Garry Kasparov: Crypto Means Freedom (coindesk.com) 111
CoinDesk: Garry Kasparov knows math. He knows logic, strategy and decision-making. Widely regarded as the greatest chess player in the history of mankind, the Russian grandmaster -- ranked No. 1 from 1984 to 2005 -- sees the world with a certain clarity. So it will delight many in the blockchain industry to learn that Kasparov, easily one of the smartest people alive, is now a champion of cryptocurrency. And it's partly because of math. Kasparov has spent his "retirement" opposing Russian President Vladimir Putin (a defiance that once got him tossed in jail), fighting for humanitarian causes and serving as chairman of the Human Rights Foundation (a nonprofit that strongly supports bitcoin as a freedom-giving tool). Now he views crypto as a way to check government power. Bitcoin offers protection against rampant government spending, says Kasparov, "because you're protected by math" -- by the logic of the code itself. Kasparov also sees merit in non-fungible tokens. [...]
CoinDesk: How'd you get into the crypto space?
Kasparov: If you followed my career and read about my early interest in computers and technology, you should not be surprised that I was very excited when I recognized the value of cryptocurrencies and NFTs. This goes all the way back to the '80s; I always tried to be at the cutting edge. It started with chess. But I also saw an opportunity to use computers and new tools to advance individual freedoms. It's my belief that technology should help people fight back against the power of the state.
How do cryptocurrencies fit into that?
Cryptocurrencies become an inseparable part of or progress, because the whole world is moving digital. And if the economy becomes more digital, so does the money. Another philosophical reason is that ... governments [have] unlimited opportunities to print money. And printing money is the most exquisite form of borrowing from us and from future generations. And I believe that cryptocurrencies -- with bitcoin as a standard -- offer a protection against this onslaught of the government, because you're protected by math. You're protected by the limited number of any code behind the respective currency. Cryptocurrencies, and all the products related to cryptocurrencies, are absolutely vital for the future development of our world.
CoinDesk: How'd you get into the crypto space?
Kasparov: If you followed my career and read about my early interest in computers and technology, you should not be surprised that I was very excited when I recognized the value of cryptocurrencies and NFTs. This goes all the way back to the '80s; I always tried to be at the cutting edge. It started with chess. But I also saw an opportunity to use computers and new tools to advance individual freedoms. It's my belief that technology should help people fight back against the power of the state.
How do cryptocurrencies fit into that?
Cryptocurrencies become an inseparable part of or progress, because the whole world is moving digital. And if the economy becomes more digital, so does the money. Another philosophical reason is that ... governments [have] unlimited opportunities to print money. And printing money is the most exquisite form of borrowing from us and from future generations. And I believe that cryptocurrencies -- with bitcoin as a standard -- offer a protection against this onslaught of the government, because you're protected by math. You're protected by the limited number of any code behind the respective currency. Cryptocurrencies, and all the products related to cryptocurrencies, are absolutely vital for the future development of our world.
In a completely unrelated story... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In a completely unrelated story... (Score:4, Insightful)
Smart people tend to become dumb (Score:3)
I mean he fails to see the basic logic problem about any "Proof of X" system, that is, if you can use X to gain more X, people with more X will gain more X than people with less X. Therefore the system will always converge towards centralism.... which we have seen with cryptocurrencies over and over again.
Re: (Score:1)
Look at the mess Linus Pauling made of his legacy with his medical quackery he started trying to sell in his later days. Simply because you are smart and well respected in one field, doesn't mean you've got a fucking clue in another. Some people don't get that.
Re: Smart people tend to become dumb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the mess Linus Pauling made of his legacy with his medical quackery he started trying to sell in his later days. Simply because you are smart and well respected in one field, doesn't mean you've got a fucking clue in another. Some people don't get that.
What do you have in mind, would you please elaborate?
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the mess Linus Pauling made of his legacy with his medical quackery he started trying to sell in his later days. Simply because you are smart and well respected in one field, doesn't mean you've got a fucking clue in another. Some people don't get that.
