Multi-billionaire with wealth accumulated from institutional gambling and rent seeking feels that wage-slaves complain about "inequality" to much and should instead behave like people in countries with no human rights.
I think most cryptocurrencies are shitcoins. The only currency that provably IS NOT a shitcoin is Monero.
Monero is the only private, untraceable, trustless, secure and fungible cryptocurrency.
There is a growing number of online goods and services that you can now pay for with Monero. Globee is a service that allows online merchants to accept payments through credit cards and a host of cryptocurrencies, while being settled in Bitcoin, Monero or fiat currency. Project Coral Reef is a service which allows you to shop and pay for popular music band products and services using Monero.
Linux, Veracrypt, and a whole array of VPNs now accept Monero.
There is new Monero only marketplace called Annularis currently being developed which has not been created for those who value financial privacy and economic freedom, and there are rumours Open Bazaar is likely to support Monero once Multisig is implemented.
In addition, Monero is also supported by The Living Room of Satoshi so you can pay bills or credit cards directly using Monero.
Monero is definetely not the only one in this club. For example: there is Numeraire which is actively used by data scientist on numer.ai. NMR has true value as long as Numerai hedge fund is using it.
I'm not entirely clear on the scenarios in which this type of research would be beneficial (I'm a physician):
- AFAIK research on vaccines does not require altering an organism to make it more lethal. You would want to cover as broad a spectrum of serotypes/serovars of the existing organism as possible. I can see how someone might argue that you could pre-empt a more malignant variant but surely this is outweighed by the likelihood of creating systemic risk.
- What exactly would we learn form creating new, highly virulent organisms that can't be learned using the same technology on non-virulent organisms?
- It bothers me that this is a push to create more biological weapons from the military complex (especially terrifying considering the infantile intellects we currently have in congress).
What exactly are the requirements for building an exchange?
- Large amounts of capital, for one.
- If in the US, a banking license; Offshore, not a requirement.
- I'm not clear on how exchanges like coinbase source their crypto. Probably a totally stupid question but what happens to the cash I give coinbase after they go off to exchange it for say Ethereum? Do they have a network of whales that are selling them crypto for fiat for some sort of premium? Do they just hold crypto and exchange at market rates (which presumably exposes them to large potential loses)? I know they're linked to GDAX but this still doesn't explain how they source their currency initially.
Why do you think you need large amounts of capital? All an exchange does is match up buyers with sellers, and collect fees.
> Do they have a network of whales that are selling them crypto for fiat for some sort of premium?
This is basically exactly how it works. They have an actual exchange (GDAX) and they just do the exchange on GDAX, and then take an additional cut as fees.
> I know they're linked to GDAX but this still doesn't explain how they source their currency initially.
I'm honestly still baffled by how the concept of "freedom" got conflated with gun ownership in the US.
Personally I prefer the freedom of not having to be worried about being shot by any disgruntled imbecile who takes advantage of his "right" to a gun.
I would really appreciate an explanation of this. Right now it seams like just a fantastic marketing/brainwashing strategy by the NRA but I would love to hear a well explained argument for this.
Have you read a bunch of literature online about these topics?
I feel like there are many, many, pro-second amendment groups, not just the NRA, and perhaps that could shed a little light on it.
I'm willing to bet there are many reasons.
Off the top of my head:
- An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation. Police generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime. So if you want the freedom to protect your basic right to survive and defend yourself, a gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers. You don't have to be young and strong, just well versed in using the weapon and in possession of it.
- The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government to institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil rights or due process. People seem to think militias in the mountains of Kentucky would be completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how the Taliban has been very effective for decades in Afghanistan.
Etc.
This really isn't a topic that I am expert in but there has to be more reasons if you look for them.
> An organism has the basic instinct and right of self preservation.
If you want to ensure self preservation, take steps to create an environment where the likelihood of survival is higher not lower. All the reliable evidence that I've seen points to higher gun ownership correlating strongly with higher murder and suicide rates and to the USA being an outlier in terms of violent crime as compared to other developed countries.
> Police generally focus catching criminals after they've committed a crime.
Well where that's true (and having lived in several countries, its not true everywhere) that's certainly a failing in law enforcement.
> a gun equalizes your chances with potential attackers.
This is extremely doubtful. Attackers generally attack in groups. They typically have planned their attack whilst you're taken by surprise. Also criminals are generally better versed in violence than the typical citizen. Pulling out your gun is often likely to turn a robbery into robbery and murder.
> The ability of the population to make things difficult for the government to institute total martial law is a basic check on wholesale removal of civil rights or due process.
This is the most ludicrous of all the gun lobby arguments. Seriously, you're planning on subverting the US government with your collection of handguns? The same government that spends more than 500 Billion on military expenditure/year?
> People seem to think militias in the mountains of Kentucky would be completely ineffectual in this regard but fail to notice how the Taliban has been very effective for decades in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is a failed state. The Taliban are likely funded by a lot of well heeled supporters included their partners in the Heroine trade.
I feel like your initial comment was in bad faith.
