Bitcoin 'Rarely' Used for Legal Transactions, on 'Road To Irrelevance', Say ECBank Officials (techcrunch.com) 276
European Central Bank officials argued on Wednesday that bitcoin is "rarely used for legal transactions," is fuelled by speculation and the recent erosion in its value indicates that it is on the "road to irrelevance," in a series of stringent criticism (bereft of strong data points) of the cryptocurrency industry as they urged regulators to not lend legitimacy to digital tokens in the name of innovation. From a report: The value of bitcoin recently finding stability at around $20,000 was "an artificially induced last gasp before the road to irrelevance â" and this was already foreseeable before FTX went bust and sent the bitcoin price to well down below $16,000," wrote Ulrich Bindseil and Jurgen Schaaf on ECB's blog.
The central bankers argue that bitcoin's conceptual design and "technological shortcomings" make it "questionable" as a means of payment. "Real bitcoin transactions are cumbersome, slow and expensive. Bitcoin has never been used to any significant extent for legal real-world transactions," they wrote. Bitcoin also "does not generate cash flow (like real estate) or dividends (like equities), cannot be used productively (like commodities) or provide social benefits (like gold). The market valuation of bitcoin is therefore based purely on speculation," they wrote.
The central bankers argue that bitcoin's conceptual design and "technological shortcomings" make it "questionable" as a means of payment. "Real bitcoin transactions are cumbersome, slow and expensive. Bitcoin has never been used to any significant extent for legal real-world transactions," they wrote. Bitcoin also "does not generate cash flow (like real estate) or dividends (like equities), cannot be used productively (like commodities) or provide social benefits (like gold). The market valuation of bitcoin is therefore based purely on speculation," they wrote.
Well at least someone gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time governments wake up to this colossal waste of time and resources. Satoshi Nakamoto will go down in history as the man who did the most damage to economic and environmental policy right at a time where we needed sanity from both.
For all the things people can criticise as being objectively bad inventions, at least many of them do have a practical purpose, unlike crypto currency.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, pretty much. The only purpose of Bitcoin is money laundering and speculation. It does not generate any value, but it destroys value. All every clear. The comment "(bereft of strong data points)" just shows lack of understanding or bias on the part of whoever wrote it. The "strong data points" are out in the open for everybody top see that cares to look.
Re: (Score:2)
Since very early on, BTC value has always been tied to fiat currency. Nobody was buying BTC to use it to spend as BTC .. every retailer I've known has converted it to USD or whatever as soon as it was received.
e.g. there is no ecosystem, just an additional layer
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd argue that Thomas Midgley Jr. did more damage than Satoshi Nakamoto.
Midgley invented leaded petrol and CFCs.
Re: (Score:2)
Norman Borlaug championed the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that are in part* responsible for destruction of croplands, turning them into an inert dirt medium devoid of micronutrients only suitable for outdoor hydroponics using more synthetics.
* The other part is the farmers using them
Re: (Score:3)
> Midgley invented leaded petrol and CFCs.
Both leaded gasoline and CFCs had practical purposes, though, and solved problems of their day.
Tetraethyl lead boosted octane which allowed fro more efficiency and better performance decades before better engine design and manufacturing, and better fuel refining, would make those gains possible without it. Sure, turns out it was incredibly poisonous to have all that lead in the air, but it was still invented for a practical reason.
CFCs have low toxicity and low f
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:5, Funny)
Still angry you didn't find someone else who likes tulips as much as you do?
Re: (Score:3)
I can't help but think that this discussion would have been moderated somewhat differently 18 months ago, back when Bitcoin was sitting around $50,000.
Time makes you wiser... or more bitter. Maybe both.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
Fiat currency works, has strong ties to real value (in fact basically all of the world economy), can be transferred nearly instantaneously and nearly for free, is accepted basically everywhere and typically also has a quasi-anonymous form known as "cash". Next dumb question?
