• Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m sure if Bitcoin had the largest and most powerful military in the world it would have become the world reserve currency by now

      • electriccars@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes sir. Wouldn’t want regular folks to be able to retain the value of their savings! Government’s restricted to being fiscally responsible instead of printing their way out of problems with the hidden tax on the poor that is inflation? Ridiculous!

        • gonzo0815@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Read about the great depression or the deflationary economics in Germany right before the Nazis took power. Deflation sucks, we already experienced it and we don’t need to try it out again.

        • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oof, that’s not how economics works.

          Inflation is good so long as wages are rising with it. It’s killing us right now because wages are stagnating hard right now.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Bitcoin: 4.7% believed to be in the hands of a single person, another 3.1% in the hands of four addresses. Deflatory so no incentive to use it to make transactions. Value depends on the network effect (i.e. a pyramid scheme). Small transactions now too expensive to be realistic. 24% of the supply was created in the first year, 35% over two years. Movement of funds takes too long to be useful. Those who got in early are guaranteed to be richer than those who got in late without having made any effort…

    Crypto would be great as a replacement of the stockmarket but it’s fighting to be cash instead and it’s doing a bad job of it because it’s cash as envisioned by tech bros, not actual economists.

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also wastes energy and hardware (which includes rare earth metals mined by slaves) to endlessly compute hashes. Great solution for a post climate change world let me tell ya!

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Since nobody else responded to the stock market argument: it’s how cash is envisioned to work by Austrian school economists, not the economists currently in charge. The average person needing to trust strangers with their money is not good.

      It’s an entirely different perspective on how money should work (that was de facto illegal for decades), and only now can we put our money where our mouths are.

    • nile@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not pro crypto per-se, but your argument is only valid for bitcoin, not crypto. Most of it is even worse to be fair, but there is a future for sane crypto IMO.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I love posts like this, it lets me know most people still don’t have the first clue what they’re talking about. It’s honestly a bit impressive how nearly every point you tried to make is either misleading or straight up wrong.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love posts like this, it lets me know most crypto lovers don’t have the first clue what they’re investing in. It’s honestly a bit impressive how you didn’t even try to actually argue against what I said because it’s just a list of facts.

        • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Lol, you want me to spell it out for you dumb-dumb? Ok

          4.7% believed to be in the hands of a single person,

          You’re talking about Satoshi Nakamoro here. Other than a few test cases, no Bitcoin has ever been moved out of these wallets and Satoshi disappeared in 2010. People have continued to donate to these wallets over the years as a kind of tribute and to burn coins. While it’s technically possible he’s still alive, the fact that there has been zero movement from those accounts and that any movement, no matter how small, would immediately be seen and reported on makes it unlikely that these will ever be touched.

          3.1% in the hands of four addresses.

          Those are exchange addresses. It’s like trying to say that 4 entities control a percentage of all US currency and then it turns out you’re just talking about banks.

          Deflatory so no incentive to use it to make transactions

          Except of course the security, the fact it can be used across borders by anyone with an Internet connection, in poorer countries it can be more stable than their own currency, and just general preference.

          Value depends on the network effect (i.e. a pyramid scheme)

          This is absolute nonsense with “pyramid scheme” attached to the end. As more people use it, the value goes up because it’s accepted more and more places and has a higher liquidity? That’s literally part of every currency ever.

          Small transactions now too expensive to be realistic

          You show your hand that you haven’t bothered to update your views on Bitcoin since 2019. Not only are fees back to being low on the main network, with the introduction and adoption of the Lightning Network, fees are down to pennies or less.

          24% of the supply was created in the first year, 35% over two years.

          Yes, that’s how halving works. You present that with an insinuation that any point they could just mint more btc. This is ignorance at best, but more likely intentionally misleading.

          Movement of funds takes too long to be useful.

          Again, guess you haven’t been paying attention for a few years. This issue has been solved with the Lightning Network with transactions usually going through faster than tap-to-pay transactions with a regular debit/credit card.

          Those who got in early are guaranteed to be richer than those who got in late without having made any effort.

          Welcome to every investment opportunity. Those who get in early take a higher risk for more reward.

          So yea, every point either misleading, or straight up wrong.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago
            1. We’re blindly trusting this person not to do anything with their fortune!

            2. Exchanges have never done anything shady and (for a second time) we’re trusting them even though they’re all established in countries with as little regulations as possible.

            3. If something that can fluctuate by 50% of its value is more stable than your local currency you’re not investing in it, you’re buying USD, or in the case where you have access to Bitcoin you’re buying stable coins.