What do you have in mind, would you please elaborate?
I'm guessing he's talking about Pauling's belief in taking megadoses of vitamin C. Seems like all the experiments have shown that it doesn't really help. Looks like the body has a certain amount of vitamin C that it wants and it will just expel anything over that
Re: (Score:2)
OK, thanks.
Re:Smart people tend to become dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
In the article, Kasparov says that the problem is simple: governments can print more money whenever they want, which is a form of borrowing from us and from future generations. With crypto, the quantity is permanently limited, which protects us from that. Since "borrowing from us and from future generations" doesn't sound so horrible, I infer that Kasparov sees this as protection from market crashes, income inequality, or some other kind of tangible economic harm.
Well, as usual, history teaches us otherwise. Prior to the 1900, money that could not be printed was the norm. Currencies were either a commodity, such as gold, or were backed by such, thus limiting their supply to whatever could be mined. So it was still possible to increase the supply, but the ability to do so was greatly limited as compared with fiat money.
And...you know what? That didn't help. It didn't stop market collapses, nor poverty, nor runs on the bank. The conversion to fiat money was, in fact, motivated by an economic collapse that that system failed to prevent.
So, Kasparov is simply wrong. Limiting the supply of money does not protect us from the problems associated with fiat money. And even if it did, crypto doesn't limit the money supply because there is no limit to how many different crypto currencies we create. And there is no limit to how many NFTs we create. So the limit he is talking about is just a surface-level appearance of a limit that is only there if you don't think it through.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, one need only look at BTC exchange to USD to see this play out right now. Even in just the last 6 months, depending on where you got in/out, you might have a 123% gain or a 36% loss. That is insane. The volatility maps to ETH at about the same magnitude.
On the flip side, people are rightfully flipping out that the CPI moved by 6% in 2021. Essentially the USD lost 6% of 'real' value in a single year (of course, that year was marred by global supply shortages combined with a population re-engaging
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Gold is also not a shining example of stable value over time relative to actually acquiring things. This is why I mentioned the CPI, which as far as economic metrics go is a decent mapping of USD to 'real' value. I don't care about acquiring gold in and of itself, but do care about food, transportation, medical expenses, and such which the CPI measures.
Bitcoin wildly varies compared to gold in recent history, and gold has similarly highly varied relative to the USD (swaying in the last 6 months within abou
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Smart people tend to become dumb (Score:5, Informative)
As usual with economics you can interpret the same thing in a bunch of different ways, some of which sound better or worse to your target audience.
I suppose if you squint really hard printing money is sort of, in a very indirect way, like borrowing from the future. It's much more directly a tax on hoarded wealth, which is precisely why modern economies target a few percent per year inflation rate; a policy that has been spectacularly effective.
Because there's a few percent tax on hoarding IOUs, people are incentivized to use their wealth for something.
Re: (Score:1)
As usual with economics you can interpret the same thing in a bunch of different ways, some of which sound better or worse to your target audience.
I suppose if you squint really hard printing money is sort of, in a very indirect way, like borrowing from the future. It's much more directly a tax on hoarded wealth, which is precisely why modern economies target a few percent per year inflation rate; a policy that has been spectacularly effective.
Spectacularly effective, indeed; in driving people to invest into anything that's not taxed likewise. Precious metals, real estate, various bubbles. I mean my life is sooo much better for that. I'm sure people who want to buy a house for example are absolutely ecstatic that the house prices are elevated by demand from people who don't actually want to live in them, they're just using them as an inflation-safe store of value. Likewise, humanity is so much better off because of all the art which, again, is be
Re: (Score:2)
It is. Read up on mercantilism sometime if you want to see what life with money hoarding is like.