Re: (Score:2)
Fiat currency works
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
It certainly works for the government to continue debasing the currency by printing ever more money, slashing both your income and money savings. The best way to deal with Fiat is to spend it at soon as possible, leading to our over-consumerist capitalist throwaway society, or to invest it into assets.
But assets are risky. A house can be struck by natural disasters and needs maintenance. Items can be stolen or decay over time. Bitcoin is indestructible and can be transferre
re: fiat currency (Score:2)
Well, as an American citizen at least? I'd say fiat currency is horribly defective and broken. It only works because something has to, and we're forced to keep paying to keep the broken currency in active use.
It's backed by nothing tangible, ever since we got off the "gold standard", and increasingly? Government isn't even bothering to print physical cash equivalent to what they're saying exists on balance sheets.
Now, the government and big banks are "experimenting" with the idea of a digital cash card. If
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:4, Insightful)
"Fiat Currency works at the barrel of a gun. You have no choice but to accept it. "
Did you intend that as an argument against it?
While true, it is true. Fiat has a monopoly on the force that is used to back it. Crypto, without such a force, does not have that backing. And crypto is very unlikely to ever get it.
You might be upset that fiat has that monopoly by proxy, but you can be upset all you want, it's not going to change anything.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fiat Currency works at the barrel of a gun. You have no choice but to accept it. "....Force, does not have that backing. And crypto is very unlikely to ever get it.....
It's not force that makes fiat-currencies work. It's commonality of interest. We're both interested in owning more Dollars, Pounds, Marks, etc. You might be interested in owning more crypto, but I am not. If you want me to come over to your home and wash your car, mow your lawn, paint your house, build you a new patio deck, etc. you will have to pay me in dollars. I won't do it for Bitcoin or any other crypto-currency. Not because Uncle Sam has a gun pointed at my head, but because I need dollars in order to buy paint, lumber, etc. and my suppliers don't accept crypto as a payment. I need dollars to pay my employees, and I need dollars to pay business taxes to the government. Even if I wanted to accept your crypto-currency as a payment for my goods and services, I'd still have to convert them to dollars to cover all of my business expenses, which results in even more expense and uncertainty on my part. There is no benefit for my business to accept crypto as a payment for a real-world good or service. That IMHO is the problem with crypto currencies and why they won't ever be replacing fiat currencies in the real-world economy. I'm not an economist, but think crypto currencies and their backers have fallen victim to circular group-thinking and no longer understand the difference between a speculative economy and a real-world economy or how real-world economies function.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:4, Informative)
The point of national currencies was to have a common medium of exchange. At some points in US history there were company "scrip" you might be paid in, and you could only spend it at a company store, which was fundamentaly broken. With a national currency you could take it with you and move to a different location and it could still be used, you didn't have to haggle with the grocery store about whether your coin or piece of paper was worth taking or not.
This advicacy for crypto currencies by argument that national currencies (aka "fiat") are evil and devalued and worthless is not based on actual economics. You won't find a professional economist pushing for these ideas, instead it's armchair economy hobbyists with political agendas or conspiracy theories. Anyone thinking we were better off fincially in the US if we still had the gold standard is clearly ignorant of the massive problems the gold standard had.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:5, Informative)
It's not force that makes fiat-currencies work. It's commonality of interest. We're both interested in owning more Dollars, Pounds, Marks, etc.
No we're not. We are interested in owning physical things of value and storing value in something that can be used to trade for physical things of value...
