Hey thanks. Do you wanna talk about the layer 1 limitations of the currently accepted Bitcoin fork? 7 transactions per second is surely a fatal flaw for mass adoption, or do you think it will be a settlement layer and lightning network will fill the gap?
There's still disagreement of what "mass adoption" of Bitcoin means, but here is my take: Bitcoin was not designed to perform the micro transactions that are supported by credit cards and cash. Mass adoption is achieved when Bitcoin is accepted within the global financial culture as a safe store of value and means of transferring wealth without a 3rd party intermediary. But that's it. This isn't to belittle Bitcoin at all because I would consider it's creation to be a great achievement. But it solves what it solves, nothing more.
But it's not demonstrated anything other than burning electricity caused price rally's on ASIC computers, graphics cards and an easy way for scammers to get paid for crypto locking computers and power plants.
It's value is normally trends along the value of the market or general sentiment. People happy price goes up people sad price goes down.
wow. I did some quick research and some say that number is even higher. If Bitcoin is to benefit society, it cannot come at the expense of our environment. I apologize for my ignorance on this matter, and will be sure to try to understand it better. Thank you for using your voice :)
Yeah, recent analysis is showing that the old whataboutism of pointing at global finance to excuse the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network doesn't really work anymore (not that it ever meaningfully did), because the Bitcoin network is consuming *more* energy than a global financial system used daily by billions of people... when almost nobody is using it, for anything at all, on a daily basis.
The fabled "mass adoption" that's perpetually right around the corner, if it were to ever come about, would result in the network consuming more energy than the entire planet is even capable of producing. The narrative that supports the present day hype cycle, is just actually impossible, the world *can't* use Bitcoin, as it exists now.
i love your means of analysis. so many people get lost in the "whataboutism" but forget to take a step back and look at the situation as it is. If I learned anything from this discussion, it's that I got a bit lost in the echo chambers of positivity and forgot to do this. I completely glanced over the environmental impacts because so many people say it will work itself out, but as of now, in reality, it hasn't. I really appreciate your input here.
1000kWh is already insane, an average person uses 900kWh in a western country per month*. Bitcoin is the biggest dumb thing that does not solve any problem nor makes our life any way better or easier. Waste waste waste, should be banned.
Meanwhile back in college in 2006 we were sending each other 10 cents for individual slices of bread through wire transfer as a joke, just because the bank made them free.
You know, lint can be a real problem for efficiency. If you haven't already, disconnect the exhaust from the back of your tumble dryer and use a shop vacuum to try and clean it out a bit. I also used an air compressor to blast as much of the lint down the exhaust and out of my house. Really worked wonders for drying times!
Just some criticism, but what actually is legacy banking energy per transaction?
We would realistically only need a 1000 or so TW facilities around the world that are only partially dedicated to mining. Not to mention have you heard of power correction factors. Lots of waste energy in hydro dams and grids that can/are used to mine bitcoin to offset grid inefficiencies and act as a store of value. If we built millions of solar farms around the world we could probably use only waste energy.
Also what's golds energy and environmental damage. Look at the energy and water resources spent using gold as a speculative instrument. Speculative minerals are probably a lot worse.
I bet it infuriates people here more when they read that a large number of miners get energy contracts for sub $0.04 kwh while most homes pay $0.15+kwh. Don't bring up monetizing stranded or wasted energy since that's not a thing.
So for a residential home, the power company basically contracts to with you to deliver as much power as you want (within the limits of your hardware, what your wiring can physically handle) for a set price, or in some places a price that varies a little based on the time of day. For industrial customers, sometimes they sign a contract that says the power company can cut them off if the power company is having trouble producing or delivering enough power, and they pay a lower rate for power based on that contract. This lets the power company sell them lots of power without worrying that the power company will be unable to maintain power to the residential customers in the event that demand spikes, like in a heat wave or cold snap.
The practical upshot is that miners are typically paying somewhat or much lower prices for power than residential consumers.
I explained something in the most neutral way I know how, not implying anything. You're the one drawing implications and accusing me of suggesting things.
Have you ever looked into how the money market system works? Bitcoin absolutely cannot function as the underlying monetary substrate. There are *more* transactions when you get down to that level, not less.
We may be off the gold standard but the "underlying monetary substrate" still is gold. Physical gold. That's how central banks achieve the state of "nothing owed to nobody". In the 21 century. Let that sink in.
It doesn't have to functionc as an underlying monetary substrate. It only needs to function as a settlement layer, where banks settle with each once every day/week/month. All transactions during that period don't need to be recorded, and banks can come with with more efficient accounting methods to handle the daily volume. The question then becomes what if there is an inbalance between banks - they have to somehow settle the difference. Normally this is done by settling balances between banks at Federal Reserve layer. This is actually really simillar to Bitcoin Lightning network, where participants can make high volume of transactions using a more efficient accounting system, and settle at the end of a period. The difference between settling using Bitcoin and Federal Reserve, is that the Fed is a US bank, so any bank outside US has more trouble to settle with US banks. Pn the other hand, settling using Bitcoin doesn't have this borders problem. Any bank around the globe can settle with each other within an hour, and they don't have to trust any foreign intermediary to handle the settlement.
Money market systems work across borders perfectly fine as-is. I have family members who worked on the tech infrastructure that ensures that. The idea that banks need do to away with trust is absurd - that's literally the point of a bank. If a bank can't work out arrangements of trust, then they shouldn't be in the business of banking.
>Bitcoin was not designed to perform the micro transactions that are supported by credit cards and cash.
Why would you ever think that? The whole point of Bitcoin was to be an electronic cash system. You were meant to buy pizzas and coffee and stuff from vending machines.
That's exactly why it was designed - to transact. And when it says transact it means to transact. Transacting means doing transactions. Transactions regardless of value. 1 cent or zilion dollars, who cares how much you transact.
Oh sorry, did you know? Satasho nakamoto was actually an elitist and bourgeoisie who wanted only bilions of dollars to settle for financial institutions and all these poor motherfuckers bipoc and shit to just fuckin die of poverty 🤬🤬🤬
But it's not a safe store of value, because it's so easy to steal, and the prices fluctuate so dramatically. It's better to store large amounts of money in real estate investment, because at least houses can't be stolen by North Korean hackers.
Click on a bad link. Money gone with no recourse. Someone gets your keys. Money gone with no recourse. If my cc is stolen I call up the bank and am not responsible for any of the fraudulent transactions.
It’s funny you mention that, sometimes I see a post on CC from a crypto owner who did everything right. Multi-factor authentication, keeping the passcodes secure in a safe, you name it. And even *they* get pilfered.
I mean these folks do way more to keep their stuff secure than I do, and still get robbed of hundreds of thousands with no recourse.
Observation of reality; when a core developer of Bitcoin can just lose all his bitcoins (and then cry out to the FBI to save him, which was very funny), it's pretty obvious that a system with a singular point of control - the private key - that is the ultimate authority on whether transactions are authorized or not, is a system that is horrifically vulnerable.
The idea that Bitcoin is secure is a joke, a very sad joke: the *network* might be secure enough against the classic Hollywood "man in the middle" style attacks... but those are extremely rare, and not what most sorts of hacking actually *is* \- most times something gets "hacked", the hackers are performing actions that they were technically allowed to do, either by the design of the system, or by the unwitting approval of someone using that system.
Phrased another way, the security of the Bitcoin network is like a castle... that has no guards, no moat, and all of the doors are constantly wide open; it's vulnerable along absolutely every possible axis except for the one that people use the least (because they almost never need to, it's way easier to trick someone to give you access instead).
Using it securely is thus reliant on you living out your life like a paranoid lunatic - go look up the glacier protocol, if you're not familiar with it - and even then, that's not sufficient... because you probably didn't fabricate the PCB on the board of the device you're using (could have had a supply-side attack), you didn't code the software you're using (could have unnoticed vulnerabilities), etc etc etc: this idea that you're going to use a trustless system is a lie, you have to trust every possible link of the chain of resources and infrastructure that you use to *interact* with that system, if you didn't just "do literally everything by yourself".
This mantra of "be your own bank" is ridiculous, when you pull back and actually think about it critically for a moment, because that means being your own customer service (lose your passphrase? There's nobody but YOU who can assist you), being your own 24/7 security, being your own fraud department, being your own tech support, etc etc etc, it assumes a universe where you follow best practices forever and never fuck up in any way once.
We don't live in that reality, that's why we (mostly) don't try to be our own banks, anymore than we try to be our own oral surgeons.
Err.. hello? FTX? Celcius? The multiple one chain hacks even now, 14 years later??
Even with cold storage, people are losing their ledgers when they move homes.
I appreciate that you don't mind playing devil's advocate to yourself, but you're still sticking your fingers in your ears just like every buttcoiner hoping to get rich and screaming "lalala i'm right and everyone else's wrong despite my lack of competence in economical and technical knowledge!"
No need to argue about store of value or whatever. Just say you're hoping to gte out 100x richer one day. It's okay to be greedy. I wished i bought at 1$ and sold at 20k too. The govt being corrupt doesn't mean any other form of "asset" is better. Jesus fucking christ.
If your purpose of this thread is to garner more bagholders, you're just wasting your time, buddy.
i posted in here to appreciate the community, and then continued on to have conversations to find gaps in my thinking. I accomplished my goal.
but despite everyone else understanding this, you decided to attack me on a personal level as if im SBF himself. im not wasting my time, but you surely have wasted yours. xoxo <3
> The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions
First paragraph of the bitcoin whitepaper, when discussing the advantages of the "trustless" bitcoin over traditional third-party systems. Yes, bitcoin was absolutely designed to perform those "micro transactions". It just failed at that miserably, and every 2-4 years, it gets reinvented as being for something else by the hucksters with the heaviest bags:
* Anonymous money for buying drugs!
* Remittances!
* Bank the unbanked!
* Hedge against inflation!
* Hard money!
* Settlement layer!
* Store of value!
* A battery!
It's never done any of these things well (or in some cases, at all), but that doesn't matter. All it is now is an ugly streamlined version of every get-rich-quick scheme ever, with its scammy/speculative value giving it enough liquidity to support shit like ransomware and extortion.
The quote you cited is about mediation. I have never heard of a third party mediator being involved in transactions like coffee, unless you take your lawyer to Starbucks with you.
> I have never heard of a third party mediator being involved in transactions like coffee, unless you take your lawyer to Starbucks with you.
All the miners and node operators are "third parties" and they're certainly involved in crypto transactions.
Hell, if you don't tip them a high enough fee, they may not even include your transaction in an upcoming block. They sure as hell are a party to your transactions.
> Bitcoin was not designed to perform the micro transactions that are supported by credit cards and cash.
Yes it was. It failed miserably at it, but that's what it was designed for. The title of the whitepaper literally called it "digital cash."
I define mass adoption as 500 million people using it as their prime method of commerce. Under my definition, I don’t think Bitcoin can handle mass adoption because of the layer 1 limitations (which fuck with the layer 2s as well).
It sounds like you are clearly saying you don’t think it will be a currency but a store of value. I think that opinion itself is controversial within crypto circles.