You mentioned residential real estate. That is also a dead asset, much like money. A well-managed economy discourages "investment" in such things. The last 20 years of real estate nuttery are exactly what happens when people figure they can stash value in unproductive assets and somehow come out better on the other end. The solution is the same as for money: a tax on u
Re: (Score:1)
It is. Read up on mercantilism sometime if you want to see what life with money hoarding is like.
ok, so you don't know the difference between a person being able to save some money without being taxed for it, and a state engaging in rampant protectionism. Please don't vote.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you didn't read up on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your conclusion that inflation does not target the rich and that it causes asset bubbles. Which is why I think it is immoral, the single largest transfer of wealth in the economy, forcing normal people into the stock market and rewarding those who indebt themselves by taking from those who saves. Then we subsidize the asset bubble via mortgage tax deductions, while decrying rent control for not being "free market".
I don't agree with your solution however. It only solves the asset bubble part.It
Re: (Score:2)
You live in a community where most people don't have enough to eat. There's a super rich dude who has a bazillion potatoes. So many he literally has a giant room full of them and swims through them Scrooge McDuck style.
The other villagers beg for some potatoes. "No way you freeloading losers. Giving you potatoes would just encourage your laziness."
Okay, they say, lend us some of your potatoes, we'll plant them, then we'll all have more, including you. "No way, I need all my potatoes. I'm not giving you any
Investing is not immoral (Score:2)
Investing isn't immoral. Quite the opposite. Directing resources to worthwhile investments is an incredible important function in the economy. It should be rewarded with increased gains. Not forced under threat of devaluement. There is a simple solution to this which existed when I was a kid; a savings account with interest that exceeds inflation rate. In Sweden our pension funds are now forced to take excessive risks to meet their promised minimal goals, to the point that they have had to change their gove
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that you can hoard wealth somewhere and have it not cost you anything is weird. It's never been true. If you had a load of gold or seashells or whatever you had to exert real effort to make sure it wasn't stolen. Usually that meant hiring guards, i.e. giving them a percentage of your wealth at regular intervals to protect the rest.
Interest in a savings account is an investment. It's giving someone else potatoes to go plant and make more potatoes. We're in an unprecedented period of low interest rat
I like potatoes! (Score:2)
I did not dislike the potatoes analogy, I thought it was a clever. Your point was that hoarding was bad for society. Once you got me to agree on that, you could point out how potatoes spoil over time and exclaim; "..and that's inflation for you!".
I am not sure why we are using these analogies. A savings account in a bank with rates above inflation, backed by deposit insurance by the federal government, is ideal for normal people who are saving up yet need access to the funds in short order.
But if the asset
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, as usual, history teaches us otherwise. Prior to the 1900, money that could not be printed was the norm.
Seems like a long history during which civilization advanced massively
Re: (Score:2)
In the article, Kasparov says that the problem is simple: governments can print more money whenever they want, which is a form of borrowing from us and from future generations. With crypto, the quantity is permanently limited, which protects us from that. Since "borrowing from us and from future generations" doesn't sound so horrible, I infer that Kasparov sees this as protection from market crashes, income inequality, or some other kind of tangible economic harm.
Well, as usual, history teaches us otherwise. Prior to the 1900, money that could not be printed was the norm. Currencies were either a commodity, such as gold, or were backed by such, thus limiting their supply to whatever could be mined. So it was still possible to increase the supply, but the ability to do so was greatly limited as compared with fiat money.
And...you know what? That didn't help. It didn't stop market collapses, nor poverty, nor runs on the bank. The conversion to fiat money was, in fact, motivated by an economic collapse that that system failed to prevent.
So, Kasparov is simply wrong. Limiting the supply of money does not protect us from the problems associated with fiat money. And even if it did, crypto doesn't limit the money supply because there is no limit to how many different crypto currencies we create. And there is no limit to how many NFTs we create. So the limit he is talking about is just a surface-level appearance of a limit that is only there if you don't think it through.
The conversion to fiat money was not "motivated by an economic collapse that the system failed to prevent". It was motivated by a desire to have complete control over money supply. Being able to generate more money to pay the bills without having to deal with the hassle of actually backing it up. Free money printing is the ultimate form of taxation: the government gets to spend more money without actually having to raise taxes. And as an added bonus, the inflation lowers the value of your external dollar be
Re: (Score:2)
The article you posted contradicts your claim and supports my claim. I stated that the conversion to fiat money was motivated by an economic collapse. This article you linked states "President Richard Nixon told the American people that the U.S. would no longer redeem dollars for gold as part of a plan that included wage and price freezes and an import surcharge in an attempt to save the economy."
