see the light of day.  But at the end of the day, it's mostly another speculative market that people are playing to try and make more money.

 

[JohnnyRage 1617]

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You should definitely watch the linked vid because it lays out the relationship, but it boils down to: cashing out of crypto is a zero sum game.

 

The right above NFT's video? Started it.

And the vibe on the future question was more a general economic question of how close to failure are we rather than where what price point crypto stabilizes. But that is important too.

Edited January 25, 2022 by JohnnyRage

[Captainant 27660]

2 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

i don't know about that.  i'll just say that the blockchain allows for different structures than what was available.  legal or not, web3 allows for instant VC money to pour into a project and record who owns what.  yes, some of projects are animal cartoon jpgs or outright fraudulent money grabs, but others are funding some interesting ideas (gaming, fashion, gambling, defi, art, music) that might not ever see the light of day.  But at the end of the day, it's mostly another speculative market that people are playing to try and make more money.

Blockchain isn't new tech - Git has existed since 2005 which is just a centralized blockchain. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies doesn't unlock any new or better functionality, and in fact increases the cost of any write action against the blockchain. Sure, it offers a mechanism to codify an agreement or make a permanent record, but it has no mechanism to amend or change an agreement with no margin for error - which is decidedly worse than existing systems and mechanisms. Sure, it's hardened against a man in the middle attack, but it's still vulnerable to garbage in/garbage out if there's a bad or fraudulent actor that you're interacting with in a write-only manner. 

I do agree that there's interesting ideas and concepts that are made possible by cryptocurrency, which is what got me so hot on it way back in 2012 as a dumb CS undergrad, but reality and popular usage have shown it to be just another mechanism to capitalize anything and everything you do on the internet. Which isn't great for a variety of reasons.

4 minutes ago, JohnnyRage said:

The right above NFT's video? Started it.

And the vibe on the future question was more a general economic question of how close to failure are we rather than where what price point crypto stabilizes. But that is important too.

The video ends on NFT's since that's the most popular usage of crypto at the moment, but it has a good technical primer of cryptocurrencies generally. I've understood and appreciated the technical aspects of the technology for a long time but had never really considered the social aspect of it. The video provides a really interesting synthesis of those ideas, imo.

And honestly, it's hard to know what direction it'll go. It's truly a game of confidence. If the consensus is that everyone feels confident, line goes up. I do think it's a useful yardstick to think of what the "right" price of a cryptocurrency is, which ideally would encompass utility of the asset, intrinsic value (the aforementioned electricity cost of generation), and rate of transactions. I don't have a way to quantify all of that into a final price, but I don't think a 24KB record (size of a smart contract in Ethereum for example) is worth the $3 (to as high as $300) transaction cost to disseminate that record into the blockchain.

I'd like to think that people will see this and wake up to the reality of what exactly they're buying in obtaining crypto, but as you'll see in the video, a significant portion of what drives crypto usage isn't a rational analysis but sales hype and the promise of "getting in early". And we certainly live in irrational times, so who fuckin knows, man lol

[The Royal We 3072]

I watched the first half of the video above so far and will have to finish the rest later.  Dan seems to really like the smell of his own farts...but he does make a lot of valid points.  Where I'd disagree with him is that NFTs are only collectables/ponzi/great fool schemes. 

Similar to what gyro says above, there are a lot of other practical applications for NFTs that Dan doesn't discuss (or maybe I didn't get there yet).  I could agree that the NFT collectable/jpeg Ape side of NFTs are a fad that will fade away.  But as a way to efficiently pool funds very quickly and share ownership in something, I think they are here to stay.  DAOs are very interesting to me as well and I fail to see the downside in them at this point.

[JohnnyRage 1617]

@CaptainantOnly about 30 minutes in, but yeah its fantastically done. I love learning, especially if I can back arrow to hear something again before it gets by too fast.

 

Quote

I've understood and appreciated the technical aspects of the technology for a long time but had never really considered the social aspect of it. The video provides a really interesting synthesis of those ideas, imo.

I too am a CS graduate, but I now carry heavy things for a living.