            4. What the network effect means is that the only reason it keeps its value is that more people buy it at a price where people who were there earlier are making profit. If there’s no new buyers then it’s worthless. See the pyramid drawing itself now?

            5. So the technology is bad enough that it requires a separate tech to work properly? Going back to your people in poor countries, how do you expect them to deal with the transaction cost to move their funds in and out of the L2 when required if they can only afford to buy a couple of dollars worth at a time?

            6. It just shows how much early adopters could pocket and how unfair it is if it was to become the default currency, even more unfair than regular cash.

            7. See #5 and let’s add that the reason fees are lower and transaction speeds faster is only because demand is low at the moment, Bitcoin’s network hasn’t changed. Still, when transactions were taking an hour or more to go through, how would you have dealt with paying for something if you had realized you didn’t have enough funds on the LN and you needed to transfer from your regular wallet? Or very simply, if you’re paying for something and the person at the receiving end is a true maximalists that sees how flawed the LN is, do you pay them hours ahead for something they’re selling you? That’s what I call a trustless transaction!

            8. Oh so as pointed out in OP’s meme it’s not ok for traditional rich to be rich because they jumped on opportunities, but it’s ok for the Bitcoin rich to be rich because they jumped on an opportunity, got it 👍

            • thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not a crypto guy by any means. But your point 5 doesn’t make sense. Almost all of our digital infrastructure is systems being supported by other systems.

              If you want to look at debit/credit card processing that is legitimately “bad enough that it requires a separate tech to work properly”. The banking systems that existed before cards needed new systems to process those payment methods. From the outside looking in, your critique could literally be applied anywhere for anything.

              Again I don’t even use Bitcoin. That’s just a bad argument.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Thing is Bitcoin maximalists are always defending Bitcoin as being perfect, that’s a major difference in the attitude of those who use the technology vs everything else (except Linux maximalists that are pretty much the same type of people).

                To expand on that point and explain WTF I’m taking about:

                Bitcoin’s network is so slow and transactions so expensive when demand is high that people now need to move their funds to a parallel network (called a Layer 2) where transactions happen in isolation and when people close their “account” the funds are moved back to the main network with balances being updated based on what happened on the Layer 2.

                A problem is that it doesn’t eliminate the speed and fee issue completely as people still need to move their funds from Bitcoin’s network to the lightning network (and back eventually). That means during busy periods you’re still paying 30$+ to move your funds to the cheaper alternative and you still have to wait, potentially for hours, for that transaction to happen if you didn’t have enough funds in your lightning wallet to pay for whatever you’re buying. All of that means it’s not worth it for someone who doesn’t have a lot of money in the first place to buy Bitcoin to use it as cash, when the whole point of Bitcoin was to be trustless electronic cash (see Bitcoin.org for the whitepaper).

                When transactions fees are low enough on the main network that small transactions aren’t as issue anymore? Well the Lightning network isn’t as useful anyway because transactions also happen quickly enough that it’s not an issue in most cases.

                The point of crypto is to have a trustless decentralized system. Not Lighting network has watchdogs making sure fraudulent transactions don’t happen (not trustless) and a tendency to centralize: https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

                There’s a whole lot of info out there about the flaws of both the main and the parallel networks and there’s even maximalists that believe Bitcoin is perfect as it is and the Lightning network shouldn’t exist.

            • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The biggest difference imo between bitcoin and USD is that participation in bitcoin is completely voluntary whereas participation in USD is mostly not, especially when you look at the things done to maintain global USD hegemony and the consequences of leaders who try to, for example, trade oil in currency other than USD or create a hard currency for their country when the de facto currency is USD. Were someone to print (which i can’t believe ppl in this thread don’t realize is a turn of phrase) a bunch of new BTC then it would only affect people who voluntarily chose to participate in that system, whereas if someone printed a whole bunch of USD and injected it directly into the stock market, those affected worst by this are not in the system by choice, and many times they participate only by coercion.

          • explodicle@local106.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even the 4.7% figure was debunked a long time ago, it just gets repeated by people who don’t care what’s true in the first place.

          • electriccars@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re right. But they don’t want to hear it. Just like how most of the world believes in sky people and don’t want to face reality.

            The world has been living on FIAT currency since WW1 when virtually every country left the Gold Standard. It’s been ingrained into everyone that deflation = bad, inflation = good. Yet at the same time every single financial advisor recommends dumping your savings into deflationary assets (houses, stocks, etc)… Okay. Makes sense to me.

            • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s almost as if one of the ideas behind having an inflationary currency is that people don’t hoard it and invest in other things!

              • electriccars@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                39% of Americans do not invest in the stock market. Fuck them I guess.