But it doesn't matter. You are clearly an evangelist. Your eyes are full of diamonds. Nothing will convince
Re: (Score:2)
The article you posted contradicts your claim and supports my claim. I stated that the conversion to fiat money was motivated by an economic collapse. This article you linked states "President Richard Nixon told the American people that the U.S. would no longer redeem dollars for gold as part of a plan that included wage and price freezes and an import surcharge in an attempt to save the economy."
Read that very carefully again: "President Richard Nixon told the American people that..."
You are very quick to trust the words of one of the most morally deprived presidents the US has had. It was not about saving the economy. It was about the government getting free reign of monetary policy, spending and debt. Since you didn't get this, you probably also didn't get how this stunted wages, favored the asset-holding class, and disintegrated the manufacturing industry.
But you know what's not new? Schemes in which something that is otherwise valueless is sold on promises that the value will rise in the future
If you understood Bitcoin & Ethereum
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you don't realize how much you sound like a wild conspiracy theorist. The recession and inflation that the US was suffering before it went to fiat money is an historical fact. Your claim of a nefarious power-seize is just a fringe interpretation.
You blame wage stagnation, the continued prosperity of the ":asset-holding class" and the disintegration of the US manufacturing industry all on fiat money, without any evidence at all. Well, it should be outright obvious that wages involve contract negot
Re: (Score:2)
> The recession and inflation that the US was suffering before it went to fiat money is an historical fact.
Is it? The economy was booming after WW2 from the 50's to 80's. That was the golden generation that could have everything. Own houses, have kids and grow wealth. It started to go downhill for the middle-class from there, partially thanks to the money printer.
I'm aware it was not solely responsible. The world is not black and white, there are several factors at play, such as globalization, but it was
Re: Smart people tend to become dumb (Score:2)
That's very true, regardless of what arguments people here advance against crypto the fact is that most slashdotters now seem to have a really closed mind about it. Even if it's all wrong & bad, nothing stops them from coming up with whacker ideas to build on to it like they would do with anything - even downright stupid or scam stuff has some great discussions here. But not crypto. That suddenly gets them worried about power use and climate change! That never comes up by anyone when talking of all the
Re: (Score:2)
Parent demonstrates that something doesn't have to be true to be insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised somebody as capable as him (Score:2)
Governments can safely print money (and this part is key) so long as there is productivity in your economy to support it.
If you print more money than there is stuff (and technically work too) then yes, you've got a problem. You'll get hyper inflation because people flush with cash go out to buy things.
But if you don't print *enough* money you get the opposite: a deflationary spiral. Without enough money to go around businesses can't do business. They cut
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody explain its that simply because its wrong!
There is been near constant inflation since the 1970s at least measured against a meaningful basket good that middle class people actually buy. When you engage in QE or money printing whatever you call it you get inflation. Money supply expansion you are talking about his very very very limited in terms of the amount needed / the amount required to avoid deflation.
Factional reserve banking generally lends enough new money into existence there isn't a need to
Inflation is inevitable (Score:2)
As others have pointed out you can't run an economy as large as ours off gold. We came off the standard because there wasn't enough gold on the planet to represent the amount of economic output the human race was already doing then.
You need to seek new news outlets and get out of your bubble. Start with the fark politics tab that
Re: (Score:2)
And even if it did, crypto doesn't limit the money supply because there is no limit to how many different crypto currencies we create.
This really seems to be the big problem. A government can print as much money as it wants, but usually they don't, because most governments realize that printing too much money is a bad idea. With cryptocurrency, anyone can print as much money as they want, and lots of them do, because they're hoping to get rich.