Edited January 25, 2022 by JohnnyRage

[Captainant 27660]

3 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Similar to what gyro says above, there are a lot of other practical applications for NFTs that Dan doesn't discuss (or maybe I didn't get there yet).  I could agree that the NFT collectable/jpeg Ape side of NFTs are a fad that will fade away.  But as a way to efficiently pool funds very quickly and share ownership in something, I think they are here to stay.  DAOs are very interesting to me as well and I fail to see the downside in them at this point.

Keep watching the video, he has some very interesting critiques of DAO's and other utilities like acting like a distributed VC. You're exactly right that it's a new and unique was to share ownership in something, but (and this is paraphrasing his argument) it's really just another way to express stock ownership that's more expensive, slower, and more open to abuse than existing stock systems. Not really an amazing improvement over the status quo that will motivate true adoption - meaning actually using it as a first-class service and not just as a marketing ploy to pull in more crypto with sneaky smart contracts. Which is an unfortunate characteristic of many predominant DAO's

[The Royal We 3072]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Keep watching the video, he has some very interesting critiques of DAO's and other utilities like acting like a distributed VC. You're exactly right that it's a new and unique was to share ownership in something, but (and this is paraphrasing his argument) it's really just another way to express stock ownership that's more expensive, slower, and more open to abuse than existing stock systems. Not really an amazing improvement over the status quo that will motivate true adoption - meaning actually using it as a first-class service and not just as a marketing ploy to pull in more crypto with sneaky smart contracts. Which is an unfortunate characteristic of many predominant DAO's

Will keep watching.

I'm a real estate investor as well and I find the process of buying new real estate to be horribly inefficient, time consuming, and generally a PITA.  With every transaction I find myself thinking that there has to be a better way.  It's just that it became the socially acceptable transfer of ownership to have that piece of paper in a file at the courthouse, sign my name 50 times, pay title insurance (f'n scam), etc.  NFTs are a still very young and constantly changing and expanding into new applications.  Dan is taking a snapshot and shitting all over it because it's not perfect right now - at least that is what it feels like to me. 

I'm more intrigued by what NFTs can become than by what they are at the moment.

[wildcat09 29353]

I think it's a really useful video but he's clearly fucking bummed out by the topic and it's not as entertaining as some of his others. Some of his others are about pretty depressing stuff too but usually topics from which more humor can be found. I highly recommend In Search of a Flat Earth.

[Captainant 27660]

9 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Will keep watching.

I'm a real estate investor as well and I find the process of buying new real estate to be horribly inefficient, time consuming, and generally a PITA.  With every transaction I find myself thinking that there has to be a better way.  It's just that it became the socially acceptable transfer of ownership to have that piece of paper in a file at the courthouse, sign my name 50 times, pay title insurance (f'n scam), etc.  NFTs are a still very young and constantly changing and expanding into new applications.  Dan is taking a snapshot and shitting all over it because it's not perfect right now - at least that is what it feels like to me. 

I'm more intrigued by what NFTs can become than by what they are at the moment.

100% agree with you on the possible utility of NFT's and the extremely durable distributed trustless recordkeeping that a distributed blockchain represents. The problem will always be implementation and the social repercussions of those implementation choices. 

It's a fair criticism of the video to argue he's just shitting on a snapshot of the tech, but frankly, he covers the entire current history of cryptocurrencies up to current events. I share your hope that smart contracts and NFT's will become more than what they are, but I don't think the social/people factors will let it get there. It would require capitalists to not act in their own self interest to exploit the new money coming in.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Captainant

[wildcat09 29353]

The idea of real estate records being placed on the blockchain is horrifying. 

[gyroprotagonist 2592]

37 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Blockchain isn't new tech - Git has existed since 2005 which is just a centralized blockchain. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies doesn't unlock any new or better functionality, and in fact increases the cost of any write action against the blockchain. Sure, it offers a mechanism to codify an agreement or make a permanent record, but it has no mechanism to amend or change an agreement with no margin for error - which is decidedly worse than existing systems and mechanisms. Sure, it's hardened against a man in the middle attack, but it's still vulnerable to garbage in/garbage out if there's a bad or fraudulent actor that you're interacting with in a write-only manner. 