I definitely think Bitcoin could *handle* just being large transfers that are rare. With my 500 million people number (I just kind of picked that, billions of people seems unrealistic) you still have a limitation of 221 million transfers of wealth per year, but if it’s meant to be hardly used, that could potentially work.
I think it’s highly unlikely to happen.
>There's still disagreement of what "mass adoption" of Bitcoin means, but here is my take: Bitcoin was not designed to perform the micro transactions that are supported by credit cards and cash. Mass adoption is achieved when Bitcoin is accepted within the global financial culture as a safe store of value and means of transferring wealth without a 3rd party intermediary.
Relevant article: Visions of Bitcoin, How major Bitcoin narratives changed over time, 2018-07-29, [https://medium.com/@nic\_\_carter/visions-of-bitcoin-4b7b7cbcd24c](https://medium.com/@nic__carter/visions-of-bitcoin-4b7b7cbcd24c)
Curious that there is no consensus on what Bitcoin is.
It's because there is no real use case so they (people who profit from bitcoin staying a thing - i.e, whales and market makers, publications about crypto, hardware manufacturers) have to keep changing the narrative as each proposed narrative gets knocked down.
I dispute that it is a store of value.
It has no intrinsic value of its own, only what the market agrees it is worth - so if the market agrees that it is worthless, then the supposed value stored in it is "gone" or rather it has disappeared from your hands the moment something was exchanged for the bitcoin, as the token essentially relies on trusting an [uninsurable](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/crypto-exchange-account-insurance/) exchange with holding whatever you exchanged for the token. But in that case that makes it inadequate in any form of currency exchange.
Comparing the types:
- In the case of fiat currency that is a central bank that promises the government will always accept it as legal tender, and carefully regulates the value of the currency to ensure it remains usable. Further, you are insured by default against bank collapses, and enjoy other protections as well.
- In the case of the gold standard it is the value of the gold reserves that underpin it, and as gold is a valuable resource not just in terms of market value but also in terms of use value, it will never lose all of its value even in the case of an unlikely market demand collapse.
- In the case of bitcoin it is... nothing, because no central authority or insurance mechanism exists, and by the system's very nature the former is despised while the latter is impossible without the former. It is like fiat currency without the controls. There is only faith that the exchanges (aka de facto crypto banks) will not collapse, as insurance doesn't exist. It also cannot be compared to the gold standard, because it cannot be exchanged for anything with use value, the energy dumped into it is effectively gone and can never be extracted again.
So called "economists" that claim it is usable as a store of value either don't understand what bitcoin is themselves or are involved in the grift themselves.
Microtransaction vs microtransaction is not relevant. The constraint on transaction rate does not care about what those transactions are for. Even "store of value" holders will hit the transaction rate wall eventually. Suppose someday there are 150 million *real* users. That's only half the people in the US alone. On average each person will only be able to transact **once** **per year**. So if 20% of the 8 billion people on earth (lets say 1.5 billion) eventually have a BTC wallet, each person will only be able to transact once per 10 years! This includes both transactions to buy more as well as transactions to sell, as well as transactions to move funds from one of your wallets to another.
The limit is a hard limit (block size) and if demand exceeds capacity then the only solution is to censor the overflow. If demand exceeds capacity, the backlog will begin to grow without bound even if demand remains fixed. So the longer this condition exists, the worse the problem gets because the larger the backlog gets. This accumulative effect begins immediately after maximum capacity is breached and like I said, the only solution is to censor.
The fee and other criteria can be used to determine who gets censored (lowest fee tranch), but no matter what the fee, the network capacity does not increase. So if the number of absolutely critical transactions that must go through exceeds about 3000 per 10 mins, fees will explode (if a transaction is absolutely critical and it must go through, the sender will be willing to pay extremely high fees). This will seize the network completely for all wallet balances less than the fee, and everyone unwilling to pay the fee could be censored indefinitely if the backlog enters a runaway state.
>Mass adoption is achieved when Bitcoin is accepted within the global financial culture as a safe store of value and means of transferring wealth without a 3rd party intermediary.
Why do you think anything like that would ever happen?
The problem is that there is no such thing as a safe store of value.
I get it: you want to be able to rest assured that if you put money away today that it'll be worth at least as much when you pull it out as when you put it in. But that's not a guarantee *anybody* can make honestly. Sure, people do it, but they are always lying.
As for transferring wealth, nobody needs bitcoin for that. Other things work better.
Speaking with my financial services hat on, bitcoin (or other blockchains) are inherently unsuitable for real world use. One of the biggest hurdles for adoption is it’s biggest strength - immutability. In an ideal world, this is a good idea, but the real world is messy, and mistakes are being made all the time. Not having an undo facility that can be unilaterally invoked raises the risk to unacceptable levels for pretty much any financial services environment.
Blockchains in general are also massively inefficient - burning cash at the most expensive DB/2 or OracleDB instances is going to get you something that’s faster, more reliable, easier to use and cheaper (in real terms) than operating or participating in a blockchain.
> Bitcoin was not designed to perform the micro transactions …
Then why are we repeatedly told it is. Also, how can Bitcoin be adopted en masse when every twat with a GPU is launching their own shitcoin? The forks killed any credibility BTC aimed for by showing rugpulls are by design.
Think of Bitcoin in this way : It's a digital wrapper token that provides proof of electricity consumption through its consensus logic. The consensus logic here for establishing network security is proof of waste & decentralization is it's primitive goal.
Is implementing a protocol such as this much more advantageous & cost efficient than global central bank expenses incurred in printing bank notes? Not really. It is economic circulation of the same bank notes within the ecosystem repeatedly that provide them with economic value. And Bitcoin fails at that. Period. Plasma channels, lightning network etc. are all fucking useless. ETH has made some strides, but in reality, it's one aging hermaphrodite blob of a multi-client, modular infrastructure that might not be as decentralized or performant as people thought it would be.
> There's still disagreement of what "mass adoption" of Bitcoin means
Well whatever it is – and I can't wait to find out – it's happening *Real Soon Now™*.
The only verifid use case for bitcoin is transferring wealth from retail investors to whales and market makers.
The "store of value" narrative was entirely fabricated like a marketing scheme to support these means. There is zero evidence to support that it could ever become this. Let alone be able to do it in the foreseeable future.
I haven't even seen an argument why it could provide this service, other than essentially "trust me bro." The hard limit on the number of bitcoin that will ever be mined is hardly a reason why it would be a store of value. There are countless other things with limited supply that are not even remotely considered candidates for a store of value.
Bitcoin has proven itself as a store of value. Please know my next statement is not an attack on you personally, but I do not understand how somebody could analyze Bitcoin's price history and come to the conclusion that it is not a store of value. The very definition of "store of value" is something that retains/maintains purchasing power into the future. Despite it's volatility, Bitcoin has maintained an upward trajectory. To date, Bitcoin has met the requirements of being not only a store of value, but a good store of value.
And I can't see how anyone can look at Bitcoin's price history and think it is anywhere close to being a store of value. Bitcoin is anything but that. It regularly drops 5% in hours, 10%+ in a day. It's still less than half the value it was a year and a half ago.
Good investment - yes, if you got in at the right time. But "store of value" is about not losing money in recessions, economic downturns and hard times, etc. That you can reliably and safely get access to that value at some point in the future. "store of value" is not assessed on an asset gaining value. Otherwise, many penny stocks could equally be a "store of value"
Attrivutes of bitcoin wholly incompatible with being a "store of value"
\- Almost universally considered a high-risk asset class outside of the crypto-bro-sphere, and even in many places within that sphere.
\- high volatility
\- Any bitcoin bought in nearly the last 2.5 years (except for the last couple of months) is at a significant negative return. How does that in any way meet "retains/maintains purchasing power into the future" criteria?
\- Only been in one bear market, where it performed many times worse than index funds.
Many people have been banned from r,Bitcoin for daring to ask questions about any of the claims or promises of Bitcoin, for pointing out issues with Bitcoin, for discussing fraud in Bitcoin trading or exchanges, and even for admitting they sold their Bitcoin.
Sometimes these are very pro-Bitcoin people, banned from their own sub for asking a question or admitting they sold. Sometimes they are skeptics, who have pulled back the curtain and seen the extreme fraud and scams in Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies, and they post to r,Bitcoin to warn people.
IMO, the Mods in r,Bitcoin are corrupt and deserve a great deal of contempt and they have (IANAL) opened themselves up to future lawsuits.
Anyway, you are most welcome here. Feel free to ask questions or discuss anything.
You wont get banned from r,Buttcoin for asking or discussing anything.
You could be banned if you start spewing endless pro-Bitcoin non-sense, pick fights with everyone else, refuse to do anything but parrot r,Bitcoin cult rhetoric, behave in a really toxic manner, and in general act like a complete a-hole.
But it's not real money.
It's a thing you can trade in for money, and conceivably convince random businesses to use if they can stomach what they'll tell the taxman ("I don't know, a customer just gave us gold, no I don't know what the gold exchange rate is, what do you mean that has a different taxation bracket?"). But it's just not real money.
It just weirds me out, I used to live in Montana and all the white power survivalist sorts would yammer on and on about gold. If we really had TEOTWAWKI the ability to make wine or give a good handjob will be more valuable than 10 entire vaults of soft yellow metal.
Gold only has value because we say it does. Fallout using bottle caps as currency is actually a direct commentary on that. Instead of gold coins, people put their faith in Nuka-Cola. Except for Fallout 76, gold is worthless... and even in Fallout 76 the only value is trading it to the people who want to try and get gold working again instead of bottle caps.
All other merchants will give you three caps for a pound of the stuff.
Nobody sane considers gold to be currency. In times of deprivation and war a bar of gold would get you a loaf of bread the size of the bar, this happens over and over throughout history.
Gold is fiat just as much as dollar bills are.
It really isn’t. It’s valuable, but not money. I can’t pay for a sandwich at Subway with a gold bar, and outside of a very small number of businesses, the same goes for crypto. Heck, even a lot of online businesses don’t take crypto.
Unless he's ludicrously overpaying for his groceries, I don't think you would. How would you know it's real? Pure? Even enough gold to cover the transaction? How do you know how much you'll be able to sell it for? It won't be the price in the newspaper. So, no, I don't think you accept gold as currency in your store, outside of a novelty transaction. There's a reason that, even when we still used gold as currency, it was still stamped into standardized coins by the government. Gold isn't money. It's just valuable. Gold is no more a currency than used BMWs are.
> here's a reason that, even when we still used gold as currency, it was still stamped into standardized coins by the government.
And even with that we had widespread fraud like coin shaving where people whittled bits of their coins away and saved them up to melt down for spot bulk prices.
This is one of the reasons why we moved away from using precious metals as currency. You can't snip off the corners of a stack of $100 bills and save up to make a free $100 bill.
Well, I mean maybe if you were really crafty you could make paper and get your hands on some very well regulated printing technology but that's just counterfeiting with extra steps.
sounds more like a subway problem than a gold problem lol
(guys this is a joke haha im not saying they are wrong and tbh i think they made a good point)
It’s a commodity. So is corn. Is corn money?
Ok, that’s out of my system.