You can't run a modern economy on a barter system. I build you a patio, you pay me with a Rolex Watch. I love collecting Rolex watches, so I have an interest in owning one. But I still have to pay my employees and suppliers, so I trade the Rolex for 10 live cows. I give each of my employees a live cow, they don't want cattle, but that's their problem, maybe they can trade the milk for feed, and somehow pay rent? I have 5 cows slaughtered, and pay my lumber supplier in beef. My lumber supplier has no use for beef, so barters the beef with a restaurant for cooked meals, but that doesn't help them buy more lumber, so they open a restaurant to trade the cooked meals for something else. It doesn't work. Sorry. I need to concentrate on building things, not facilitating barter between disparate parties. That's why we have currencies in the first place, so we can have some form of common- value- denominator. Imagine if every industrial producer had to use a barter system? Supply chains would simply collapse.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:3)
Nobody is forced to accept currency for most everyday stuff. The only force is for debt. Currency is legal tender for all debts. That's a good thing. It keeps people from being indebted to some arbitrary form of payment which may make it difficult to pay off (ie: debt slavery/servitude)
Aside from that, there's no forced obligation to accept fiat currency. If you go to the grocery store and buy a box of cereal, there is no debt. They're perfectly free to deny you the sale if you don't pay in the arbitrary pa
Re: (Score:3)
I would want a substantial premium over GBP/EUR/USD to cover the risks.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, so instead we should regress to where a company can pay you in Company Coin, which can only be used at Company stores, where the Company can set whatever price they like for goods and services, and attach any fees they like. Oh, and your Company Coin can go from being useable for things to absolutely worthless overnight based on bad decisions made by some dipshit executive in a different Company (see: FTX).
Because that's what you're asking for when you don't want fiat currency "working at the barrel of a gun" which most people call "laws and regulations".
Re: (Score:2)
Now in a place like Russia where you have an actual dictatorship I think you have a point. Because yo
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
and the younger generation is much better educated and is gradually fixing their problems.
I really see no evidence of this. They were the first to embrace BTC to begin with. When crypto dies they will probably insist on YouTube coins or something. Or a currency based on how many watermelons they can drop from scaffolding next to their house. Or how many consecutive farts they can squeeze out on camera while humming Lady Gaga's 'Paparazzi' song. If you put you faith in Gen Z you might as well take a triple dose of fentanyl, drink a pint of vodka, and go swimming in a pool. The only thing they s
Re: (Score:3)
depends what you're trying to launder
Re: (Score:2)
Every government forbids forgery, and thus controls the currency "gunpoint". Forgery is too problematic without such force, even cryptocurrency which might be used claimed fraudulently or with stolen tokens.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:4, Informative)
No, they used the term correctly. https://www.dictionary.com/bro... [dictionary.com]
noun, plural democracies.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Maybe you think it's still the 19th century or whatever and are using the an old definition?
Re: (Score:3)
No I am correct. Both those definitions perfectly describe our governing system. Right there in your own post "typically through elected representatives" being the key part here.
All you've shown with your post is that the definition of a Republic completely overlaps with Democracy but that isnt true the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems reductionist, I know, but let's evaluate.
Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."
Ah, yes. The US is definitely that.
Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."
Ah, yes. The US is definitely that.
skam240 claimed that referring to the US as a democracy is correct. And they are correct- it is correct. You can also refer to it as a republic if you like.
But you can not say it is not a democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I find this is yet another instance of people not understanding implication or subset-relation. These people apparently can only think in correlations and do not understand what an implication is at all and that it is not symmetrical. Hence they do see that Democracy and Republic are not the same (which is correct), but the idea that "republic" implies "democracy" is too complicated for them as it cannot be expressed as a correlation.
Hmm. Doing correlation with artificial neural networks is very sim
Re: (Score:3)
Where's the representation?
Oh c'mon now, you know better than that. Our system isnt at all perfect (you lay out many of its problems in your own post and I agree with every one of them) but at the end of the day every person in congress ends up there because they received more votes than anyone else in their clearly defined district.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:2)
You live with your head up your ass, moron.
Re: (Score:3)
You live in a democratically elected representative republic.
This is the kind of argument I got into when I was in 8th grade.
"An argument about the world is interesting. An argument about a word is not."
Re: (Score:3)
Republic and Democracy describe two different things. The US is both. The UK is a democracy, but not a republic (it's a constitutional monarchy), and Russia is a republic, but not a democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
There are nuanced differences between the forms of government...and those differences are important.
Indeed there are. But "democracy" and "republic" are orthogonal concepts.
You cannot say any thing is one but not the other as a matter of literary rule, because there is no connection between them.
Something can be a democracy and a republic. Or it can be a democracy and not a republic. Or it can be a republic and not a democracy.