I do agree that there's interesting ideas and concepts that are made possible by cryptocurrency, which is what got me so hot on it way back in 2012 as a dumb CS undergrad, but reality and popular usage have shown it to be just another mechanism to capitalize anything and everything you do on the internet. Which isn't great for a variety of reasons.

The video ends on NFT's since that's the most popular usage of crypto at the moment, but it has a good technical primer of cryptocurrencies generally. I've understood and appreciated the technical aspects of the technology for a long time but had never really considered the social aspect of it. The video provides a really interesting synthesis of those ideas, imo.

And honestly, it's hard to know what direction it'll go. It's truly a game of confidence. If the consensus is that everyone feels confident, line goes up. I do think it's a useful yardstick to think of what the "right" price of a cryptocurrency is, which ideally would encompass utility of the asset, intrinsic value (the aforementioned electricity cost of generation), and rate of transactions. I don't have a way to quantify all of that into a final price, but I don't think a 24KB record (size of a smart contract in Ethereum for example) is worth the $3 (to as high as $300) transaction cost to disseminate that record into the blockchain.

I'd like to think that people will see this and wake up to the reality of what exactly they're buying in obtaining crypto, but as you'll see in the video, a significant portion of what drives crypto usage isn't a rational analysis but sales hype and the promise of "getting in early". And we certainly live in irrational times, so who fuckin knows, man lol

good discussion.  you say it doesn't do anything but then several "but sure"s  idgaf either way and don't generally try to sway people one way or another.  There is no game changing benefit as of now.  nfts/crypto is a way to speculate on the value of something and try to make some $ while getting to see how it evolves real time.  Also picking up some very interesting and fun projects along the way.  at least in nfts it seems like the game changes every 3-4 weeks.  I initially underestimated (frankly did not understand) the social/tribal aspect of using a marquee nft as an avatar because i was not invested in an online presence.  a lot of people pay 6 or 7 figures for an nft avatar because it can give them a measure of online credibility and juice their 'follower' numbers just by possessing it.  Interesting phenomenon to be sure now that celebs are jumping on board.  i did not have jimmy fallon interviewing paris hilton to talk about their nft purchases on late night TV on my Bingo Card, but here we are.  

I tend to agree about the getting in early hype speech.  i have seen so many people try to compare this moment to few months after Al Gore invented the internet as how 'early' we are in crypto.  maybe we are early, but shit is moving 1000x faster than back then.  Not sure i get the smart contract gas price comment.  I mean, at the heart of it it's worth what someone will pay.  one of my wallets shows that ive spent ~9eth on gas, so yeah, it sucks, but it was worth it for me.   Even L2 chains can get bogged down with heavy use, but projects on those are pretty much free from gas so there are alternatives.  

 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 hour ago, JohnnyRage said:

The right above NFT's video? Started it.

And the vibe on the future question was more a general economic question of how close to failure are we rather than where what price point crypto stabilizes. But that is important too.

Bitcoin is a long term bet/investment. If you think government money printing is done, then you shouldn’t considerate it. If you think our debt levels and future financial obligations necessitate money printing, then it is worth a look. 
 

Bitcoin is nowhere near failure. It continues to survive and thrive after repeated tests. The latest one this year was the Chinese ban of mining. A large percentage of the miners moved and plugged in elsewhere and the hash rate has made new highs since then. 
 

[Captainant 27660]

20 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Bitcoin is a long term bet/investment. If you think government money printing is done, then you shouldn’t considerate it. If you think our debt levels and future financial obligations necessitate money printing, then it is worth a look. 
 

Bitcoin is nowhere near failure. It continues to survive and thrive after repeated tests. The latest one this year was the Chinese ban of mining. A large percentage of the miners moved and plugged in elsewhere and the hash rate has made new highs since then. 

The volume of wasted computational cycles and electricity to the almighty hash rate is crazy IMO. Don't get me wrong, I understand why it's necessary in a proof of work system, but holy fuck a single transaction is >99% wasted cycles across the entire network. 

I agree with you that BTC/crypto is nowhere near failure - it hasn't hit market saturation yet and there's enough new money coming in to cash out the early investors still. But it's got a shelf life that is directly correlated to the number of new users (and by connection, their funds) coming in.

