HanlonsRazor last edited by HanlonsRazor
Technobabble, Libertarian Derp and Bitcoin – Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner in economics): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/opinion/cryptocurrency-bitcoin.html
Most of the points (at least, the points that I could make out) seemed to be about problems with the cryptocurrency community and culture, not problems with cryptocurrency itself. Or problems that would apply to currency in general, not just cryptocurrency.
And particularly, the point about newly-minted cryptocurrency being unfairly distributed: So what? The same thing is said about the Dollar and Euro. But I'm a common man, so I don't care about who gets newly-minted money! That has nothing to do with me, and how I use money. I use money to spend and buy stuff. Or I save money, so I can buy stuff later ("store of wealth" in fancey-speek).
In short, if you're going to say that something's a bad currency: You should point out how it's bad for spending or saving (and to be fair, the does make a point or two about cryptocurrency being a bad store of wealth).
HanlonsRazor last edited by HanlonsRazor
Could it explain it's points more clearly? Yes, I think it could!
Ask yourself that question from time to time.
As for the rest:
The problems with the community stem from the inherently flawed digital coin (combined with the love of money in general).
The same thing does not apply to fiat currencies. The governments and banks control the money supply, which is rife with problem as well, but still isn't a pyramid Ponzi scheme. And even if it was, your argument merely constitutes a whataboutism fallacy.
Some digital tokens are efficient to spend and others aren't. But that's a redundant discussion to have because they are pyramid Ponzi schemes. I.e., they shouldn't be allowed in the first place.
code3 last edited by code3
@eggcorn Yes. But you have to consider that the miners are separate competing entities. On PoS anyone can be a miner.
To clarify: On a proof of stake blockchain, anyone who owns cryptocurrency can be a miner. It isn’t a Ponzi scheme because there is little risk of loss in mining if you aren’t trying to cheat the system. There is risk in investing, but there is a risk in any investment, but the risk will go down the more people own cryptocurrency.
That would be rather hard to prove or disprove, so I'll set that aside.
- The same thing does not apply to fiat currencies. The governments and banks control the money supply, which is rife with problem as well, but still isn't a pyramid Ponzi scheme. And even if it was, your argument merely constitutes a whataboutism fallacy.
Why does it matter to me, to someone who want to spend and save money, who gets newly minted-money?
But if you want to talk about newly minted-money: If those mining operations weren't profitable, they wouldn't exist. Even Bitcoin, the oldest cryptocurrency, still has folks mining at a profit! I don't believe that those massive Icelandic mining operations are victims of a Ponzi scam.
- Some digital tokens are efficient to spend and others aren't. But that's a redundant discussion to have because they are pyramid Ponzi schemes. I.e., they shouldn't be allowed in the first place.
HanlonsRazor last edited by
I've said everything I needed to; I'll let future onlookers decide who's right or wrong. Besides, Vivaldi's team has already decided they won't be adding anything crypto“currency” related.
code3 last edited by
@HanlonsRazor Looking at the reddit for cryptocurrency, the community actually doesn't seem all that toxic. I could argue that the Vegan one is more toxic. It feels like maybe you only took the bad/mean people who have cryptocurrency as examples, and also twisted stuff that was supposed to be sarcastic.
There are also more stable cryptocurrencies than the one you mention in your blog. USDC, for example.
[T]he hidden cost of bitcoin transactions is the burning of more coal at worst, or the waste of clean energy at best.
No, the creation of more clean energy at best!
Think about it. If everyone stopped eating chicken (and chicken eggs) tomorrow, would there be more chickens in the world? No, because farmers would just stop raising chickens. So the consumption of chicken means more chickens, not less.