They are orthogonal.
Hell, I wish I had learned more from civics....I'm still learning.
Excellent. Then you can be saved from making this mistake in the future.
But apparently most younger folks than I have had even less than I have, if they had any civics education at all.
I can't speak to age, but the definitions are quite clear.
You are the one misusing t
Re: (Score:2)
Fiat Currency works at the barrel of a gun. You have no choice but to accept it. I can make ANYTHING work under those circumstances.
No you can't. Try banning the sale of alcohol [wikipedia.org] and see how that goes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fiat Currency works at the barrel of a gun. You have no choice but to accept it. I can make ANYTHING work under those circumstances.
What you say is true, but also not an argument in favor of bitcoin, which is not backed up even by guns.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:4, Informative)
Fiat currency works
Fiat Currency works at the barrel of a gun. You have no choice but to accept it. I can make ANYTHING work under those circumstances.
Oh please. We have "fiat currency" because of the instability of specialty currencies. I suggest you reason Cloak of Anarchy by Larry Niven to start. Libertarianism is fine for Republicans who don't want to be Republicans when the party does something blindingly stupid and/or embarrassing. Not that it's special, Democratic Party members do the same thing when their party is dumb. However it does not work, and will never work. Were we somehow magically able to make Libertarianism work, we'd be able to make Communism work. Let's be grown ups here:
Fiat currency works because people were sick and tired of currency they had being unsupported. Governments used to be very lackadaisical about who issued currency notes. Various banks used to issue "notes" that people would use to cover bills. In fact it was one of the things that lords (royalty in general) in feudal systems would use to keep people subjugated, or company stores (scrip) would use to keep employees beholden.
At some point enough people got sick enough of not being able to use money, and government issued fiat currency was born.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep, and again you're entirely correct for the most part, but that's dangerously close to a no true Scotsman fallacy, which is what I was getting at. Nailing down exactly what a libertarian is and isn't, or what the cutoff is for beliefs where it stops being libertarian, is pretty much impossible. One persons liberty is another persons fascism and trying to figure out what is and isn't true libertarianism is a losing battle.
And, likewise, deciding at what level "no one is hurting anyone else" is not a single black and white answer either. Some of it is easy - government should be out of marriage entirely, for example, because two (or more?) people marrying each other in no way impacts anyone else. Or.. does it? Should the government be able to constrain marriage ages? Especially in the context of religious "freedom?" Could a religious person claim that seeing or interacting with gay couples out and about be harmful to them? Or on the flipside - Could LGBTQ+ folks say evangelical people preaching at them is harmful? What's the level of burden of proof for "harm" and who gets to decide what harm is? As for seat belts - there are plenty of situations beyond just accidents that hurt the person not wearing them where they can be important. For example, needing to make evasive maneuvers to avoid an accident and sliding around in your seat, or what would have been a hard braking and seat belt lockup to avoid a pedestrian turns into a driver sliding into the steering column/windshield and hitting the pedestrian.
Plenty more examples where even the general idea what harms and doesn't harm isn't perfectly clear and people would have different ideas about it. Everybody has their own personal views and positions, which is why it's impossible to really settle on a remotely concise thing.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you two:
1. Literally everyone accepts fiat currency in exchange for goods and services. Only crypto-bros and the deluded "web3" set accept crypto, and make you pay transaction fees for the pleasure. I mean, I love paying an extra 50% for a $3 coffee in gas fees, don't you?
2 .Governments back fiat currency made up out of thin air with legal regulations and laws, so it's far more stable than "currency" made up out of thin air and backed by frauds like SBF circle-jerking each other with their indiv
Re: (Score:2)
There are businesses that do not accept flat currency in order to avoid law enforcement, especially taxes, laws against bribery, ransoms, and laws forbidding trafficking in narcotics, slaves, and stolen goods. Those transactions have been tracked, and successfully prosecuted, at numerous crypto exchanges. There don't seem to be any long-term stable exchanges.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid that UN staff confirm that cryptocurrency is a growing factor in the human slave trade.