And also: lmao arguing that BTC/crypto is "immune from government manipulation" the very next post after talking about how a governments actions directly affected the price of the crypto.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Captainant

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

 

I agree with you that BTC/crypto is nowhere near failure - it hasn't hit market saturation yet and there's enough new money coming in to cash out the early investors still. But it's got a shelf life that is directly correlated to the number of new users (and by connection, their funds) coming in.

 

This viewpoint assumes that everyone that buys has an exit in mind, but most Bitcoin investors view it as verifiably scarce asset that will function as store of value. It’s not all money in, money out. As more and more people globally decide to store value in it the price will continue to go up since supply cannot be increased in the face of increased demand. 
 

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

 

And also: lmao arguing that BTC/crypto is "immune from government manipulation" the very next post after talking about how a governments actions directly affected the price of the crypto.

 

2 hours ago, Bravo said:

asset independent of gov't manipulation like the printing of money or transfers

He meant that the supply is fixed and it is extremely for the government to seize or move if people are holding their own coins. 

[Captainant 27660]

1 minute ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

This viewpoint assumes that everyone that buys has an exit in mind, but most Bitcoin investors view it as verifiably scarce asset that will function as store of value. It’s not all money in, money out. As more and more people globally decide to store value in it the price will continue to go up since supply cannot be increased in the face of increased demand. 

(note, using BTC as shorthand for cryptos in general. I know it's somewhat limiting in the conversation, happy to get more specific if you'd prefer)

It's only a store of value because the currency is designed to be deflationary by definition. Each BTC becomes more valuable over time - you're disincentivized to actually use your BTC. I bought a video card with BTC to double my hashrate back in 2013. I would have been better off just HODLing and not using it as currency. The only reason its price goes up is because new money continues to come in and facilitate fractional exits for early adopters.

To frame it another way: if you don't plan to exit your BTC position, then it's not a store of value. If it's not a store of value, there's not any other functional use for it. It's strictly worse and less efficient than other record keeping methods, and there is no novel utility granted to it by being distributed.

Yeah, it's harder for the government to seize your BTC if you have absolutely ironclad opsec and have your extremely long seed phrase memorized. But let's be honest. More BTC has been lost/made unrecoverable from poor wallet management than from government seizure. 

On that note - for a very long time, the FBI was one of the largest HODLers of BTC thanks to the takedown of the Silk Road (RIP) and other similar marketplaces. It's just another asset that can be tracked, traced, stolen, seized, etc etc.

3 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Thats is exactly right. There will never be more BTC printed other than what is left to mine and that will eventually stop. Cannot be manipulated like that. 

What is the marginal benefit of this over current systems? There's a constant theme of "this cannot be manipulated by the government" to the rhetoric, but BTC isn't something that you can just go and spend for good and services like normal currency. The transaction fees are too high, take too long to become confirmed, and the energy cost per transaction is outrageous. By design.

I appreciate how neat the technology is from a nerd perspective - it's what drew me in when I was learning academically what distributed systems are - but tech and novel features aren't intrinsically valuable. There has to be an actual utility and improvement over the existing status quo - and the fact that there will only ever be just under 21 million BTC mined is more of a "so what?" than some groundbreaking functionality.

[Captainant 27660]

4 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Well, it is being used to buy things although nowhere near widespread adoption. There are better coins for that. It is more a store of value currently as I see it. Similar to gold is probably the best imperfect analogy. The BTC transaction fee is currently $1.57. It isnt super fast like other coins. That is true.

No doubt that it totally can be used to buy things - When I was mining, I bought video cards with BTC and even a Yeti mic that I eventually gave to immamac to help start the surly podcast lol. But I can tell you, those transactions fucking sucked ass. One of them took longer than anticipated to confirm - because there's no guarantee your block will get picked up - and eventually the merchant cancelled my order AND THEN my transaction confirmed. I was eventually able to get it all sorted out, but fucks sake I would've gotten it faster if I mailed them a fucking check. Not to mention that using a credit card or other typical payment methods have fees on the order of fractions of a cent or pennies - not dollars or tens of dollars (if you get unlucky with network traffic).