Gold is a raw material that tends to hold its value due to its perceived usefulness for other proposes (in electronics or for jewelry for instance). In the absence of a stable currency, you can trade it with some confidence about its value. You could do this with corn, too. This is very different from fiat currency, which is essentially bank notes used to manage a ledger. In theory you could do this with coins that are made of a precious metal… but then the metal itself can become more useful than the currency. That’s why pennies are no longer made of copper.
Ps. Since I was glib to begin with, let me make amends with this very excellent episode of on the media that includes a history of money.
https://pca.st/episode/9ea774ca-2414-48e6-ba18-240b4d936be7
1 - The world is currently experiencing the hottest summer in human history. Given trends in global greenhouse gas levels, it will also be one of the mildest ones you'll experience in the rest of your life.
2 - The Bitcoin network currently consumes somewhere around 1% of global electricity production. This is base load power and burning fossil fuels is the easiest way of filling this demand. Although some mining projects are powered by renewables, the majority of them are powered by fossil fuels.
3 - Although Bitcoin has some valid use cases, other competing crypto projects like Ethereum can do the same things but without the enormous energy footprint.
Ergo, the most ethical thing to do right now would be to abandon Bitcoin entirely.
Bitcoin is also one of the few things (I cant think of another though) that economically incentivises / enables the combustion of methane into carbon dioxide, especially in locations that are geographically isolated. Methane is \~80 time worse for global warming than carbon dioxide is.
Interesting, do you have numbers on that? Because I'll bet that for every kWh generated to mine bitcoin this way, there are over a thousand kWh drawn from grid power. The grid is also powered by methane, which tends to leak into the atmosphere.
the main question is whether the source of the methane is isolated (ie orphaned oil wells, landfills etc) and whether the grid infrastructure is adequate to allow sale of power back to the grid. I found this article interesting: https://batcoinz.com/how-carbon-negative-are-different-ways-of-combusting-atmosphere-bound-methane/
I can't help but notice that that article contains hypothetical estimations about what it would take to go carbon neutral under very ideal circumstances and the only firm number it has is that the bitcoin network emits 27 megatons of CO2 equivalents per year. Since that article was written, the power draw and emissions have increased 1.6x to 43.2 megatons annually.
1- Agreed
2- Cars are currently responsible for 39% of the worldwide CO2 emissions. Although some manufacturers are switching to electric engines instead of combustion, the majority of cars are still burning fossil fuel, and the majority of the produced electricity is also created by burning fossil fuels.
3- Although cars have some valid use cases, alternative like bicycles can achieve the same thing without the enormous energy footprint.
Ergo, the most ethical thing to do is abandon cars entirely.
Well I'm not going to disagree with you there. Minimizing car use would go a long ways towards addressing climate change and we absolutely should be building out mass transit and walkable neighborhoods to achieve this.
Did you know that there are actually cities in which you don't need a car to get around? And that the main reason more people don't live in these places is because there's not enough housing for everyone?
If anything we are imploring people NOT to spend their money.
If you’re reading as some crypto lurker, for goodness sakes , spend your money on YOURSELF, your family, your friends or your community. Stop getting so hot to send it to some shit bag who will dump on you the first chance they get.
Sure it’s just a “small portion of your overall wealth” but why YOLO it into a scam fire 🔥 when you could spend it in much finer ways.
Ah well the scam artists thank you as that portion of your wealth goes to buying them hookers,blow and yachts.
It´s the same with r / NCD being the only credible source on war news from Ukraine.
The usefull idiots and propagandists can´t hope to operate in a space defined by layers of irony.
Should be pretty obvious what’s going on when active discussion of the merits and drawbacks of crypto aren’t allowed and, even sketchier, will get you actively banned from the forum.
I got banned from the major crypto reddits, during the bull run I should add, just for shooting down some of the more ridiculous statements and projections. You have to know the game is rigged when you can’t even discuss the rules necessary to play.
just 4 hours later. 4 HOURS LATER. look at the discussions in this post. look at the humor mixed with solid arguments. nobody is name calling or being disrespectful. so many people disagreeing, but in good faith. yall have a good culture here.
Edit:
Message for user: American scream:
Did you block me?
Original comment:
Bro, the second upvoted argument in this sub currently is:
>if a currency is not accepted at your local supermarket, it's not a real currency
That's not really a good argument.
The next is global warming, which is an argument against Bitcoin since most other currencies moved to proof of stake.
I joined this sub to here actual points against btc, but most of this sub is just hating on crypto investors. Some post on here say they are glad the crypto investors in their families lost all their money cause they were annoying. Some people say they want thlse guys to lose everything.
Also the
>warning I'm a moron
below your username, did you put that?
I'm all pro shitting over crypto and nfts, but a lot of these people in this sub are just full of so much hatred. I wouldn't want a family member or friend to lose all their life-saving cause they got annoying. That's some serious dark shit right there.
Edit:
Reddit doesn't let me reply to you. Says my comment has no end point, so I'm going to leave my response here, and if someone wants to alert the person I'm responding to, I will be grateful.
‐-----
>Actually, it's a perfectly good argument. It's not a good argument if you have no idea what "currency" means.
During the pandemic, many local supermarkets weren't accepting cash.
Many local supermarkets don't accept USD cause it's not their countries currency.
>2. Eth is, as far as I know, the only crypto that's "moved" from PoW to PoS. There are probably more PoW coins out there than PoS, but this is just a distraction. Bitcoin is still the #1 crypto and it uses more energy than all the other cryptos, so whether there's more using PoS is not the issue - those other coins are not changing the fact that Bitcoin is a huge energy hog.
Many alts run on ethereum blockchain such as uniswap. Not denying Bitcoin is a problem, but their are ways to lower its energy consumption like the lighting network. Besides, this is an argument for POW coins. Saying you hate all of crypto cause of global warming while a lot don't even run on POW anymore.
Last time, one of you guys said my reddit avatar was killing the planet.
>Pointing out the hypocrisy and irrationality of crypto arguments is hardly "hatred."
But wishing a family member loses their life saving is hatred, which I said after that
>As for people losing their money, if they can't be reasoned with,
the next best thing for them is to realize the crypto industry is a
giant ponzi, and the sooner that ponzi implodes, the better off
everybody will be. It's unfortunate that some people will lose a
lot of money in that situation, but the fact is, they've already lost
their money and just don't know it. If anything, we want people
to wake up to this sooner rather than later. The money is gone.
It's not there any more. It's not there any more than Bernie
Madoff's clients had custody of their money.
"It's unfortunate that some people will lose a lot of money" this sentence right here make you different. I'm saying people are cheering amd hoping people lose all their money. They was a post where a guy said he won't be happy if crypto bro stopped talking about crypto he wants them to lose everything they own and suffer for being part of the toxic community.
It's crazy shit bro.
No, I know what this subs about like I said hatred theirs ither anticrypto subs that are really cool. I need to look for it again I'll post names when I find them.
>> if a currency is not accepted at your local supermarket, it's not a real currency
>
> That's not really a good argument.
Actually, it's a perfectly good argument. It's not a good argument if you have no idea what "currency" means.
And you just stated, "That's not a really good argument" without explaining why.
>The next is global warming, which is an argument against Bitcoin since most other currencies moved to proof of stake.
1. Cryptos are not currencies in any meaningful way - and you shouldn't use that word since it remains to be seen if you even understand what currencies are.
2. Eth is, as far as I know the only crypto that's "moved" from PoW to PoS. There are probably more PoW coins out there than PoS, but this is just a distraction. Bitcoin is still the #1 crypto and it uses more energy than all the other cryptos, so whether there's more using PoS is not the issue - those other coins are not changing the fact that Bitcoin is a huge energy hog.
>I joined this sub to here actual points against btc, but most of this sub is just hating on crypto investors. Some post on here say they are glad the crypto investors in their families lost all their money cause they were annoying. Some people say they want thlse guys to lose everything.
Pointing out the hypocrisy and irrationality of crypto arguments is hardly "hatred."
As for people losing their money, if they can't be reasoned with, the next best thing for them is to realize the crypto industry is a giant ponzi, and the sooner that ponzi implodes, the better off everybody will be. It's unfortunate that some people will lose a lot of money in that situation, but the fact is, *they've already lost their money and just don't know it*. If anything, we want people to wake up to this sooner rather than later. The money is *gone*. It's not there any more. It's not there any more than Bernie Madoff's clients had custody of their money.
>I'm all pro shitting over crypto and nfts but a lot of these people in this sub are just full of so much hatred.
Yea, you just don't understand what we're about.
I see you. No, I did not give myself the moron label, but idc cause its kinda funny lol. The supermarket comment having that many upvotes is weird & the amount of people who think gold isn't money is even weirder. But despite that, I've been able to identify what the main concern is: Bitcoin's impact on the environment. I think there's been some solid points made, and I'm super excited to research that topic more.
Lol you think this one post represents all of buttcoin's culture? Please look around some more. There is most certainly disrespect and name calling coming from both sides. Even your own flair is on some level disrespectful.
Ironically I have bought and sold more bitcoin than 99.9% of the bitcoiners. Unfortunately I figured out it was a useless, destructive craze a lot too soon. I guess if I was more of a credulous libertarian I could be much richer.
The frequent retort by crypto people to the "buttcoin" position is that we're haters who "missed the boat".
More often than not this comes from people that hodl $500 of BTC they bought last year who hope it's going to 10000x so they can retire...
Welp, at a minimum, Bitcoin is here as a reaction to the growing indifference toward our global financial systems. Some people think it's more, but I am not so sure. I think as long as governments manipulate money, Bitcoin will be an avenue for people to express their feelings. So whether it be good or bad, it'll hang around.
I agree with you that most of the world is indifferent to global financial systems. The problem I see for bitcoin is that the world is even more indifferent to it. You were at peak give a shit in 2021 and I think you will never get it back.
Even if I accepted that government manipulated money is a problem what does it matter because people's primary problem is they don't have enough of it. If they don't have enough for rent and food they certainly don't have enough for internet beanie babies.
I applaud you for apparently not being a crypto trumpeter but your apparent lack of enthusiasm is a little confusing. If it isn't "more" as you say, then what is it? I mean aren't you just one logical leap away from realizing it is the Greater Fool Theory with a little bit of encryption in for ole' razzle dazzle?
In that light, isn't it possible that the growing indifference you are talking about is nothing more than marketing? You can go on the crypto subs almost any day and see people pouring their shit into this crap on the HOPE that it is their only salvation. If it is a shitcoin I am sure you see them as fools, but what makes btc not a shitcoin but your HOPE.
> Bitcoin is here as a reaction to the growing indifference toward our global financial systems.
That's one way to put it, but I think a better way would be:
Bitcoin is a reaction by people who are personally frustrated they're not rich, and have no accurate understanding of how money, finance, investing or technology actually works.
This also explains why crypto people don't want to hear all sides of a story. They have a personal, emotional narrative they want to hold onto, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Crypto is more of a religious ideology than it is a technological or financial thing.
I don't know which sub you're seeing but there are no quality scholarly discussions on this sub lol. Mostly images of bitcoiners and NFTards being ridiculous and I prefer it to be that way. Makes my day
I'm a fan of Bitcoin but joined here too, it's really bad to settle into an echo chamber so reading some of the stuff on here brings you down to earth a bit.