                Having 2% deflation instead of 2% inflation would be good for the economy. It would be a baseline to compete against for companies and mean less people would invest in bad investments that just beat inflation.

                We also need to stop this ludicrous idea of infinite growth of the economy forever in order to be able to afford to retire. It’s detremental to the environment and to the quality of products the economy produces to expect such.

                Inflationary policies and fiat currencies are the fuel behind both world wars lasting as long as they did.

                Ancient Rome prospered with a strong currency, when they started debasing their currency it started the fall of Rome. The same will happen to us.

                • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I agree that there is an unhealthy attitude to capital growth. That definitely needs to change.

                  As for the 39% of Americans not investing, how many have pension funds or other retirement schemes that do the investing for them? Regardless, they are free to choose what they do with their money. If they want to hold it, so be it.

                  A period of deflation might make for a good break, but not as a permanent solution. Investment inspires innovation, and innovation in new technologies will be vital in combating climate change.

                  I can’t comment on the wars or Rome but I think there are multiple factors there, fiat maybe being one but of what significance?

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Remember the last time you traded your house for food?

              Yeah, me neither 👍

              What’s the title line of Bitcoin’s whitepaper?

        • PatFusty@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is the difference between speculating in bitcoin vs speculating on forex or gold? Is gold investing a pyramid scheme?

          • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But that is what the initial post said: bitcoin works as an investment, but not as a currency. Reading comprehension skills are through the floor.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            If Bitcoin is only good for speculation and has no other real use because it’s too cumbersome then it’s like investing in tulips, and we all know how that ended :)

            Real currency is backed by the work, goods and economy of a country. Gold is a mineral with intrinsic value because it’s useful to make things with. Bitcoin is backed by the hope of making profit by selling to a sucker that will pay more than what you paid… And it was meant to be electronic cash but people got greedy, it’s better for early adopters pockets to make people believe it’s a store of value that’s hard to trade (like physical gold, funny that) instead of something you can easily use to transfer real world money from one person to another without parking that money there forever…

            But then you realise that the point of a store of value is that you invest X in it and you know that it will store that value and you’ll be able to withdraw whenever you need to and still have X or very close to it. A store of value isn’t something you speculate on, it’s somewhere where you put your money when you’re close to retiring or if you live in a country where inflation is very high.

  • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Though great privacy when used offline, which is also pretty sick and the adoption levels defies reason, it’s virtually usable globally both online and offline.

    • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Bank notes have unique identifiers allowing the government to track the path of your money. Privacy is dead

      • RealJoL@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        That also assumes every bill you use will be immediately returned to a bank. You’d have no way of knowing where money comes from and belongs to after one hop. Just make a purchase at the supermarket to exchange a 50 for 45 and you’ve got anonymous cash.

          • db2@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            They don’t. It wouldn’t benefit the corporation in any way. They’ll only do what makes money and that would cost money with no return.

            • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              In my country, it happens that machines are handling paper money. Cashiers are just unauthorized to do it. I bet downvoters come from reddit

                • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Also, everyone comes from Reddit.

                  This is a Reddit clone.

                  That said, they do broadly track movements of physical currency. It’s one of, or was one of, their primary tools against counterfeiting, tracking large cash robberies, money laundering, etc.

                  They might not know “This bill was held by Person X and they spent it at Y which spent it at Z” but they do know “Person X had this bill, and it showed up again in region A. If more with associated numbers also show up in the area Person X is most likely there.”

              • HubertManne@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah so cashiers still handle the cash in US with drawers and having to even out and everything. this is likely why you are getting so many u r crazy replies. I imagine the us will get like that eventually. Myself I almost exclusively use cc so im like an open book.

      • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        American in Spain here. Everybody declines USD. Literally got coffee for free this morning because it was the only shop I’ve seen out of like 100 in the week I’ve been here that wouldn’t take card.

        For a charge of €2.50, when I offered $5 he opted to take nothing instead.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why not have local currency while you’re in a foreign country where why would you assume they would accept your money they would have to go to the bank to exchange?

          • Urbanfox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hahahah, imagine going to another country and trying to pay in another currency and being shocked they wouldn’t accept it.

            I can’t even spend Scottish notes in England when it’s all Sterling, never mind trying to pay for a small shop coffee in dollars.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not atypical for Americans, having worked in many industries that cater to tourists I’ve seen that very often…

              “I tried putting my money the slot machine, how come it doesn’t work?”