The other cryptos that do have faster transactions don't have the same acceptance that BTC/ETH do. And even so, damn near every other coin/token out there is indexed to BTC. For the foreseeable future and for no reason but dumb human convention and biases, bitcoin is going to continue to be the "reserve" coin of cryptos. It's the granddaddy and universally accepted crypto.

(Stealing from the much-referenced video's argument) NFT's and other altcoins are functionally just a mechanism to drive more usage and demand for BTC and ETH to pump in more new money to keep the line going up and fund exits for early adopters.

[Captainant 27660]

11 minutes ago, Bravo said:

BTC and ETH are the backbones although different. Projects are actually built on ETH smart contracts. ETH has competitors though like SOL where I am also invested. It's all highly interesting and we are still in the infancy of all this. Most these coins are scams or will crash/burn. There will be some victors though.

Bud, I'm making an effort here to have a meaningful conversation. The least you could to is actually interface with the points I'm making instead of sharing crypto facts and trivia.

I understand the difference between BTC and ETH. I've read the whitepapers and even made a little toy crypto implementation as a project back in undergrad.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

(note, using BTC as shorthand for cryptos in general. I know it's somewhat limiting in the conversation, happy to get more specific if you'd prefer)

.

I really try to focus on Bitcoin. It’s the real innovation that is likely to affect the most lives. While others may end up providing advances to society, bitcoin is what is most urgently needed. Most other cryptos are pretty scammy, including the two other historically big ones Eth and Xrp. I don’t begrudge people who are dabbling in those trying to make money. I do those that are big players that are scammers and hostile to bitcoin. 
 

 

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

 

It's only a store of value because the currency is designed to be deflationary by definition. Each BTC becomes more valuable over time - you're disincentivized to actually use your BTC. I bought a video card with BTC to double my hashrate back in 2013. I would have been better off just HODLing and not using it as currency. The only reason its price goes up is because new money continues to come in and facilitate fractional exits for early adopters.

To frame it another way: if you don't plan to exit your BTC position, then it's not a store of value. If it's not a store of value, there's not any other functional use for it. It's strictly worse and less efficient than other record keeping methods, and there is no novel utility granted to it by being distributed.

 

 

 
Here’s a good video from back when you spent your BTC that explains briefly the history of money and why bitcoin is a monetary technology breakthrough. 
 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/IAFKJVLNVQA
 

The first step in adoption is as a store of value. As more users hold it the value will stabilize somewhat and a medium of exchange will come next.

 

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

 

What is the marginal benefit of this over current systems? There's a constant theme of "this cannot be manipulated by the government" to the rhetoric, but BTC isn't something that you can just go and spend for good and services like normal currency. The transaction fees are too high, take too long to become confirmed, and the energy cost per transaction is outrageous. By design.

I appreciate how neat the technology is from a nerd perspective - it's what drew me in when I was learning academically what distributed systems are - but tech and novel features aren't intrinsically valuable. There has to be an actual utility and improvement over the existing status quo - and the fact that there will only ever be just under 21 million BTC mined is more of a "so what?" than some groundbreaking functionality.

Fees are much lower and you can send quicker on the Lightning network. It’s a newer innovation since you left the space. 
 

Also, there’s no energy cost per transaction. 
 

For your other points see the video I linked. 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10234]

6 hours ago, The Royal We said:

I watched the first half of the video above so far and will have to finish the rest later.  Dan seems to really like the smell of his own farts...but he does make a lot of valid points.  Where I'd disagree with him is that NFTs are only collectables/ponzi/great fool schemes. 

Similar to what gyro says above, there are a lot of other practical applications for NFTs that Dan doesn't discuss (or maybe I didn't get there yet).  I could agree that the NFT collectable/jpeg Ape side of NFTs are a fad that will fade away.  But as a way to efficiently pool funds very quickly and share ownership in something, I think they are here to stay.  DAOs are very interesting to me as well and I fail to see the downside in them at this point.