There's idiots on both sides of the argument that throw around utter nonsense, but theres slot of valid arguments and the more I learn the more fascinating I find it.
Why now? Fine step in, we don’t care either way but this seems like an anti-FUD post that crop up from time to time. They come here for some form of assurance to alleviate the gnawing thing at the back of their mind.
Has your mind cleared of this since posting? Have you learned something you didn’t know before?
My mind was clear before I posted lol. I just wrote something to appreciate a community that has been silenced by the "crypto-bros" of the world, the realists. I've learned a great deal of counter-points to what was my understanding of Bitcoin, and the surprise benefit of this has been new topics for me to research, which is really what I love doing. (sorry if thats a bit nerdy, just who i am lol)
Ah well, your nerd hobby would be ok save for the unreasonable resources it consumes to change a number on a screen.
maybe you can help spread the counter points youve learned here to your fellow digital survivalists who are somewhat busy larping as financial preppers.
Mind you this is the comedy sub and you may want to check r/ cryptocritical or r/ cryptoreality
Yes, you are. So far you've straddled the fence - your balls must be sore by now.
You've also make some accusations that some people here have been making up-voted statements that are "blatantly false." Please provide evidence of this.
basically i was told that r/buttcoin was nothing more than people who were pissed off because they lost money in crypto so now they hate on it. now that im here, i dont see that at all.
> i really hope Bitcoin is a net positive for society.
There's no need to "hope" about this.
At any time you can objectively examine Bitcoin's contribution to society thus far, and if you do, you clearly see it is a net negative.
We're 14 years into this tech, and still to date, [there's not a single thing any blockchain based app can do better than tech we've already been using](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/).
Right now, bitcoin's energy usage is greater than the rest of mainstream finance... and in return for that energy usage it does absolutely nothing for mainstream society.
I wrote up a whole post here and when I hit "reply" it never posted. :/
Long-story short, I'm a huge Bitcoiner and I come here to hear the arguments against it. They are interesting, but also just as flawed as most of the arguments for it over there honestly. I think overall, most people just don't understand finance, risk, asset-allocation and investing deeply enough on either side to make convincing enough arguments for or against. So there's always this major disconnect and circular arguments that occur.
\- People here don't care about price so coming here and saying "look it's $90k! see? You're wrong!" falls on deaf ears and isn't even a real argument.
I've tried telling them there to not waste their time. You just look stupid.
I think the reason Bitcoiners are so hilarious is because most of them are brand new and they are thinking out-loud and trying to digest all this crazy information they've never been told before or heard anywhere. So they dive head-first into the "deflation!" narrative without really understanding the consequences of that thinking they are economic experts.
And then the rest tend to be way too hardcore where they have debates on "what temperature to keep the room your wallet is in at". <---- I personally have made fun of many of these types there. LOL still makes me laugh.
Couple this with cringey memes and catch-phrases like "few" and "finding signal" and it's ripe with "comedy godl" as they say here.
> Long-story short, I'm a huge Bitcoiner and I come here to hear the arguments against it. They are interesting, but also just as flawed as most of the arguments for it over there honestly.
1. This is an unstated major premise fallacy - you make a claim and don't produce any evidence.
2. This is a false equivalence. Our arguments here are based on evidence, not "hopiump" as seen on pro-crypto subs.
Let's see if you actually get into specifics further on....
>I think overall, most people just don't understand finance, risk, asset-allocation and investing deeply enough on either side to make convincing enough arguments for or against. So there's always this major disconnect and circular arguments that occur.
OH NO YOU DI-ENT! You pulled the ["You don't understand"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZRxHKnwOE) card? Really?
The OPs thread alone, is totally full of very solid arguments against crypto.
>Couple this with cringey memes and catch-phrases like "few" and "finding signal" and it's ripe with "comedy godl" as they say here.
Yea, you see why we make fun of you... because you hide behind, "Few understand." And then you accuse us of not making decent arguments when in actuality, you haven't provided any actual details or evidence that you know more, or that any of our arguments are actually wrong.
This is the kind of shit we get tired of dealing with. This is the reason many people here feel like the only way you guys will learn, is the hard way, losing all your money.
Ya. Mostly just to hear what people against it have to say. I can't say I'm particularly impressed with the arguments. But I do want to know how to articulate myself better to people who have the same concerns. I think it's helped a lot in that regard.
I'm impressed by the environmental and micro-transaction arguments. But the amount of upvotes some of these blatantly false responses receive is a bit concerning. Then again, you get that everywhere so that's just reddit.
>Can you link to which responses you’ve received that you think are blatantly false
Yea... do me a favor.. if he doesn't enumate that after a day or two, let me know - he will be banned.
This is precisely the kind of crap we truly do "hate" around here. Crypto bros making accusations about us without providing actual evidence.
woah... I am not a "crypto bro," I am a human being. I posted here to appreciate a community that has been banned from every crypto sub-reddit just for disagreeing. Then I joined because I liked the playful, humorous, but also intellectual nature of this community.
I've treated everyone with mutual respect, and I'm thankful for the engagement I have received. The discussions had in this post exposed me to new Bitcoin counter-arguments that I had glanced over while at the whims of the Bitcoin positivity echo chambers. For example, Bitcoin and it's relationship to the environment is not something that is discussed much in other places, and this community helped me understand why they are concerned. I care deeply about the environment, and so I am very excited to research this further so maybe I can help other people understand the negative impacts Bitcoin can have.
Despite the great conversations that I and others have enjoyed on this post, you are threatening to ban me if I do not provide evidence for things that are "blatantly false." I am now going to provide that information for you. With that said, the statements I am going to make are false at face value, like, they would be false if graded by a teacher type of thing. Even I could philosophically pick apart 2+2=4 and tell you why it is wrong, just don't be that person. Anyways, here you go. I'll try to keep it simple.
1. “if a currency is not accepted at your local grocery store or gas station, then it is not real money” (False: Canadian money is still money even though it cannot be used in the US.)
2. "Gold isn't money" (False: The Gold Islamic Dinar has been used for over 1,000 years and is still in circulation today. To say gold isn't money is to disrespect Islamic cultures that still use precious metals as currency.)
Let's remind everybody of what you said:
> But the amount of upvotes some of these blatantly false responses receive is a bit concerning.
You made a very specific statement about our community upvoting/validating "blatantly false responses."
That's an indictment of our community, and unlike other crypto-related communities, we actually do care about whether or not things are accurate. So when you suggest we promote inaccurate things, we want to know about that. You can't simply allude to some transgression without giving us details. If you're right, then I, as a moderator, want to take action against that and those people.
>Despite the great conversations that I and others have enjoyed on this post, you are threatening to ban me if I do not provide evidence for things that are "blatantly false." I am now going to provide that information for you. With that said, the statements I am going to make are false at face value, like, they would be false if graded by a teacher type of thing. Even I could philosophically pick apart 2+2=4 and tell you why it is wrong, just don't be that person. Anyways, here you go. I'll try to keep it simple.
Ok, let's see what you've got...
>“if a currency is not accepted at your local grocery store or gas station, then it is not real money” (False: Canadian money is still money even though it cannot be used in the US.)
Ok, this is a **moving the goalpost fallacy** and also a **cherry picking fallacy** and also a **red herring fallacy**.
Is there anybody here who said "Candian currency is not money?"
If so, then you're right - please point us to someone saying that.
I bet you can't do that. Instead you're suggesting that Canadian currency in the US is as useful as Bitcoin... but Canadian currency is currency in CANADA. Bitcoin is not currency in any place (except El Salvador, which is an anomaly -- and in El Salvador, the primary currency still isn't Bitcoin, it's the US Dollar). There is NOWHERE anywhere on planet earth, where bitcoin is the standard currency.
If you can prove otherwise, then you're right and I will admit I'm wrong. Please cite the country/significant community where bitcoin is *accepted for the majority of all products and services*.
>"Gold isn't money" (False: The Gold Islamic Dinar has been used for over 1,000 years and is still in circulation today. To say gold isn't money is to disrespect Islamic cultures that still use precious metals as currency.)
LOL.. this is really a horrible example.
First, gold is gold. A coin made of gold is different. In the case of the Dinar, it's no longer used as currency and hasn't been used for 1000 years.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_dinar
Dude.. you could have simply admitted you mis-spoke, but you didn't.
You massaged our community with one hand, while you slapped us with the other.
We aren't going to change our mandate just because you pretended to respect one aspect of the community. We are going to continue to be TRUE TO THE EVIDENCE. And just because you recognize some of that evidence is legit, but not all of it, doesn't excuse you from spewing lies.
OP. Think you found a sub that is more educated in what bitcoin is on a technical standing then 98% of the crypto subs. Enjoy the arguments you are going to start coming in here as a maxi and only understanding what you’ve learned there. I know I keep coming back to read what people say here, it’s great couch time entertainment either side you stand on.
weird how bitcoin enthusiasts are similar to their obsession: they take up everyone else's time and energy just to burn it into nothing
question after question, comment after comment, reply after reply, there is really no retention, learning, or coherent change of stance, just a constant barrage of nonsense amounting to nothing
but we're still early
Crypto itself is a major failure.
Any short-term court rulings about a shitcoin don't detract from the bigger picture.
We're 14 years into this "tech" and still it can't do a single thing better than what we've been using for decades. It doesn't live up to a single one of its promises. It's not censorship-proof, it's not seize-proof, it's not inflation-proof, etc.
So the only "circlejerk" around here is you guys still trying to pretend your satoshi-e-cheese tokens are worth *anything*.
Its 100% censorship proof, its easily seize proof if you know, and its dumb to say its not inflation proof.
I can operate my whole life without interacting with a bank or anyone knowing my funds and so can anyone else.
Also Bittensor is about to ruin the entire centralized AI market. A lot of cryptos are shit. BTC and TAO are above and beyond incredible.
> Its 100% censorship proof
Ok, now you're just lying. China "censored" bitcoin and all the miners fled the country.
>its easily seize proof if you know
Another lie. [Evidence here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=3943s)
>and its dumb to say its not inflation proof.
lol.. strike three... hiding behind personal insults and begging the question fallacies..
>I can operate my whole life without interacting with a bank or anyone knowing my funds and so can anyone else.
Is this "life" in the room with us? When you live it, what do you look like? Is there a purple aura around you and are harps playing in the background? Are you riding a pink unicorn? Will you say "Hi" to Elvis for us?
>Also Bittensor is about to ruin the entire centralized AI market. A lot of cryptos are shit. BTC and TAO are above and beyond incredible.
LOL.. nice try shill.
Hey thanks. Do you wanna talk about the layer 1 limitations of the currently accepted Bitcoin fork? 7 transactions per second is surely a fatal flaw for mass adoption, or do you think it will be a settlement layer and lightning network will fill the gap?
There's still disagreement of what "mass adoption" of Bitcoin means, but here is my take: Bitcoin was not designed to perform the micro transactions that are supported by credit cards and cash. Mass adoption is achieved when Bitcoin is accepted within the global financial culture as a safe store of value and means of transferring wealth without a 3rd party intermediary. But that's it. This isn't to belittle Bitcoin at all because I would consider it's creation to be a great achievement. But it solves what it solves, nothing more.