              “It’s USD sir, you’ll need to change it for CAD…”

              “😯”

        • STUPIDVIPGUY@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand it’s easier for you just to use a card, so you don’t think it’s necessary, but it’s probably a good idea to carry a few euros at least

      • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’d be hard pressed to not find an exchange shop in any major city which is were most people reside these days. And I’ve yet to encounter a currency exchange that doesn’t take USD cash.

          • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m just saying you can bring a duffel bag of USD with you and in just about any large city world wide you’ll be fine. Some you can transact directly but most you’ll need to locate an exchange first. Still the most versatile currency there is, and more universally accepted than anything else. Sure your VISA card works just about everywhere too but it’s traceable to the max and there are places where USD works far better than a card.

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Paper money is flimsy and wears down quickly. It’s being constantly printed and replaced. This meme is vague and intentionally misleading. Physical money in circulation is replaced and old money destroyed. Constantly. That’s what these figures are about. The wealth inequality, solid point. The rest is just vague word use to make it sound alarming.

    • itsmect@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Simple answer: Because they can, because it’s lucrative, and because it’s not as obvious as raising taxes. Imagine you could legally print money, and when anyones asks about it, you can just dismiss it with: “I’m stimulating the economy”

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US is printing a lot of money, but a lot of that money is theoretical and not really printed. Stocks are a way this happens, if you bought 10 shares at $10 and a week later they are worth $15, $50 got created. Loans are another way money gets created with a fractional reserve system, $1, 000 in savings can create $10,000 in loans.

    • electriccars@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      By over 30%:

      Source: in2013dollars.com

      Meanwhile…

      $1000 would’ve bought 7.388 BTC in August 2013.

      7.388 BTC today is worth… $193,186.08

      Tell me again which one is the best place to store value?

      Edit: Downvoted for showing facts. Not surprised.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bitcoin if you don’t understand the point of a store of value, USD if you understand the point of a store of value.

        Downvoted because you don’t understand basic economics.

      • itsmect@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tell me again which one is the best place to store value?

        I don’t think you are ready to hear this yet, but it’s monero :P All jokes aside, bitcoin ain’t terrible, especially compared to the dollar, but I worry that botcoin’s security model will crumble more with each halfing. Transaction fees are already unusable in some cases, yet they barely contribute to the miner rewards. The math doesn’t seem to work out.

        • explodicle@local106.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lightning has onion routing and lower fees.

          Sidechains (like BIP 300) will allow ring signatures backed by bitcoin.

          We don’t need a new money supply for each new feature.

              • explodicle@local106.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Security budget in this context means how much the miners are getting paid; fees plus subsidy.

                Edit: this was a reply to Kecessa who didn’t know what security budget meant, but it was deleted and now for some reason my reply is in the wrong place

            • explodicle@local106.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              How much do you think the total security budget needs to be, and why? Where’s the math that doesn’t work out?

              • itsmect@monero.town
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The security budget is total fiat denominated miner reward of the entire network. The higher it is, the the more resistant bitcoin becomes to 51% attacks.

                As you know, each halfing decreases the block reward, which is currently the largest part of the total miner reward. In order keep a steady security budget, the price and market cap has to double each time as well. But remember, the security budget stays constant, so an ever increasing amount is secured by a relatively lower share.

                Transaction fees make up the remaining tiny share, and I honestly don’t see it growing much. Because the higher this fee becomes, the more people will find ways to avoid it, and just keep it on exchanges, custodial solution or lightning. This reduces the decentralization , the primary feature of bitcoin, and thereby reduces it value proposition.

                All this can be side-stepped by having holders pay a small, program-ably guaranteed fee proportional to their holdings, which is then paid out to miners. Yes, this is similar to inflation, but as long as it is lower than fiat inflation I can be worth the trade off. Considering how cult like bitcoin holder are, I don’t think this is a change they are willing to make, at least not before it’s too late.

                • explodicle@local106.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why would we need to hold the total subsidy steady/constant? We’re currently paying FAR more than necessary. If we assume total fee revenue won’t increase, then Bitcoin fees alone are already more than the entire security budget for some reasonably secure blockchains today.

                  And that’s a very conservative assumption. Lightning and p2p sidechains (which don’t hurt decentralization) increase efficiency, so the Jevons paradox predicts that total transaction fees paid will continue to increase. Lightning is less dependent on quick confirmations than base layer commerce is, reducing the impact of 51% attacks if/when they do happen.

                  When evaluating Monero’s monetary inflation trade-off, its primary competitor is Bitcoin, not the dollar. It’s not very hard at all to do better than the dollar. :-P I for one am strongly in favor of making changes in general (go BIP 300!) but tail emission has been proposed for over a decade and has been repeatedly rejected as unnecessary.