This here. The video really misses the point on NFTs and makes it seem like NFTs as most people know them now was the intent.  The "art" NFTs is like DOGE coin to crypto currencies... a side deal someone did just to do it that happened to grow.  NFT itself is not a currency nor is its main benefit in being one. Its main use is as a utility block chain technology and not an investment or speculative vehicle. It has huge potential to help streamline inefficient processes that involve multiple parties and/or a public ledger of such processes.

[Captainant 27660]

Y'all. A smart contract is a max of 24K of data. NFTs are shitty smart contracts, yes, but the point is that paying $3-300 to immutably store 24 kilobytes of data is a shitty deal lol. Like on a pure nuts and bolts level, is pretty shitty.

There is not some magically wonderful functionality granted to cryptocurrency just because it's a distributed and decentralized ledger. That just makes it inefficient. It's durability against MiTM attacks is trivial, since that isn't the main mechanism of fraud. A hacker doesn't hack into your bank account, he gets you to share your password with him. Or in cryptospeak, your wallet won't get emptied because someone cracked SHA256, but it certainly can because someone wrote a worm into a smart contract and dropped it into your wallet that wasn't well secured.

[The Royal We 3072]

11 hours ago, Captainant said:

but the point is that paying $3-300 to immutably store 24 kilobytes of data is a shitty deal lol. Like on a pure nuts and bolts level, is pretty shitty.

According to who? 

If I can pay $300 in gas to avoid weeks of providing meaningless docs so some clerk at the title company can check a box, pay ~$1,000+ for title insurance, and I never have to leave my office to complete the transaction in a few minutes?  Sign me the fuck up.  It's not a shitty deal just because you say it is lol.  There's definitely space to improve a number of different currently used "systems" using this tech.  I'm not sure why you can't see that or won't admit it.

It's far from perfect, but a lot of the socially accepted systems of ownership we are using currently are f'n clown shoes.

[Captainant 27660]

2 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

If I can pay $300 in gas to avoid weeks of providing meaningless docs so some clerk at the title company can check a box, pay ~$1,000+ for title insurance, and I never have to leave my office to complete the transaction in a few minutes?  Sign me the fuck up.  It's not a shitty deal just because you say it is lol.  There's definitely space to improve a number of different currently used "systems" using this tech.  I'm not sure why you can't see that or won't admit it.

Great. Let me know when that gets implemented. I like to talk about what exists and is actually roadmapped for development. Not just the sales pitch for a technology.

Also, even IF something is stored on the chain, it's still just a record. There isn't a mechanism to force people in the meatspace to adhere to it. Or to prevent or protect you from getting defrauded. There's an upside to it that I have acknowledged, but you seem to be handwaving away the actual technical and social barriers to accommodating it.

For instance: 24k of data isn't enough to store a fucking mortgage agreement lol. Assuming a perfect implementation with zero wastage or headers for the file and using ASCII characters, you've got 24,000 characters to hold and define an entire financial agreement. Nevermind that it'll probably be Unicode text which will eat even more of your text capacity. An agreement that is purely code with no takebacks is dangerous because you can't assume that you wont unintentionally include a vulnerability into it - and take it from someone who's been around the block - vulnerabilities WILL exist and WILL be exploited.

It's going to be another system supported by and reliant on 3rd party systems that aren't Blockchains. Just like with NFTs. When there's something better, I'll be thrilled to reconsider.

[wildcat09 29353]

1 hour ago, The Royal We said:

According to who? 

If I can pay $300 in gas to avoid weeks of providing meaningless docs so some clerk at the title company can check a box, pay ~$1,000+ for title insurance, and I never have to leave my office to complete the transaction in a few minutes?  Sign me the fuck up.  It's not a shitty deal just because you say it is lol.  There's definitely space to improve a number of different currently used "systems" using this tech.  I'm not sure why you can't see that or won't admit it.

It's far from perfect, but a lot of the socially accepted systems of ownership we are using currently are f'n clown shoes.

You know that you can buy a house right now without a title company involved, right?

 

[brakeman 28363]

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

The blockchain tech isn't the cure-all for any legal or tech issue. In fact it can add problems. But arguing this point is a strawman as I think you're hard pressed to find any legitimate crypto source saying crypto/blockchain will automatically leading to world peace.