You've shifted from "I don't understand the argument."
to
"I don't agree with the argument."
These are two very different things, and I would have responded very differently if you had written the latter. More precisely I wouldn't have responded at all. There are lots of topics where my personal opinions are one thing, but I do understand people's rationale for believing something very different.
And most importantly, for my peace of mind, I try to maintain the humility to realize that just because I came to a conclusion doesn't mean I am a priori correct. I am not necessarily smarter or more well informed than the people with whom I disagree, so I maintain skepticism about how substantive my opinion is.
YMMV but this general concept keeps me mellower and happier than imagining I am somehow on the right side of every issue.
Sorry, I realize I was heavy handed in my reply and I've edited it slightly.
I feel I should rephrase - I personally believe the arguments as stated are largely tools of propaganda by pro-gun lobbies and it baffles me that this isn't obvious. (And again I'd be eager to see evidence that this is not the case and there is justification for conflating freedom with gun ownership).
I appreciate you taking the time to engage in this discussion.
> This is the most ludicrous of all the gun lobby arguments. Seriously, you're planning on subverting the US government with your collection of handguns?
You’re missing a key piece here. The local law enforcement would be tasked with going house to house to collect guns. And none of them would be on board with getting shot by citizens defending their rights.
And again, what red blooded American soldier, commander, general is going to follow that order? There is a method to this madness. Is it ideal? Nope, but it works for us.
Freedom is always about increased risk (and increased potential reward). Freedom "of not having to be worried" is by definition an oxymoron, regardless of whether you're talking about gun control, healthcare or other issues.
It's OK to want less freedom, every thing is good in balance. Just don't be confused by what this word means.
This thread reminds me that even on HN most comments on the internet are from people with very little understanding. I expected the "bubble", "tulip", "no value" arguments to come from the chicken littles on Forbes.
If you think Bitcoin is overvalued, fine. Pour yourself a stiff drink and accept some people might lose some money.
The sort of emotional hyperbole on here about "cryptocurrencies need to be banned by the loving, paternal, incorruptible government to save the world from ourselves" is not just getting old, its absurd.
Having a censorship-resistant, globally-accepted asset would grant an unparalleled financial opportunity. Even if Bitcoin falls short in practice – it’s closer to the mark than any non-crypto asset.
Being able to send money around the world with real-time market-based fees that are often lower than many alternatives is useful. Having a place to park value when banking is not available is also useful. The list goes on…
Do you trust the government and the financial institutions that much that you're willing to hand them back the reigns of your financial future?
> The sort of emotional hyperbole on here about "cryptocurrencies need to be banned by the loving, paternal, incorruptible government to save the world from ourselves" is not just getting old, its absurd.
Why is it "getting old"? It's a fair concern that something so volatile should be examined critically and relentlessly. People don't just "get a stiff drink and accept they'll lose money" if it goes down---they jump out of windows.
I'm hesitant to jump in cryptocurrency discussions because 1) I know too little about them, even at a technical level and 2) they're consistently filled with "emotional hyperbole" (that we agree on) from both ends.
I think governments/regulators should have some say the same way you'd want them to regulate any financial instrument and punish Ponzi schemers and pump-and-dumpers.
I'd like to think about the motives of both sides from being so passionate. For naysayers, I imagine it's a bit of sour grapes. For yaysayers, it's a bit more obvious---once the hype dies, they'll stop making money.
> It's a fair concern that something so volatile should be examined critically and relentlessly.
I agree - but backed with concerns based on legitimate understanding not "price is going up quickly, must be a scam".
> I think governments/regulators should have some say the same way you'd want them to regulate any financial instrument and punish Ponzi schemers and pump-and-dumpers.
Because they did such a great job in 2008? When are they planning to punish the architects of the financial crisis? Who's going after the banks when they launder money for mexican cartels and ISIS? You really think these people are trying to protect the public?
> I'd like to think about the motives of both sides from being so passionate.
I can't speak for anyone else but I come to these threads hoping to find sensible insight and technical analysis not "THIS IS A BUBBLE! BAN IT!"
> For yaysayers, it's a bit more obvious---once the hype dies, they'll stop making money.
There may well be a huge correction but the overall market is anti-fragile and here to stay.
> I agree - but backed with concerns based on legitimate understanding not "price is going up quickly, must be a scam".
Something that goes up and down so quickly and so frequently does warrant concern. Nobody has that understanding at the moment and it needs investigating.
> Because they did such a great job in 2008?
Maybe not the American government, but IIRC, Iceland is punishing the bankers (jail!) and the Canadian government has been praised for having kept a steady ship during the crisis through their economic policies. Governments can work.
> Something that goes up and down so quickly and so frequently does warrant concern.
Why is "going up and down so quickly" inherently bad? There's no moral or legal standard on volatility. It's just a metric, everyone is aware of it, and everyone should act accordingly.