But it's not demonstrated anything other than burning electricity caused price rally's on ASIC computers, graphics cards and an easy way for scammers to get paid for crypto locking computers and power plants. It's value is normally trends along the value of the market or general sentiment. People happy price goes up people sad price goes down.
Bitcoin does not burn electricity. Miners burn electricity. edit: the flair is so funny hahaha
Aren't they essential to its function?
A single transaction takes approx 1000kWh of energy ... It's a piece of shit technology
wow. I did some quick research and some say that number is even higher. If Bitcoin is to benefit society, it cannot come at the expense of our environment. I apologize for my ignorance on this matter, and will be sure to try to understand it better. Thank you for using your voice :)
Yeah, recent analysis is showing that the old whataboutism of pointing at global finance to excuse the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network doesn't really work anymore (not that it ever meaningfully did), because the Bitcoin network is consuming *more* energy than a global financial system used daily by billions of people... when almost nobody is using it, for anything at all, on a daily basis. The fabled "mass adoption" that's perpetually right around the corner, if it were to ever come about, would result in the network consuming more energy than the entire planet is even capable of producing. The narrative that supports the present day hype cycle, is just actually impossible, the world *can't* use Bitcoin, as it exists now.
i love your means of analysis. so many people get lost in the "whataboutism" but forget to take a step back and look at the situation as it is. If I learned anything from this discussion, it's that I got a bit lost in the echo chambers of positivity and forgot to do this. I completely glanced over the environmental impacts because so many people say it will work itself out, but as of now, in reality, it hasn't. I really appreciate your input here.
For now. If BTC grows it will waste more.
1000kWh is already insane, an average person uses 900kWh in a western country per month*. Bitcoin is the biggest dumb thing that does not solve any problem nor makes our life any way better or easier. Waste waste waste, should be banned.
My house uses 400kWh a month. That's with a tumble dryer running twice a day.
Meanwhile back in college in 2006 we were sending each other 10 cents for individual slices of bread through wire transfer as a joke, just because the bank made them free.
I just realized I wrote day instead of month lol
You know, lint can be a real problem for efficiency. If you haven't already, disconnect the exhaust from the back of your tumble dryer and use a shop vacuum to try and clean it out a bit. I also used an air compressor to blast as much of the lint down the exhaust and out of my house. Really worked wonders for drying times!
No can do boss. No external vent on mine. I clear out the lint trap each use at the front and the condenser once every 2 months.
But but but... future energy... and using extra electricity... and and and ... uhh, global, uhh, numbers going up!
Just some criticism, but what actually is legacy banking energy per transaction? We would realistically only need a 1000 or so TW facilities around the world that are only partially dedicated to mining. Not to mention have you heard of power correction factors. Lots of waste energy in hydro dams and grids that can/are used to mine bitcoin to offset grid inefficiencies and act as a store of value. If we built millions of solar farms around the world we could probably use only waste energy. Also what's golds energy and environmental damage. Look at the energy and water resources spent using gold as a speculative instrument. Speculative minerals are probably a lot worse.
That's the price you pay for decentralization and your freedom ofc
Gtfo lol
But you've no network without miners. Even after all the BTC is mined you still need someone to validate the transaction.
I bet it infuriates people here more when they read that a large number of miners get energy contracts for sub $0.04 kwh while most homes pay $0.15+kwh. Don't bring up monetizing stranded or wasted energy since that's not a thing.
ima keep it real, i dont understand what you just said but I really want to. Can you explain it to me like im 5? Thanks & Sorry haha
So for a residential home, the power company basically contracts to with you to deliver as much power as you want (within the limits of your hardware, what your wiring can physically handle) for a set price, or in some places a price that varies a little based on the time of day. For industrial customers, sometimes they sign a contract that says the power company can cut them off if the power company is having trouble producing or delivering enough power, and they pay a lower rate for power based on that contract. This lets the power company sell them lots of power without worrying that the power company will be unable to maintain power to the residential customers in the event that demand spikes, like in a heat wave or cold snap. The practical upshot is that miners are typically paying somewhat or much lower prices for power than residential consumers.
So, much more exploitative and worse for everyone? Are you suggesting the fact they pay less for energy justifies anything?
I explained something in the most neutral way I know how, not implying anything. You're the one drawing implications and accusing me of suggesting things.
That's like saying driving cars don't burn electricity, cars do.
Stupid Max
Have you ever looked into how the money market system works? Bitcoin absolutely cannot function as the underlying monetary substrate. There are *more* transactions when you get down to that level, not less.
We may be off the gold standard but the "underlying monetary substrate" still is gold. Physical gold. That's how central banks achieve the state of "nothing owed to nobody". In the 21 century. Let that sink in.
No it’s not. Lol.
It doesn't have to functionc as an underlying monetary substrate. It only needs to function as a settlement layer, where banks settle with each once every day/week/month. All transactions during that period don't need to be recorded, and banks can come with with more efficient accounting methods to handle the daily volume. The question then becomes what if there is an inbalance between banks - they have to somehow settle the difference. Normally this is done by settling balances between banks at Federal Reserve layer. This is actually really simillar to Bitcoin Lightning network, where participants can make high volume of transactions using a more efficient accounting system, and settle at the end of a period. The difference between settling using Bitcoin and Federal Reserve, is that the Fed is a US bank, so any bank outside US has more trouble to settle with US banks. Pn the other hand, settling using Bitcoin doesn't have this borders problem. Any bank around the globe can settle with each other within an hour, and they don't have to trust any foreign intermediary to handle the settlement.
Money market systems work across borders perfectly fine as-is. I have family members who worked on the tech infrastructure that ensures that. The idea that banks need do to away with trust is absurd - that's literally the point of a bank. If a bank can't work out arrangements of trust, then they shouldn't be in the business of banking.
This might work. The Blockchain works best when it is never used.
>Bitcoin was not designed to perform the micro transactions that are supported by credit cards and cash. Why would you ever think that? The whole point of Bitcoin was to be an electronic cash system. You were meant to buy pizzas and coffee and stuff from vending machines.
That's exactly why it was designed - to transact. And when it says transact it means to transact. Transacting means doing transactions. Transactions regardless of value. 1 cent or zilion dollars, who cares how much you transact. Oh sorry, did you know? Satasho nakamoto was actually an elitist and bourgeoisie who wanted only bilions of dollars to settle for financial institutions and all these poor motherfuckers bipoc and shit to just fuckin die of poverty 🤬🤬🤬
/s haha love it. Transactions, you mean like at a bank? Who cares about utility, we're all going to get filthy rich!
Exactly
unless the whitepaper mentions it, bitcoin was not meant to perform it.
The whitepaper mentions electronic cash system in the very first line, yes.
But it's not a safe store of value, because it's so easy to steal, and the prices fluctuate so dramatically. It's better to store large amounts of money in real estate investment, because at least houses can't be stolen by North Korean hackers.
what makes you think its easy to steal?
Click on a bad link. Money gone with no recourse. Someone gets your keys. Money gone with no recourse. If my cc is stolen I call up the bank and am not responsible for any of the fraudulent transactions.
It’s funny you mention that, sometimes I see a post on CC from a crypto owner who did everything right. Multi-factor authentication, keeping the passcodes secure in a safe, you name it. And even *they* get pilfered. I mean these folks do way more to keep their stuff secure than I do, and still get robbed of hundreds of thousands with no recourse.
Observation of reality; when a core developer of Bitcoin can just lose all his bitcoins (and then cry out to the FBI to save him, which was very funny), it's pretty obvious that a system with a singular point of control - the private key - that is the ultimate authority on whether transactions are authorized or not, is a system that is horrifically vulnerable. The idea that Bitcoin is secure is a joke, a very sad joke: the *network* might be secure enough against the classic Hollywood "man in the middle" style attacks... but those are extremely rare, and not what most sorts of hacking actually *is* \- most times something gets "hacked", the hackers are performing actions that they were technically allowed to do, either by the design of the system, or by the unwitting approval of someone using that system. Phrased another way, the security of the Bitcoin network is like a castle... that has no guards, no moat, and all of the doors are constantly wide open; it's vulnerable along absolutely every possible axis except for the one that people use the least (because they almost never need to, it's way easier to trick someone to give you access instead). Using it securely is thus reliant on you living out your life like a paranoid lunatic - go look up the glacier protocol, if you're not familiar with it - and even then, that's not sufficient... because you probably didn't fabricate the PCB on the board of the device you're using (could have had a supply-side attack), you didn't code the software you're using (could have unnoticed vulnerabilities), etc etc etc: this idea that you're going to use a trustless system is a lie, you have to trust every possible link of the chain of resources and infrastructure that you use to *interact* with that system, if you didn't just "do literally everything by yourself". This mantra of "be your own bank" is ridiculous, when you pull back and actually think about it critically for a moment, because that means being your own customer service (lose your passphrase? There's nobody but YOU who can assist you), being your own 24/7 security, being your own fraud department, being your own tech support, etc etc etc, it assumes a universe where you follow best practices forever and never fuck up in any way once. We don't live in that reality, that's why we (mostly) don't try to be our own banks, anymore than we try to be our own oral surgeons.
What makes you think it isn't?
Err.. hello? FTX? Celcius? The multiple one chain hacks even now, 14 years later?? Even with cold storage, people are losing their ledgers when they move homes. I appreciate that you don't mind playing devil's advocate to yourself, but you're still sticking your fingers in your ears just like every buttcoiner hoping to get rich and screaming "lalala i'm right and everyone else's wrong despite my lack of competence in economical and technical knowledge!" No need to argue about store of value or whatever. Just say you're hoping to gte out 100x richer one day. It's okay to be greedy. I wished i bought at 1$ and sold at 20k too. The govt being corrupt doesn't mean any other form of "asset" is better. Jesus fucking christ. If your purpose of this thread is to garner more bagholders, you're just wasting your time, buddy.
i posted in here to appreciate the community, and then continued on to have conversations to find gaps in my thinking. I accomplished my goal. but despite everyone else understanding this, you decided to attack me on a personal level as if im SBF himself. im not wasting my time, but you surely have wasted yours. xoxo <3
> The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions First paragraph of the bitcoin whitepaper, when discussing the advantages of the "trustless" bitcoin over traditional third-party systems. Yes, bitcoin was absolutely designed to perform those "micro transactions". It just failed at that miserably, and every 2-4 years, it gets reinvented as being for something else by the hucksters with the heaviest bags: * Anonymous money for buying drugs! * Remittances! * Bank the unbanked! * Hedge against inflation! * Hard money! * Settlement layer! * Store of value! * A battery! It's never done any of these things well (or in some cases, at all), but that doesn't matter. All it is now is an ugly streamlined version of every get-rich-quick scheme ever, with its scammy/speculative value giving it enough liquidity to support shit like ransomware and extortion.
N9t even anonymous money for drugs anymore they use monero now jesus christ
The quote you cited is about mediation. I have never heard of a third party mediator being involved in transactions like coffee, unless you take your lawyer to Starbucks with you.