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/p... [abc.net.au]
Re: (Score:3)
Nice trolling. Write something beautiful about fiat currency now.
Sure!
Fiat currency is beautiful. It's a fantastically clean and well-designed solution. It's marvelous properties include:
1. Real value. Fiat currency is 100% backed by actual value, unlike precious metals, whose value is mostly speculative, or cryptocurrencies, which have zero real value. Specifically (barring some foolish -- and so far minor -- government experiments which should stop) fiat currencies are created by lending and destroyed by repayment. This means that every dollar (or whatever) comes
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but I'd never pay that much for pizza.
Re: Well at least someone gets it (Score:4, Insightful)
>>the ideology is noble
What exactly is noble about undercutting governments ability to raise money from taxation to provide security and services for their citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you make a normal payment, you get a provisional amount in your bank account which may take between 7 and 90 days to settle. In the mean time, you're basically working off credit extended to you by the bank. If anyone involved in the chain of transactions goes bankrupt or reverts the transaction, you've become immediately liable for the difference and the bank will start charging you interest and fees.
And yes, if somehow you've become suspected of being involved with that Afghani warlord, or hell, prot
Re: (Score:2)
BitCoin is a lot faster and guaranteed, no fees, no government.
As users of illegal transactions have discovered, though the FBI is finding that they now know how to track transactions. The rest of us watch Bitcoin's value change drastically in ups and downs over short periods of time and don't really want to put their savings in such a "currency". Doing whatever you want doesn't work well. Doing whatever you want within certain boundaries does.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin has fees on every transaction. And no government isn't a good thing. The ability to roll back transactions in the case of fraud, theft, etc at a minimum is a good thing. As for a lot faster- it can take hours for a Bitcoin transaction to settle. How long it takes depends on how much you pay in fees. Cash, credit cards, etc are far faster. Bitcoin loses on all those fronts, as do all other cryptocurrencies.
Re:Well at least someone gets it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No fees? Ever actually tried to move crypto from one wallet to another? Fees. Strangely, I can move money around all I like between different banks and different accounts with no fees at all.
And with crypto, I don't even need to be involved with an Afghani warlord to have my shit frozen indefinitely. All it takes is for some crypto fraudster to get rugpulled and as the dominos fall, thousands of accounts lose their ability to do anything with their crypto for no reason that has anything to do with the a
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously outside of far right morons lumping the EU and Canada in with China as "dictatorships".
Of course (as already pointed out to you by others) your understanding of that word is as thorough as your understanding of modern banking but that's par for the course for those on political extremes.
Stringent? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the tech world is enamoured with crypto. And much like many other areas, they are protecting their own.
Slashdot is "their own", it's owned by Cryptocurrency shills who put their name into the spam filter to prevent linking their site.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the tech world is enamoured with crypto.
Not all of it. Not even nearly. It is just a bunch of loudmouths that think they can separate the others from their money by generating enough fear of missing out. I would say that overall these assholes failed.
On a side-note, I still remember fondly when a local crypto-"currency" startup asked us for a complex code and system security review and wanted it in 3 weeks, with the system not even being finished for another 4 weeks or so. That was one of the rare instances were my boss let me give the customer t
But but but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Blockchain...
DeFi...
Immaculate conception...
It's pretty clear Binance (Score:4, Insightful)
I say dangerous because imagine the mess they'd cause if they created 2008 style mortgaged backed securities backed by pretend money instead of houses. That was pretty clearly the goal from day 1. Can you imagine the size of that market crash? What it would do to your job? It'd make the Great Depression look like the
We've let the 1% have too much money. They've got more than they can safely invest. So they're doing crazy things with it. They are completely untouchable (so long as they don't rip off their peers like Madoff and Holmes did). They know no fear, so they take insane risks and they know we'll bail them out because if we don't the entire global economy collapses. We let them hold us hostage.
I think we've become kind of cowardly of late. My Great Grandpa wouldn't put up with this shit. But we just suck it down and say "please sir, can I have another?"