Bitcoin was designed with the idea that it would be unique. If it were the only currency, then the currency supply would be limited. Instead we have new cryptocurrencies popping up every day, an
Re:Smart people tend to become dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean he fails to see the basic logic problem about any "Proof of X" system, that is, if you can use X to gain more X, people with more X will gain more X than people with less X. Therefore the system will always converge towards centralism.... which we have seen with cryptocurrencies over and over again.
I'm not sure they "become dumb" as much as they weren't as smart as they though to begin with.
Take this line from the announcement: So it will delight many in the blockchain industry to learn that Kasparov, easily one of the smartest people alive, is now a champion of cryptocurrency
He's unusually smart for sure, but "easily one of the smartest people alive"? His success in chess was due to a mixture of intelligence, memory, focus, a natural talent, and most importantly a ton of hard work.
The problem that successful people sometimes run into is they assume it all comes from intelligence and natural talent and they suddenly think they're automatically among the elite in any pursuit without actually putting in the hard work to become elite.
I'll agree that cryptocurrency offers some protection against central banks doing bad things (it also stops them doing good things). But the corruption and centralization of political power that plagues Russia will become even worse when it becomes easier for the political and business elite to secretly transfer money around.
The cure for corruption isn't secrecy, it's sunlight.
Re: (Score:3)
Take this line from the announcement: So it will delight many in the blockchain industry to learn that Kasparov, easily one of the smartest people alive, is now a champion of cryptocurrency.
He's unusually smart for sure, but "easily one of the smartest people alive"? His success in chess was due to a mixture of intelligence, memory, focus, a natural talent, and most importantly a ton of hard work.
Furthermore, while some websites note his IQ as being really high, like 190, many, *many* others note that it's 135. Granted, IQ tests and scores vary, so his actual score is in question -- and I'm dubious about that 190 figure -- but, as noted, being great a chess, or any one thing (or even several), doesn't necessarily translate in being smart at other things or everything, or super smart in general. Don't know why his opinion on cyrpto/blockchain would matter any more than others... Seems like a bit
Crypto means there is no protection. (Score:3, Interesting)
Crypto, by design, is untraceable. So if you lose it, there is no hope of recovering it. Further, in the case of gold and fiat currencies there is precedent that lets police try to find the thieves by doing forensic investigations.
The Crypto fanbois have totally poisoned the well and earned the eternal enmity of government by dissing fiat currencies, by allowing criminals to launder money, allowing criminal goods and services to be traded. All that might not matter, but they also committed the gravest sin in the eyes of any government, they condoned tax evasion, tax dodging.
So Grand Master, you are welcome to enjoy your freedom, but don't come running here like a baby when it gets stolen from you.
Re:Crypto means there is no protection. (Score:5, Insightful)
Crypto by design IS traceable. That's the entire point of using a public blockchain. The government would LOVE to get the whole population on crypto as long as it wasn't proof of work... because then they can print more money for less, and it now allows them to track every payment everywhere. Don't you see that? Once a wallet is connected to a person, ALL TRANSACTIONS PAST AND PRESENT are known to have been conducted by the owner of that wallet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the government is concerned if the individual behind a transaction is not identified, it is untraceable.
Re: (Score:3)
As the OP said, that's why governments love this stuff. Police and intelligence services are very good at connecting real identities to supposedly anonymous ones. So are companies like Facebook. And once you've put a name to a wallet number, you've got all the transactions. No need to go getting warrants and things for a bazillion different organizations.
The US government has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to recover cryptocurrency on short order when
Re: (Score:2)
They only need to confirm 1 transaction that identifies the person and connects them to the wallet, and that is it. This is fairly trivial in most cases. Remember all the transactions ever are there for all to see including who the crypto came from, and who it went to. Very hard to actually use the crypto in real life without giving yourself away if you actually want to use the cryptocurrency to buy something or transfer it into fiat.
As a good example in the youtube link below there is coffeezilla figuring
Re: (Score:2)
Crypto by design IS traceable. That's the entire point of using a public blockchain.