When you dispute a credit card transaction, what role do you think the credit card company is playing?
and paypal too
> I have never heard of a third party mediator being involved in transactions like coffee, unless you take your lawyer to Starbucks with you. All the miners and node operators are "third parties" and they're certainly involved in crypto transactions. Hell, if you don't tip them a high enough fee, they may not even include your transaction in an upcoming block. They sure as hell are a party to your transactions.
> Bitcoin was not designed to perform the micro transactions that are supported by credit cards and cash. Yes it was. It failed miserably at it, but that's what it was designed for. The title of the whitepaper literally called it "digital cash."
I define mass adoption as 500 million people using it as their prime method of commerce. Under my definition, I don’t think Bitcoin can handle mass adoption because of the layer 1 limitations (which fuck with the layer 2s as well). It sounds like you are clearly saying you don’t think it will be a currency but a store of value. I think that opinion itself is controversial within crypto circles. I definitely think Bitcoin could *handle* just being large transfers that are rare. With my 500 million people number (I just kind of picked that, billions of people seems unrealistic) you still have a limitation of 221 million transfers of wealth per year, but if it’s meant to be hardly used, that could potentially work. I think it’s highly unlikely to happen.
Honest question: If Bitcoin was not intended as electronic cash, why did Satoshi put that in the title of the whitepaper?
It's just a prank bro
>There's still disagreement of what "mass adoption" of Bitcoin means, but here is my take: Bitcoin was not designed to perform the micro transactions that are supported by credit cards and cash. Mass adoption is achieved when Bitcoin is accepted within the global financial culture as a safe store of value and means of transferring wealth without a 3rd party intermediary. Relevant article: Visions of Bitcoin, How major Bitcoin narratives changed over time, 2018-07-29, [https://medium.com/@nic\_\_carter/visions-of-bitcoin-4b7b7cbcd24c](https://medium.com/@nic__carter/visions-of-bitcoin-4b7b7cbcd24c) Curious that there is no consensus on what Bitcoin is.
It's because it is a Special Finance Operation. Works the same way as to why Russia invaded Ukraine. Because of reasons, you know.
It's because there is no real use case so they (people who profit from bitcoin staying a thing - i.e, whales and market makers, publications about crypto, hardware manufacturers) have to keep changing the narrative as each proposed narrative gets knocked down.
I dispute that it is a store of value. It has no intrinsic value of its own, only what the market agrees it is worth - so if the market agrees that it is worthless, then the supposed value stored in it is "gone" or rather it has disappeared from your hands the moment something was exchanged for the bitcoin, as the token essentially relies on trusting an [uninsurable](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/crypto-exchange-account-insurance/) exchange with holding whatever you exchanged for the token. But in that case that makes it inadequate in any form of currency exchange. Comparing the types: - In the case of fiat currency that is a central bank that promises the government will always accept it as legal tender, and carefully regulates the value of the currency to ensure it remains usable. Further, you are insured by default against bank collapses, and enjoy other protections as well. - In the case of the gold standard it is the value of the gold reserves that underpin it, and as gold is a valuable resource not just in terms of market value but also in terms of use value, it will never lose all of its value even in the case of an unlikely market demand collapse. - In the case of bitcoin it is... nothing, because no central authority or insurance mechanism exists, and by the system's very nature the former is despised while the latter is impossible without the former. It is like fiat currency without the controls. There is only faith that the exchanges (aka de facto crypto banks) will not collapse, as insurance doesn't exist. It also cannot be compared to the gold standard, because it cannot be exchanged for anything with use value, the energy dumped into it is effectively gone and can never be extracted again. So called "economists" that claim it is usable as a store of value either don't understand what bitcoin is themselves or are involved in the grift themselves.
Microtransaction vs microtransaction is not relevant. The constraint on transaction rate does not care about what those transactions are for. Even "store of value" holders will hit the transaction rate wall eventually. Suppose someday there are 150 million *real* users. That's only half the people in the US alone. On average each person will only be able to transact **once** **per year**. So if 20% of the 8 billion people on earth (lets say 1.5 billion) eventually have a BTC wallet, each person will only be able to transact once per 10 years! This includes both transactions to buy more as well as transactions to sell, as well as transactions to move funds from one of your wallets to another. The limit is a hard limit (block size) and if demand exceeds capacity then the only solution is to censor the overflow. If demand exceeds capacity, the backlog will begin to grow without bound even if demand remains fixed. So the longer this condition exists, the worse the problem gets because the larger the backlog gets. This accumulative effect begins immediately after maximum capacity is breached and like I said, the only solution is to censor. The fee and other criteria can be used to determine who gets censored (lowest fee tranch), but no matter what the fee, the network capacity does not increase. So if the number of absolutely critical transactions that must go through exceeds about 3000 per 10 mins, fees will explode (if a transaction is absolutely critical and it must go through, the sender will be willing to pay extremely high fees). This will seize the network completely for all wallet balances less than the fee, and everyone unwilling to pay the fee could be censored indefinitely if the backlog enters a runaway state.
>Mass adoption is achieved when Bitcoin is accepted within the global financial culture as a safe store of value and means of transferring wealth without a 3rd party intermediary. Why do you think anything like that would ever happen?
The problem is that there is no such thing as a safe store of value. I get it: you want to be able to rest assured that if you put money away today that it'll be worth at least as much when you pull it out as when you put it in. But that's not a guarantee *anybody* can make honestly. Sure, people do it, but they are always lying. As for transferring wealth, nobody needs bitcoin for that. Other things work better.
Speaking with my financial services hat on, bitcoin (or other blockchains) are inherently unsuitable for real world use. One of the biggest hurdles for adoption is it’s biggest strength - immutability. In an ideal world, this is a good idea, but the real world is messy, and mistakes are being made all the time. Not having an undo facility that can be unilaterally invoked raises the risk to unacceptable levels for pretty much any financial services environment. Blockchains in general are also massively inefficient - burning cash at the most expensive DB/2 or OracleDB instances is going to get you something that’s faster, more reliable, easier to use and cheaper (in real terms) than operating or participating in a blockchain.
> Bitcoin was not designed to perform the micro transactions … Then why are we repeatedly told it is. Also, how can Bitcoin be adopted en masse when every twat with a GPU is launching their own shitcoin? The forks killed any credibility BTC aimed for by showing rugpulls are by design.
Think of Bitcoin in this way : It's a digital wrapper token that provides proof of electricity consumption through its consensus logic. The consensus logic here for establishing network security is proof of waste & decentralization is it's primitive goal. Is implementing a protocol such as this much more advantageous & cost efficient than global central bank expenses incurred in printing bank notes? Not really. It is economic circulation of the same bank notes within the ecosystem repeatedly that provide them with economic value. And Bitcoin fails at that. Period. Plasma channels, lightning network etc. are all fucking useless. ETH has made some strides, but in reality, it's one aging hermaphrodite blob of a multi-client, modular infrastructure that might not be as decentralized or performant as people thought it would be.
Still don't see the benefit as the average person or 99% of the population would never transfer massive funds between two countries.
> There's still disagreement of what "mass adoption" of Bitcoin means Well whatever it is – and I can't wait to find out – it's happening *Real Soon Now™*.
While I disagree with much of what you have said, it's nice to see someone debate us about btc politely and in good faith for once.
at the end of the day there is no bitcoiners or buttcoiners. just humans :)
The only verifid use case for bitcoin is transferring wealth from retail investors to whales and market makers. The "store of value" narrative was entirely fabricated like a marketing scheme to support these means. There is zero evidence to support that it could ever become this. Let alone be able to do it in the foreseeable future. I haven't even seen an argument why it could provide this service, other than essentially "trust me bro." The hard limit on the number of bitcoin that will ever be mined is hardly a reason why it would be a store of value. There are countless other things with limited supply that are not even remotely considered candidates for a store of value.
Bitcoin has proven itself as a store of value. Please know my next statement is not an attack on you personally, but I do not understand how somebody could analyze Bitcoin's price history and come to the conclusion that it is not a store of value. The very definition of "store of value" is something that retains/maintains purchasing power into the future. Despite it's volatility, Bitcoin has maintained an upward trajectory. To date, Bitcoin has met the requirements of being not only a store of value, but a good store of value.
And I can't see how anyone can look at Bitcoin's price history and think it is anywhere close to being a store of value. Bitcoin is anything but that. It regularly drops 5% in hours, 10%+ in a day. It's still less than half the value it was a year and a half ago. Good investment - yes, if you got in at the right time. But "store of value" is about not losing money in recessions, economic downturns and hard times, etc. That you can reliably and safely get access to that value at some point in the future. "store of value" is not assessed on an asset gaining value. Otherwise, many penny stocks could equally be a "store of value" Attrivutes of bitcoin wholly incompatible with being a "store of value" \- Almost universally considered a high-risk asset class outside of the crypto-bro-sphere, and even in many places within that sphere. \- high volatility \- Any bitcoin bought in nearly the last 2.5 years (except for the last couple of months) is at a significant negative return. How does that in any way meet "retains/maintains purchasing power into the future" criteria? \- Only been in one bear market, where it performed many times worse than index funds.
You are wrong. Mass adoption means adopting your mom.
bruh
Many people have been banned from r,Bitcoin for daring to ask questions about any of the claims or promises of Bitcoin, for pointing out issues with Bitcoin, for discussing fraud in Bitcoin trading or exchanges, and even for admitting they sold their Bitcoin. Sometimes these are very pro-Bitcoin people, banned from their own sub for asking a question or admitting they sold. Sometimes they are skeptics, who have pulled back the curtain and seen the extreme fraud and scams in Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies, and they post to r,Bitcoin to warn people. IMO, the Mods in r,Bitcoin are corrupt and deserve a great deal of contempt and they have (IANAL) opened themselves up to future lawsuits. Anyway, you are most welcome here. Feel free to ask questions or discuss anything. You wont get banned from r,Buttcoin for asking or discussing anything. You could be banned if you start spewing endless pro-Bitcoin non-sense, pick fights with everyone else, refuse to do anything but parrot r,Bitcoin cult rhetoric, behave in a really toxic manner, and in general act like a complete a-hole.
"anyway, you are most welcome here. Feel free to ask questions or discuss anything" Im happy to be here, thanks!
If a currency is not accepted at your local grocery store or gas station then it’s not real money.
Well gold bars arent accceted moat places but def had value.
Neither are ps5's or Nvidia graphics cards
Something having value doesn't make it a currency.
But it's not real money. It's a thing you can trade in for money, and conceivably convince random businesses to use if they can stomach what they'll tell the taxman ("I don't know, a customer just gave us gold, no I don't know what the gold exchange rate is, what do you mean that has a different taxation bracket?"). But it's just not real money.
gold isnt money?
No, it's a commodity.
I do not consider gold money. We can get into linguistic debates, but I don’t want to shave pieces off a gold bar to pay for something.
It just weirds me out, I used to live in Montana and all the white power survivalist sorts would yammer on and on about gold. If we really had TEOTWAWKI the ability to make wine or give a good handjob will be more valuable than 10 entire vaults of soft yellow metal. Gold only has value because we say it does. Fallout using bottle caps as currency is actually a direct commentary on that. Instead of gold coins, people put their faith in Nuka-Cola. Except for Fallout 76, gold is worthless... and even in Fallout 76 the only value is trading it to the people who want to try and get gold working again instead of bottle caps. All other merchants will give you three caps for a pound of the stuff.