Re:It's pretty clear Binance (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason for these bubbles is the same, and they also have the same solution.
Whether it's the real estate bubble or some other bullshit "money parking garage" spiel: Nothing to invest in. There's plenty of money on the supply side. I am sitting on some money myself. Far from billions, mind you, but certainly something that would I want to see invested into something sensible. Some enterprise. I'd love to see that money back a business to produce and sell some goods and services to people.
Problem: People need to have money to buy goods and services. Without money, they don't buy. Without customers, that business can't sell. Without a business, nothing I could invest in.
And I myself can only consume so much. I don't need a spare Ferrari and a second pool. We need money on the demand side, we need money in people who want to consume. We need consumers to do their job in the market: Buy my crap and consume it!
But they need money for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason why the Great Depression was as 'civilized' as it was, was primarily because the majority of the population still clung to religion and its implied code of conduct.
Civilized for white people [loc.gov] and their white Jesus religion, maybe.
Is anyone still "mining" bitcoin? (Score:2)
I get that you could make money mining bitcoin when it was selling for $30,000+. But at the current prices is there any configuration for mining that is profitable? Can you even make money doing bitcoin transactions?
Maybe I missed something, but I thought that mining got "harder" over time, yet the profitability at $16,000 per coin has to be less.
ECB and the social benefits of QE (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok so printing money for your banking friends and calling it quantitative easing is social good. Thanks for creating a game the general population can not win. Not a big fan of bitcoin energy usage. But hey, can't blame people form looking for a way out of your system. Please spare me of you social good righteousness.
Working on Cardano payment system integration at the moment. Seems very useful and works fast. Even better with coming upgrades. But I guess these gentlemen know this. Buggy whip manufacturers grasping there last chance to kick an industry when it is down.
Well, it's an excessively honest article (Score:4, Insightful)
Bitcoin is indeed now unsuitable for ad hoc payment processing. In a world where we expect payments to be confirmed in seconds, Bitcoin cannot meet that standard. There are plenty of other use cases for a relatively slow processing platform, and they are all being served adequately, and these solutions, where not already doing so, are moving to some form of blockchain for tracking and confirmation. Blockchain is very useful. Bitcoin is an excellent implementation of it. But as a payment solution, Bitcoin is not mainstream and will not be unless it is converted to some method more suitable, proof of stake for instance, and that most likely will change the value proposition underpinning it..
And the statement in TFS that Bitcoin is purely speculative seems, to me, to be apparent on inspection. Win for the ECB.
In that light, treat Bitcoin somewhat like an equities market, with the equity backing being essentially valueless. Speculative. A return likely to be no better than you get from Fanduel.
Re: (Score:2)
Shitcoin is a shit implementation because it is based on environmentally destructive proof of work. That would be a fine invention for an era in which we had limitless clean energy, but that is not now.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmental cost may be the most obvious (to some) and most controversial cost, but it's not the 'worst'. The fundamental issues with the Bitcoin blockchain implementation, such as proof of work and the risk of majority capture, these alone are enough to make it less trustworthy than others.
Really, while the environmental cost is significant, it's not the best reason to avoid Bitcoin.
ps - you keep misspelling Bitcoin. It's not a good look. This isn't a SNL skit.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
ps - you keep misspelling Bitcoin.
PS - you keep misspelling shitcoin
It's not a good look. This isn't a SNL skit.
Carrying water for bitcoin is not a good look. This isn't a fucking game. This is reality, and the reality is that bitcoin is shit.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between the equity markets and things like fanduel, art, investment wine and gold is cash flow. The value of equities (and bonds) is based on current or future cash flows. (Or so the theory goes.)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, equity markets do sell securities that offer dividends, and these securities also claim capital value that can be relied upon for value.
But most any advertisement (in the US) for investment in such securities also includes a statement that you might suffer loss, even total loss. Equity investments such as securities can in fact become worthless. Do I need to offer examples?
Gold and similar metals are generally considered to have in intrinsic value that is nonzero, though it may become very low indeed.