Despite mass perceptions and previous assertions long in the past by its creator, bitcoin is not a currency, nor are most people attempting to use it as one. Neither is it digital gold, or an asset management system, or any other easy label. These terms were and are used as analogies to help people grasp blockchain technology, but it is a new and altogether different beast from previous monetary instruments, and not subject to the same constraints.
You probably don't live in Zimbawe, Venezuela or trying to get money out of China or another country for that matter. If you want to take over 10 grand out of the country you have to declare it or risk having it siezed.
I don't, you are right. But then why would I buy BTC? I don't need it if I live in the US. If it is so amazingly valuable to people in these countries, then why are we buying it and hoarding it instead of giving it to the people in need?
Because it's the current get-rich-quick scheme and human nature is rather selfish than altruistic? Because it's been a good tools to store value and move it over borders?
Well there are people on here that are saying literally:
- cryptocurrencies should be banned
- government regulation is the solution (with the implication that government is extremely concerned about the well-being of the populace in general, and investors/speculators specifically)
- the people investing don't know what they are doing and need to be protected from potential losses
If there's something I've left out from this particular argument please let me know.
I believe Venezuela, Zimbabwe, South Sudan, Argentina and others greatly appreciate Bitcoin as a store of value due to their hyperinflation travails. These locations are the exact places where a complete loss trust exists toward government and the financial institutions therein.
What is the crime here exactly? Breaking up the financial cartels? Regardless, I have no doubt that the government will do their best to use this as yet another opportunity to steal wealth from their citizens.
You could consider it a crime to help facilitate actions that can be a danger to the society and individuals, like others have explained elsewhere in comments. This would be similar to unregulated lotteries, ponzi schemes, smoking bans, etc.
I definitely don't agree about criminalisation of cryptocurrencies (which also didn't happen), but there are valid points that are not only about stealing wealth.
The people in Venezuela and Zimbabwe that are now using crypto as an opportunity not to starve now that their fiat currency is worth less than toilet paper disagree.
edit: Rather than downvote - could you please explain why you think crypto is not beneficial to the billions of people worldwide currently excluded from the financial system?
I don't know why people are downvoting, but what I'd like to know is how prevalent Bitcoin usage is in each country. Is it 10%? 50%? Who is it leaving behind? The article suggests it's not based on a scientific sample. I also wonder what the skew is in usage demographically and geographically.
And then I'd like to see this contrasted with other hyperinflation instances were people abandon the local currency and start trading in either a neighbor's currency or even USD.
People are downvoting because we've seen the Venezuela example used thousands of times by now. Yes there is value in a thing that is difficult for oppressive governments to seize of devalue. The question is whether that is in any way related to the current price of BTC. It seems like the large majority of trading is happening among people who live in other nations and who already have wealth. This isn't a technology that protects the developing world against monied interests. Its a technology that amplifies inequality due to an enormous difference in cost depending on when you joined the network.
> The question is whether that is in any way related to the current price of BTC.
Of course it is. People paying money on foreign exchanges contribute to the price too. Foreign remittances are a fantastic use case for crypto (mostly to these same countries).
Also, what inspires many people to enter crypto, is general lack of trust in government and financial institutions. People choose to buy crypto rather than buying other asset classes or to hold fiat (this is a decision with a strong geopolitical basis).
> It seems like the large majority of trading is happening among people who live in other nations and who already have wealth.
Possibly, but thats besides the point. This argument is a refutation to several arguments that detractors make:
- there's no use case for crypto
- there's no underlying value to crypto
- crypto can't replace a fiat currency
> This isn't a technology that protects the developing world against monied interests. Its a technology that amplifies inequality due to an enormous difference in cost depending on when you joined the network.
As the Big Lebowski said "that's just like, your opinion man".
Joking aside, there are good reasons to think that crypto could in fact allow many people who are currently stuck outside the financial system to have access. This may me a small use case right now but its still early days for the technology.
I'd encourage you to watch: A. M Antonopoulos 'What Bitcoin Means For Unbanked Economies
https://youtu.be/xeSfDbbcN2c
I always downvote those Venezuela posts because they are invariably Bitcoin propaganda. The linked stories inevitably originate in a bitcoin news site and are backed by more wishful thinking than actual data.
The article I linked to was from ABC news (as mainstream a news source as you could find).
How is this propaganda? You're saying people in countries with hyperinflated currency have no use for crypto and don't use it? Can you back this up? Can you explain why there are significant premiums for Bitcoin when buying from exchanges from these countries? Or is this propaganda too?
Of course there isn't data (except of course from the exchange rates). These people are breaking the law and at risk of death or imprisonment. What type of evidence would satisfy you?
Its probably impossible to quantify (mostly because those people using crypto are largely doing it at risk of imprisonment or death) - I'd imagine its a small number of tech savvy individuals.
venezuela shows exactly why bitcoin cannot be used as currency. venezuela currency lost its value because the trust in central authority has evaporated, meaning it is now decentralized. look at it - venezuela currency value graph looks like bitcoin value graph upside down. people are quoting different value. some local areas are creating their own currency (just like bitcoin forks!). it is totally out of control. nobody can use it as currency.
Sounds legit.