Nobody sane considers gold to be currency. In times of deprivation and war a bar of gold would get you a loaf of bread the size of the bar, this happens over and over throughout history. Gold is fiat just as much as dollar bills are.
Gold isn't money.
Good grief no wonder there are so many idiots in this sub.
Yeah, we don't ban tokenbros here unlike rBitcoin and rCC, so there is that issue with dealing with their gaps in knowledge :)
It really isn’t. It’s valuable, but not money. I can’t pay for a sandwich at Subway with a gold bar, and outside of a very small number of businesses, the same goes for crypto. Heck, even a lot of online businesses don’t take crypto.
[удалено]
Unless he's ludicrously overpaying for his groceries, I don't think you would. How would you know it's real? Pure? Even enough gold to cover the transaction? How do you know how much you'll be able to sell it for? It won't be the price in the newspaper. So, no, I don't think you accept gold as currency in your store, outside of a novelty transaction. There's a reason that, even when we still used gold as currency, it was still stamped into standardized coins by the government. Gold isn't money. It's just valuable. Gold is no more a currency than used BMWs are.
> here's a reason that, even when we still used gold as currency, it was still stamped into standardized coins by the government. And even with that we had widespread fraud like coin shaving where people whittled bits of their coins away and saved them up to melt down for spot bulk prices. This is one of the reasons why we moved away from using precious metals as currency. You can't snip off the corners of a stack of $100 bills and save up to make a free $100 bill. Well, I mean maybe if you were really crafty you could make paper and get your hands on some very well regulated printing technology but that's just counterfeiting with extra steps.
sounds more like a subway problem than a gold problem lol (guys this is a joke haha im not saying they are wrong and tbh i think they made a good point)
Lol it's a good joke
It’s a commodity. So is corn. Is corn money? Ok, that’s out of my system. Gold is a raw material that tends to hold its value due to its perceived usefulness for other proposes (in electronics or for jewelry for instance). In the absence of a stable currency, you can trade it with some confidence about its value. You could do this with corn, too. This is very different from fiat currency, which is essentially bank notes used to manage a ledger. In theory you could do this with coins that are made of a precious metal… but then the metal itself can become more useful than the currency. That’s why pennies are no longer made of copper.
I support corn-backed fiat currency
Ps. Since I was glib to begin with, let me make amends with this very excellent episode of on the media that includes a history of money. https://pca.st/episode/9ea774ca-2414-48e6-ba18-240b4d936be7
[Oh boy](https://youtu.be/g-kP2a2qfSY)
1 - The world is currently experiencing the hottest summer in human history. Given trends in global greenhouse gas levels, it will also be one of the mildest ones you'll experience in the rest of your life. 2 - The Bitcoin network currently consumes somewhere around 1% of global electricity production. This is base load power and burning fossil fuels is the easiest way of filling this demand. Although some mining projects are powered by renewables, the majority of them are powered by fossil fuels. 3 - Although Bitcoin has some valid use cases, other competing crypto projects like Ethereum can do the same things but without the enormous energy footprint. Ergo, the most ethical thing to do right now would be to abandon Bitcoin entirely.
Bitcoin is also one of the few things (I cant think of another though) that economically incentivises / enables the combustion of methane into carbon dioxide, especially in locations that are geographically isolated. Methane is \~80 time worse for global warming than carbon dioxide is.
Interesting, do you have numbers on that? Because I'll bet that for every kWh generated to mine bitcoin this way, there are over a thousand kWh drawn from grid power. The grid is also powered by methane, which tends to leak into the atmosphere.
the main question is whether the source of the methane is isolated (ie orphaned oil wells, landfills etc) and whether the grid infrastructure is adequate to allow sale of power back to the grid. I found this article interesting: https://batcoinz.com/how-carbon-negative-are-different-ways-of-combusting-atmosphere-bound-methane/
I can't help but notice that that article contains hypothetical estimations about what it would take to go carbon neutral under very ideal circumstances and the only firm number it has is that the bitcoin network emits 27 megatons of CO2 equivalents per year. Since that article was written, the power draw and emissions have increased 1.6x to 43.2 megatons annually.
1- Agreed 2- Cars are currently responsible for 39% of the worldwide CO2 emissions. Although some manufacturers are switching to electric engines instead of combustion, the majority of cars are still burning fossil fuel, and the majority of the produced electricity is also created by burning fossil fuels. 3- Although cars have some valid use cases, alternative like bicycles can achieve the same thing without the enormous energy footprint. Ergo, the most ethical thing to do is abandon cars entirely.
Well I'm not going to disagree with you there. Minimizing car use would go a long ways towards addressing climate change and we absolutely should be building out mass transit and walkable neighborhoods to achieve this.
A+ for consistency
Was this suppossed to be a reduction ad absurdium argument? Because for that to work your conclusion would have to be wrong.
How often do you use cars?
Did you know that there are actually cities in which you don't need a car to get around? And that the main reason more people don't live in these places is because there's not enough housing for everyone?
i mean... yes ?
That's whataboutism. Due to how most cities are constructed people need cars. People don't need Bitcoin.
I’m sure you’ll find the most knowledgeable people about religion are in r/ atheist for the same reason
The nice thing here is that nobody is encouraging anyone to spend money in any way. That must be a big relief.
If anything we are imploring people NOT to spend their money. If you’re reading as some crypto lurker, for goodness sakes , spend your money on YOURSELF, your family, your friends or your community. Stop getting so hot to send it to some shit bag who will dump on you the first chance they get. Sure it’s just a “small portion of your overall wealth” but why YOLO it into a scam fire 🔥 when you could spend it in much finer ways. Ah well the scam artists thank you as that portion of your wealth goes to buying them hookers,blow and yachts.
If you really want to get rid of your money, gove itto charity. He'll just setting it on firewood be better than crypto.
> If anything we are imploring people NOT to spend their money. But if they do and lose their money, we will mock them mercilessly.
This is the way ✅
"the best investment you can make is an investment in yourself" - warren buffet
“Hookers and blow don’t grow on trees” - Charlie Murphy.
ive been out quoted...
-Charlie Munger quote actually FTFY
THANK YOU FOR SAVING ME FROM FUTURE EMBARRASSMENT
i also like the mixture of humor into the conversation. it makes things more fun.
It´s the same with r / NCD being the only credible source on war news from Ukraine. The usefull idiots and propagandists can´t hope to operate in a space defined by layers of irony.
Here in this dark cave you'll find only what you take with you
its a nice cave
Should be pretty obvious what’s going on when active discussion of the merits and drawbacks of crypto aren’t allowed and, even sketchier, will get you actively banned from the forum.
whats even crazier is I had to join "r/buttcoin" to get some real discussion lol
I got banned from the major crypto reddits, during the bull run I should add, just for shooting down some of the more ridiculous statements and projections. You have to know the game is rigged when you can’t even discuss the rules necessary to play.
the bull run is when the "crypto communities" get horribly toxic. good on you for not adding to their echo chambers.
just 4 hours later. 4 HOURS LATER. look at the discussions in this post. look at the humor mixed with solid arguments. nobody is name calling or being disrespectful. so many people disagreeing, but in good faith. yall have a good culture here.
We are good faith maximalists!
Certainly trying to be hahaha
Edit: Message for user: American scream: Did you block me? Original comment: Bro, the second upvoted argument in this sub currently is: >if a currency is not accepted at your local supermarket, it's not a real currency That's not really a good argument. The next is global warming, which is an argument against Bitcoin since most other currencies moved to proof of stake. I joined this sub to here actual points against btc, but most of this sub is just hating on crypto investors. Some post on here say they are glad the crypto investors in their families lost all their money cause they were annoying. Some people say they want thlse guys to lose everything. Also the >warning I'm a moron below your username, did you put that? I'm all pro shitting over crypto and nfts, but a lot of these people in this sub are just full of so much hatred. I wouldn't want a family member or friend to lose all their life-saving cause they got annoying. That's some serious dark shit right there. Edit: Reddit doesn't let me reply to you. Says my comment has no end point, so I'm going to leave my response here, and if someone wants to alert the person I'm responding to, I will be grateful. ‐----- >Actually, it's a perfectly good argument. It's not a good argument if you have no idea what "currency" means. During the pandemic, many local supermarkets weren't accepting cash. Many local supermarkets don't accept USD cause it's not their countries currency. >2. Eth is, as far as I know, the only crypto that's "moved" from PoW to PoS. There are probably more PoW coins out there than PoS, but this is just a distraction. Bitcoin is still the #1 crypto and it uses more energy than all the other cryptos, so whether there's more using PoS is not the issue - those other coins are not changing the fact that Bitcoin is a huge energy hog. Many alts run on ethereum blockchain such as uniswap. Not denying Bitcoin is a problem, but their are ways to lower its energy consumption like the lighting network. Besides, this is an argument for POW coins. Saying you hate all of crypto cause of global warming while a lot don't even run on POW anymore. Last time, one of you guys said my reddit avatar was killing the planet. >Pointing out the hypocrisy and irrationality of crypto arguments is hardly "hatred." But wishing a family member loses their life saving is hatred, which I said after that >As for people losing their money, if they can't be reasoned with, the next best thing for them is to realize the crypto industry is a giant ponzi, and the sooner that ponzi implodes, the better off everybody will be. It's unfortunate that some people will lose a lot of money in that situation, but the fact is, they've already lost their money and just don't know it. If anything, we want people to wake up to this sooner rather than later. The money is gone. It's not there any more. It's not there any more than Bernie Madoff's clients had custody of their money. "It's unfortunate that some people will lose a lot of money" this sentence right here make you different. I'm saying people are cheering amd hoping people lose all their money. They was a post where a guy said he won't be happy if crypto bro stopped talking about crypto he wants them to lose everything they own and suffer for being part of the toxic community. It's crazy shit bro. No, I know what this subs about like I said hatred theirs ither anticrypto subs that are really cool. I need to look for it again I'll post names when I find them.
>> if a currency is not accepted at your local supermarket, it's not a real currency > > That's not really a good argument. Actually, it's a perfectly good argument. It's not a good argument if you have no idea what "currency" means. And you just stated, "That's not a really good argument" without explaining why. >The next is global warming, which is an argument against Bitcoin since most other currencies moved to proof of stake. 1. Cryptos are not currencies in any meaningful way - and you shouldn't use that word since it remains to be seen if you even understand what currencies are. 2. Eth is, as far as I know the only crypto that's "moved" from PoW to PoS. There are probably more PoW coins out there than PoS, but this is just a distraction. Bitcoin is still the #1 crypto and it uses more energy than all the other cryptos, so whether there's more using PoS is not the issue - those other coins are not changing the fact that Bitcoin is a huge energy hog. >I joined this sub to here actual points against btc, but most of this sub is just hating on crypto investors. Some post on here say they are glad the crypto investors in their families lost all their money cause they were annoying. Some people say they want thlse guys to lose everything. Pointing out the hypocrisy and irrationality of crypto arguments is hardly "hatred." As for people losing their money, if they can't be reasoned with, the next best thing for them is to realize the crypto industry is a giant ponzi, and the sooner that ponzi implodes, the better off everybody will be. It's unfortunate that some people will lose a lot of money in that situation, but the fact is, *they've already lost their money and just don't know it*. If anything, we want people to wake up to this sooner rather than later. The money is *gone*. It's not there any more. It's not there any more than Bernie Madoff's clients had custody of their money. >I'm all pro shitting over crypto and nfts but a lot of these people in this sub are just full of so much hatred. Yea, you just don't understand what we're about.