Use Case (Score:2)
One excellent legitimate use of Bitcoin I've seen is international transfers of money to/from the US, or certain other countries. The only way to do this before bitcoin would be a bank transfer, which could take a day or two and is expensive, or Western Union, which is expensive, and is dependent on there being a Western Union location where the recipient is.
If you need to send someone money *right now* internationally, all the recipient needs is an account on a bitcoin exchange.
It doesn't work absolutely e
Re: (Score:2)
Blockchains are useful. Here is an example: Git. The problem is "the blockchain" is unsuitable for any electronic currency implementation dues to numerous shortcomings, most of them fundamental, i.e. "cannot be fixed". It is simply the wrong tool for the job.
Re: (Score:3)
Blockchains are useful. Here is an example: Git.
That would be cool if git were a blockchain, but it is not. For example, git has centralized repositories. There is no way of determining which is the main bchain when two or more are diverted without appealing to a central authority. There is no consensus mechanism — every git repo is equally plausible and authoritative. Any git repo can be rebased at any time, without any consensus. Anyone can create a local commit. Only whoever is in charge of the repo is in charge of which commits are accepted, or
Re: (Score:3)
Git isn't really a "blockchain." It's a hash tree, and those are very useful (and have been since their invention in the 90s), but "blockchain" was coined by people after bitcoin's invention to refer to a stunted hash tree combined with a distributed trust model. It's the distributed trust model part that causes all the problems.
re: real examples of blockchain use (Score:2)
Maybe this?
https://www.ledgerinsights.com... [ledgerinsights.com]
Re:Well, it's an excessively honest article (Score:5, Informative)
These payment systems are generally used by shops, but bank transfers are so fast that they are used when general members of the public are buying second hand stuff from each other. I bought a €25000 second hand car, and just transfered money to the seller when we closed the deal, he got instant confirmation, and the transaction is final with zero risk to the seller. If the money shows up on his balance, it is irrevocably his.
In contrast, BTC transactions can take 10 minutes or much longer. With other coins it is worse: the transaction fees are often significant, and in some cases you have to make the offer for the fee yourself, which may or may not be enough to eventually clear the transaction, and if it finally backs out (your transaction "running out of gas" which can take very long) your fee will be forfeit. Yeah, that sounds like a great payment system.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? How long does a Visa purchase take for you? Takes a couple seconds for me.
El Salvador? (Score:3)
isn't bitcoin the official currency in El Salvador?
I guess you could claim that Euros and Dollars in cash are also used in a lot of illicit transactions.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you could claim that Euros and Dollars in cash are also used in a lot of illicit transactions.
Not nearly as much and not by big players. Cash becomes traceable if the amount becomes larger.
Problem in part is extreme volatility (Score:4, Informative)
The so called stability is short term. Honestly, probably one of the most important qualities of a currency is long term stability.
If a currency is going up in value by even 10% a year, people will think of it as an investment not a currency. They will refuse to spend it as it is their 'retirement fund'. If a currency is going down in value by more than inflation, people will want to get rid of it quickly, not waiting till they need to buy something.
Crypto became popular as an investment, dooming it as currency. If we truly want to create a replacement for national currency, we would need to ensure it does NOT change value more than inflation.
I see no way to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true.
I see no way to do that.
There is a way, but it is not practical: Fixed exchange rates. These would need to be provided by at very least one economically powerful state. As all these crapcoins are primarily used for money-laundering and speculation, and this costs real money to do, any state has very good motivation _not_ to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of many exchanges offering gold for bitcoin.
Cryptocurrency Cocksuckery (Score:3)
If the article is bereft of strong data points, why is it here? Answer, so we can argue about it, and produce page views and content for SEO purposes. Is the lack of strong data points in the article real, or a drawback? Who cares, ain't gonna read yet another crypto story. Let us know when the whole thing collapses in flames so we can get out our marshmallows.
"Like Gold"? (Score:2, Insightful)
What are the *social* benefits of gold?
It's pretty?