Two words: anonymous wallet
There are different meaning for "traceable". You're thinking of the individual transactions, but that all ends at the wallet -- which can be anonymous. Want really traceable? Get a bank/investment account. Can't get one of those w/o a Tax ID / SSN -- at least in the US. Obviously, even there traceability ends once funds are withdrawn as cash, but who got that cash is known. Not necessarily so with crypto.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a pizza with that crypto, what's going to stop the feds from walking in to the pizza joint with a warrant asking where it was delivered. You're living on borrowed time if you think an anonymous wallet is actually anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a pizza with that crypto, what's going to stop the feds from walking in to the pizza joint with a warrant asking where it was delivered. You're living on borrowed time if you think an anonymous wallet is actually anonymous.
I carry out all my pizzas so they better be there when I pick it up.
(I also always pay cash.)
Re: (Score:1)
If you buy a pizza with that crypto, what's going to stop the feds from walking in to the pizza joint with a warrant asking where it was delivered. You're living on borrowed time if you think an anonymous wallet is actually anonymous.
While if I paid with my VISA card I'd be as untraceable as smoke. Got it, you convinced me. VISA is so much better.
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalence... We're not talking about traditional payments being untraceable, we're talking about crypto payments NOT being untraceable. Example: I can buy pizza with cash. I can also buy pizza with Discover, and Mastercard. I can also buy pizza with my VISA debit card through a different bank. The point is: for all of those transactions, perhaps police can trace some of them, but it's a lot of work to connect ALL of them. These companies don't keep records forever, and a court ordered subpoena
Re: (Score:2)
So, how is it that so much crypto is being stolen and is un-re
Re: (Score:3)
Simply this: Blockchain has a single key. Your personal key is the ONLY thing securing your money in your wallet. By definition, if someone else takes and uses that key and empty's your wallet, all the transactions written AFTER that event must also be rolled back in order to roll back your transaction. But aside from the claim that someone stole your ape, what REAL proof do you have that someone stole it? NONE. The blockchain is supposed to be the final word on who owns what. So all these companies
Re: (Score:2)
*there are privacy coins like Monero but no one invests in them because relatively speaking their prices are stable which goes against the point of most crypto which is pure speculati
Re: (Score:2)
Crypto by design is totally traceable*. Every transaction is recorded in the block chain and the block chain is visible to everyone. Since every transaction is traceable it isn't very anonymous either, eventually you have to do a transaction with someone else at which point your previous transactions are linked back to you.
As I noted and explained above [slashdot.org], two words: anonymous wallet
Re: (Score:2)
> Crypto, by design, is untraceable.
This is not true. Some crypto, such as Monero, is by design untraceable. In privacy oriented communities it is taken as a big deal requiring action (up to and including hard forks) should someone find a way to successfully trace transactions.
Meanwhile, in ethereum, bitcoin, litecoin, etc, none of that is true- the blockchain is open and transparent. Monero is the largest privacy coin, and is like one two hundredth the market cap of bitcoin (the largest singular one,
Re: (Score:2)
The Crypto fanbois have totally poisoned the well and earned the eternal enmity of government by dissing fiat currencies, by allowing criminals to launder money, allowing criminal goods and services to be traded. All that might not matter, but they also committed the gravest sin in the eyes of any government, they condoned tax evasion, tax dodging.
Allowing criminal activity... as if criminal activity did not occur before? Money laundering, smuggling, and tax evasion have existed for a long time, done using fiat cash. And those activities have been enabled by some of the largest banks (just search "tax evasion fine" + any major bank). If such activities were "the gravest sin", then the government would have ceased issuing fiat cash and revoked bank charters by now.
Re: (Score:2)
All these crimes happened before, and banks and brokerages cooperate with the government with tax payer id, report large transactions etc. If such clear identification of tax payer/tax dodger and transactions are not made available to the government, it would regard crypto as a aiders and abettors of tax evasion.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL, WUT? (Score:2)
Crypto, by design, is untraceable.
crypto, BY DESIGN, is 100% traceable via blockchain. The fact you dont understand the cornerstone tech, just shut up.
Is Kasparov smarter than Isaac Newton? (Score:5, Interesting)
Crypto allows for freedom but so what? (Score:2)
People won't take advantage of it, because people are idiots.
Just look at the sheer number of people with vaccine phobia and who look to ridiculous alternative treatments instead, who won't even wear a mask. The majority of this worlds population are much closer to being flat earthers than they are to understanding what a spike protein is or does.
Crypto doesn't allow for any more freedom than the people smart enough to need and want it already have. If crypto gets dumbed down enough that anyone can use it,
NFTs are a fiat currency (Score:3)
The problem with NFTs is that they are literally a fiat currency. You're not even buying the work in question; you're registering yourself as the owner of a link to the work in question, which can be broken at the whim of the creator.
Even though the US government does manipulate the value of fiat currency, they cannot / will not with a few keystrokes reduce the value of a dollar to zero. There's even a physical limit (large, but not infinite) to the amount of physical dollars that can be printed. The
Printing BitCoin (Score:2)
No it doesn't (Score:3)
And this is before we talk about how crypto currencies are extremely vulnerable to simple, well understood currency and securities manipulation tactics. There is a reason we have a gov't regulate the financial system. If you don't regulate the markets go to hell in a handbasket, but if you *do* regulate you lose all the supposed advantages crypto has vis-a-vis freedom while keeping the huge costs.
My guess is this guy is just looking to cash in on some fame. Like those Youtubers who run borderline (or not so borderline) pyramid schemes. Either that or being good at chess doesn't translate to being good at math and finance.
People selling Dunning-Kruger (Score:1)
Being good at one thing, particularly something with a narrow, highly specialized focus, has zero bearing on broader ability.
Bad solution to money printing (Score:4, Insightful)
Kasparov's main argument for crypto is that it has a number of coins limited by the algorithm, and therefore solves the problem of governments printing money uncontrollably.
That's a problematic argument at two levels:
Firstly, a deflationary coin is as problematic as an inflationary one. What's needed is a stable coin, and a limited number of coins won't solve this.
Secondly, crypto isn't limited to a specific number of coins. Sure, each coin may be limited, but every day new coins are created, precisely because what the vast majority of people in the crypto world want is more money. When the returns on mining of a certain coin grow smaller, how would it survive?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Kasparov's main argument for crypto is that it has a number of coins limited by the algorithm, and therefore solves the problem of governments printing money uncontrollably.
That's a problematic argument at two levels:
Firstly, a deflationary coin is as problematic as an inflationary one.
No, it's not problematic. And whether you like it or not, deflationary financial instruments already exist and are well. Real estate, precious metals, art as investment, whatever. One more deflationary financial instrument isn't going to break the world, and you know it. In addition, when people who seek to escape the inflation tax invest in bitcoin instead of real estate this has the added benefit of not snatching housing away from people who, you know, want to actually live in them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's problematic as money. A deflationary financial instrument is an inventment, not something people want to use to pay for things. There's the additional problem that for crypto the value is purely a bubble. Unlike housing or metals, the majority of crypto coins have no actual use apart from making money via mining. When rewards for mining will drop considerably, likely so will the coin. So it's just a speculative market. It's unlikely to lead to any stability.
Re: (Score:1)
It's problematic as money. A deflationary financial instrument is an inventment, not something people want to use to pay for things. There's the additional problem that for crypto the value is purely a bubble. Unlike housing or metals, the majority of crypto coins have no actual use apart from making money via mining. When rewards for mining will drop considerably, likely so will the coin. So it's just a speculative market. It's unlikely to lead to any stability.
Unlike metals? What's the intrinsic value of gold? You can make pretty shinies out of it. That is to say its intrinsic value is exactly the same as that of tombac, or other gold lookalike alloys. And the price of tombac is what, 1% that of gold? So, 99% of gold's value is "speculation bubble". Think that 1% makes so much difference?