Re:"Like Gold"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Gold as a material has many useful physical properties that make it valuable above "being pretty". Gold conducts heat and electricity better than copper, and resists corrosion from everyday conditions. It is far more malleable than copper, so it wouldn't be used in applications that require durability, but as a material it has many potential applications.
If it wasn't for its rarity and expense, it probably would displace copper in many electronic applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Gold is a very useful element. I'm surprised it's not used for interconnects on chips, as it should offer similar benefits as were obtained by moving to copper from aluminium.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what he's talking about, though. He says:
You're talking about what he refers to as "used productively," like other commodities. I doubt he's really ignoring the commodity value of gold, but he's saying gold has something more (social benefits) on top of that, and that's what's raising eyebrows.
For the moment, forget gold's
Re: (Score:2)
If it wasn't for its rarity and expense, it probably would displace copper in many electronic applications.
Very true. And its rarity is partially due to its use as a store of value (thousands of tons are sitting idle in vaults around the world), and its expense is mostly due to its use as a store of value. The wold would be much better off if no one treated it as an asset beyond its intrinsic value. Even its use in jewelry would decline, because part of the goal of jewelry is to own something expensive. It would still be used in jewelry, of course, because it is pretty, it doesn't oxidize, and it is hypoallergen
Re: (Score:2)
Gets you laid.
Social Gold (Score:2)
Does anyone know what he's talking about in this part?
Re: (Score:2)
Give people gold jewelry and they do sexy things for you, or so I hear.
Topping the payout ratios with 25% APY (Score:2)
I own a tiny amount of bitcoin and other crypto coins. Decided that I need to understand it better in order to properly criticize it.
I received an email just today from the Stellar Lumen XLM token, telling me that I can get a 25% APY by staking my XLM. That kind of return in the territory of credit card issuers, not crypto tokens. The entire crypto industry is steamy pile of bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
And, I see your point, one noted unrealistic APY obviously indicates that the 'entire crypto industry' is FOS..
Re: (Score:2)
Ha Ha, found the pedantic crypto bros... Enjoy your pearl-clutching dumbasses.
Thank goodness I got my NFT hoard to fall back on (Score:4, Funny)
What do you mean they're just worthless links to JPEGs ?!
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean they're just worthless links to JPEGs ?!
Technically, it's a worthless link to a worthless blockchain that worthlessly links to your worthless image.
Given the usefulness of gold (Score:2)
I'd argue any social value (aka bling) is of no interest. It is, however, a superb conductor (which is why it's used in ICs for linking to pins) and doesn't tarnish. It would likely be useful for interconnects on ICs, too. Given the benefits of the migration from aluminium to copper, a switch from copper to gold should logically offer a similar advantage (higher throughput, less energy lost, etc). Since silicon can't really shrink much further, improving what is already there would seem to be the best way t
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue any social value (aka bling) is of no interest. It is, however, a superb conductor (which is why it's used in ICs for linking to pins)
Copper is taking over for gold. Sometimes it is palladium coated to retard corrosion, this raises the price but it's still cheaper than gold. Aluminum is also popular where current capacity is less critical, or where larger wires can be used. Gold is still the bonding material of choice for GaAs, though.
I do not use fiat money ... (Score:2)
So what? Changes nothing. (Score:2)
Bitcoin belief is basically a religion at this point, and you can't "logic" people away from their religion. They aren't open to it.
Crypto in general is now plugged directly into the animal brain. It's not open for analysis in the minds of the committed.
Need to understand Bitcoin (Score:2)
It is a wealth transfer tool as well as a store of value. Let me explain;
Step 1 you take your hard earnt money and buy the bitcoins feeling super happy and smart - this stores your value on the blockchain woohoo!
Step 2 you do not cash out because you think you'll become a zillionaire - some smart cashes out in proft and transfers your value to theirs AKA wealth transfer
Step 3 you say Bitcoin is dumb and everything is against you.
I use bitcoin. I have used it ligitimately for years. My use-case is sp
Re: Cherry Picking (Score:2)