Every chess tournament lately (Score:3)
Just because you're good at chess (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Freedom to be majorly ripped off
Re: (Score:1)
Freedom to be majorly ripped off
Let me share with you the one weird trick that makes you completely immune to any bitcoin scams, ripoffs or any other forms of Bitcoin-related financial risk. Don't believe me? Literally billions of people on this planet have tried it, and can confirm it works! Just ask your aunt! Someone must hate it, as with all weird tricks, not really sure who, but whatever! Ready?
Step 1: Do not in any way interact with Bitcoin.
Step 2: No, actually, there's no step two, it's THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.
wow (Score:2)
"Freedom" (Score:2)
The elite talking about something "revolutionary" to pump it up before they dump it, under the guise of "freedom". How adorable.
I'll keep passing, but thanks for your usual entertaining B.S., you adorable elites!
The reality of it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*Cough* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] *Cough*
Although, the lighting network is a pretty elaborate scheme that has some pretty serious drawbacks, so people will probably continue to just use banks... I mean exchanges.
This makes total sense (Score:2)
Since chessmasters make really good financial advisors. But yes, in russia, owning crypto is probably way better than the alternatives.
Russia is different than the US. (Score:2)
If I lived in Russia, I would be more likely to buy Crypto. Their government assassinates political opponents, lies far more than the US (the US does lie, but not about stupid crap that Putin lies about), and in general is not trustworthy.
Putin could be killed, which would totally disrupt the entire Russian government, while if Biden was killed, Harris would take over with little to no change.
Basically, if my government was as bad as Russia is, I would buy Crypto. But my great grandparents fled Soviet Rus
Cryptocurrency mostly harms human rights (Score:2)
Cryptocurrency has been a boon to authoritarian regimes the world over through sanctions evasion and state-backed ransomware operations. On the other hand, the little people who might benefit in human rights from being able to transfer money behind their government's backs (Russian opposition, Uighurs etc ) don't tend to have the freedom to exchange internet funny monies or even freely access the Internet in the first place - ultra-privileged American cryptobros probably assumed that everyone has access to
Printing fiat does not borrow against future outpu (Score:2)
Taking on sovereign debt denominated on a foreign currency borrows against the future economic output of a nation. Printing fiat doesn't, it's a form of redistribution from fixed interest creditors to debtors and whoever the government ends up giving the printed money to.
This should be obvious to anyone who didn't sacrifice common sense to learn more chess openings.
Protected by mathematics? (Score:2)
Uh, I hate to break this .. but there is no proof that someone will not find a way to generate hash collisions of RIPEMD-160 or sha256. We know that previous hash function flaws have been discovered after decades. Mathematics does not care about protecting your crypto wallet.
Platitudes (Score:3)
Powerful, genius, alpha, sex god-emperor Kasparov champions the awesome, innovative, dynamic, freedom, America world of crypto.
One Prob With Crypto Coins Nobody Talks About (Score:2)
Que the, "That could never happen." retorts....
Pawn gets Rooked (Score:1)
"Crypto" (Score:2)
ALICE: Crypto means FREEDOM!
BOB: YES! Here's to cryptography!
ALICE: Here's to cryptocurrency!
BOB: Wait, what?
ALICE: What?
Maybe he should stick to things he knows (Score:2)
Like Chess or Math. It is pretty obvious he does not know anything about financial systems and bout scams.
No, Kasparov isn't that smart (Score:2)
Chess skill has little, if nothing to do with general intelligence. It is a common and widespread myth. It really relies on practice and memorization. Sure, the calculation part is a skill, but it is a very narrow one. There are plenty of IMs and GMs that barely made it through college (or never made it at all). In fact, many of have little or no interests or skills outside chess, given the massive demands it makes in terms of time.
Kasparov is not one of the smartest people in the world (that's really not a
Weaknesses? (Score:2)
Yep, there is still dumb luck. There is a high enough entropy that dumb luck shouldn't work, but cracking A SINGLE specific key is extremely unlikely... Using well known weak random number generators to generate large numbers of likely keys from a given era and testing them against public keys used for initial transactions during that Era could lead to
What is his financial situation? (Score:2)
Nonsense (Score:1)