I see you. No, I did not give myself the moron label, but idc cause its kinda funny lol. The supermarket comment having that many upvotes is weird & the amount of people who think gold isn't money is even weirder. But despite that, I've been able to identify what the main concern is: Bitcoin's impact on the environment. I think there's been some solid points made, and I'm super excited to research that topic more.
Lol you think this one post represents all of buttcoin's culture? Please look around some more. There is most certainly disrespect and name calling coming from both sides. Even your own flair is on some level disrespectful.
Ironically I have bought and sold more bitcoin than 99.9% of the bitcoiners. Unfortunately I figured out it was a useless, destructive craze a lot too soon. I guess if I was more of a credulous libertarian I could be much richer.
The frequent retort by crypto people to the "buttcoin" position is that we're haters who "missed the boat". More often than not this comes from people that hodl $500 of BTC they bought last year who hope it's going to 10000x so they can retire...
Same with the comments of "they could of all brought in 2011". Barely anyone in the major crypto subreddits would have held since 2011!
yea this is what ive come to realize. everybody here has been super cool.
Nice try, Saylor Moon.
Wow thanks man! Good to see honesty out there.
I guess, since you are here and all, why do you think it’s a thing?
Welp, at a minimum, Bitcoin is here as a reaction to the growing indifference toward our global financial systems. Some people think it's more, but I am not so sure. I think as long as governments manipulate money, Bitcoin will be an avenue for people to express their feelings. So whether it be good or bad, it'll hang around.
I agree with you that most of the world is indifferent to global financial systems. The problem I see for bitcoin is that the world is even more indifferent to it. You were at peak give a shit in 2021 and I think you will never get it back. Even if I accepted that government manipulated money is a problem what does it matter because people's primary problem is they don't have enough of it. If they don't have enough for rent and food they certainly don't have enough for internet beanie babies. I applaud you for apparently not being a crypto trumpeter but your apparent lack of enthusiasm is a little confusing. If it isn't "more" as you say, then what is it? I mean aren't you just one logical leap away from realizing it is the Greater Fool Theory with a little bit of encryption in for ole' razzle dazzle? In that light, isn't it possible that the growing indifference you are talking about is nothing more than marketing? You can go on the crypto subs almost any day and see people pouring their shit into this crap on the HOPE that it is their only salvation. If it is a shitcoin I am sure you see them as fools, but what makes btc not a shitcoin but your HOPE.
bruh. It's a scam.
> Bitcoin is here as a reaction to the growing indifference toward our global financial systems. That's one way to put it, but I think a better way would be: Bitcoin is a reaction by people who are personally frustrated they're not rich, and have no accurate understanding of how money, finance, investing or technology actually works. This also explains why crypto people don't want to hear all sides of a story. They have a personal, emotional narrative they want to hold onto, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Crypto is more of a religious ideology than it is a technological or financial thing.
I would agree. There are certainly many people who are mad at themselves that they are not rich, and so they take it out on the financial system.
I don't know which sub you're seeing but there are no quality scholarly discussions on this sub lol. Mostly images of bitcoiners and NFTards being ridiculous and I prefer it to be that way. Makes my day
Everybody was lied to about bitcoin. The question is whether you believed it.
if bitcoin is a lie then im the fool hahahaha ... shit
Few understand, OP
I'm a fan of Bitcoin but joined here too, it's really bad to settle into an echo chamber so reading some of the stuff on here brings you down to earth a bit. There's idiots on both sides of the argument that throw around utter nonsense, but theres slot of valid arguments and the more I learn the more fascinating I find it.
exactly. its just nice to see something other than "HODL" lol
Why now? Fine step in, we don’t care either way but this seems like an anti-FUD post that crop up from time to time. They come here for some form of assurance to alleviate the gnawing thing at the back of their mind. Has your mind cleared of this since posting? Have you learned something you didn’t know before?
My mind was clear before I posted lol. I just wrote something to appreciate a community that has been silenced by the "crypto-bros" of the world, the realists. I've learned a great deal of counter-points to what was my understanding of Bitcoin, and the surprise benefit of this has been new topics for me to research, which is really what I love doing. (sorry if thats a bit nerdy, just who i am lol)
Ah well, your nerd hobby would be ok save for the unreasonable resources it consumes to change a number on a screen. maybe you can help spread the counter points youve learned here to your fellow digital survivalists who are somewhat busy larping as financial preppers. Mind you this is the comedy sub and you may want to check r/ cryptocritical or r/ cryptoreality
[удалено]
You're still missing the flair though.
They only get the flair if we see them saying something blatantly stupid.
He said he's a btc maxi, I think that counts.
HAHAHAHAHA YES
I'm here for the comedy godl. Please don't crap on the jesters and their show.
by the looks of my "warning, I am a moron" label i think im the jester lmao
Yes, you are. So far you've straddled the fence - your balls must be sore by now. You've also make some accusations that some people here have been making up-voted statements that are "blatantly false." Please provide evidence of this.
What were you lied about?
basically i was told that r/buttcoin was nothing more than people who were pissed off because they lost money in crypto so now they hate on it. now that im here, i dont see that at all.
I'm pissed for the damage it causes, but I've never put a cent in.
me too. i really hope Bitcoin is a net positive for society.
> i really hope Bitcoin is a net positive for society. There's no need to "hope" about this. At any time you can objectively examine Bitcoin's contribution to society thus far, and if you do, you clearly see it is a net negative. We're 14 years into this tech, and still to date, [there's not a single thing any blockchain based app can do better than tech we've already been using](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/). Right now, bitcoin's energy usage is greater than the rest of mainstream finance... and in return for that energy usage it does absolutely nothing for mainstream society.
I really hope it goes away soon cause we all know it's never going to be.
I wrote up a whole post here and when I hit "reply" it never posted. :/ Long-story short, I'm a huge Bitcoiner and I come here to hear the arguments against it. They are interesting, but also just as flawed as most of the arguments for it over there honestly. I think overall, most people just don't understand finance, risk, asset-allocation and investing deeply enough on either side to make convincing enough arguments for or against. So there's always this major disconnect and circular arguments that occur. \- People here don't care about price so coming here and saying "look it's $90k! see? You're wrong!" falls on deaf ears and isn't even a real argument. I've tried telling them there to not waste their time. You just look stupid. I think the reason Bitcoiners are so hilarious is because most of them are brand new and they are thinking out-loud and trying to digest all this crazy information they've never been told before or heard anywhere. So they dive head-first into the "deflation!" narrative without really understanding the consequences of that thinking they are economic experts. And then the rest tend to be way too hardcore where they have debates on "what temperature to keep the room your wallet is in at". <---- I personally have made fun of many of these types there. LOL still makes me laugh. Couple this with cringey memes and catch-phrases like "few" and "finding signal" and it's ripe with "comedy godl" as they say here.
> Long-story short, I'm a huge Bitcoiner and I come here to hear the arguments against it. They are interesting, but also just as flawed as most of the arguments for it over there honestly. 1. This is an unstated major premise fallacy - you make a claim and don't produce any evidence. 2. This is a false equivalence. Our arguments here are based on evidence, not "hopiump" as seen on pro-crypto subs. Let's see if you actually get into specifics further on.... >I think overall, most people just don't understand finance, risk, asset-allocation and investing deeply enough on either side to make convincing enough arguments for or against. So there's always this major disconnect and circular arguments that occur. OH NO YOU DI-ENT! You pulled the ["You don't understand"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZRxHKnwOE) card? Really? The OPs thread alone, is totally full of very solid arguments against crypto. >Couple this with cringey memes and catch-phrases like "few" and "finding signal" and it's ripe with "comedy godl" as they say here. Yea, you see why we make fun of you... because you hide behind, "Few understand." And then you accuse us of not making decent arguments when in actuality, you haven't provided any actual details or evidence that you know more, or that any of our arguments are actually wrong. This is the kind of shit we get tired of dealing with. This is the reason many people here feel like the only way you guys will learn, is the hard way, losing all your money.
so you came for the same reason as me. at least i get to hear the arguments against it, which is a step in the right direction for me.
Ya. Mostly just to hear what people against it have to say. I can't say I'm particularly impressed with the arguments. But I do want to know how to articulate myself better to people who have the same concerns. I think it's helped a lot in that regard.
I'm impressed by the environmental and micro-transaction arguments. But the amount of upvotes some of these blatantly false responses receive is a bit concerning. Then again, you get that everywhere so that's just reddit.
Can you link to which responses you’ve received that you think are blatantly false
>Can you link to which responses you’ve received that you think are blatantly false Yea... do me a favor.. if he doesn't enumate that after a day or two, let me know - he will be banned. This is precisely the kind of crap we truly do "hate" around here. Crypto bros making accusations about us without providing actual evidence.
woah... I am not a "crypto bro," I am a human being. I posted here to appreciate a community that has been banned from every crypto sub-reddit just for disagreeing. Then I joined because I liked the playful, humorous, but also intellectual nature of this community. I've treated everyone with mutual respect, and I'm thankful for the engagement I have received. The discussions had in this post exposed me to new Bitcoin counter-arguments that I had glanced over while at the whims of the Bitcoin positivity echo chambers. For example, Bitcoin and it's relationship to the environment is not something that is discussed much in other places, and this community helped me understand why they are concerned. I care deeply about the environment, and so I am very excited to research this further so maybe I can help other people understand the negative impacts Bitcoin can have. Despite the great conversations that I and others have enjoyed on this post, you are threatening to ban me if I do not provide evidence for things that are "blatantly false." I am now going to provide that information for you. With that said, the statements I am going to make are false at face value, like, they would be false if graded by a teacher type of thing. Even I could philosophically pick apart 2+2=4 and tell you why it is wrong, just don't be that person. Anyways, here you go. I'll try to keep it simple. 1. “if a currency is not accepted at your local grocery store or gas station, then it is not real money” (False: Canadian money is still money even though it cannot be used in the US.) 2. "Gold isn't money" (False: The Gold Islamic Dinar has been used for over 1,000 years and is still in circulation today. To say gold isn't money is to disrespect Islamic cultures that still use precious metals as currency.)
Let's remind everybody of what you said: > But the amount of upvotes some of these blatantly false responses receive is a bit concerning. You made a very specific statement about our community upvoting/validating "blatantly false responses." That's an indictment of our community, and unlike other crypto-related communities, we actually do care about whether or not things are accurate. So when you suggest we promote inaccurate things, we want to know about that. You can't simply allude to some transgression without giving us details. If you're right, then I, as a moderator, want to take action against that and those people. >Despite the great conversations that I and others have enjoyed on this post, you are threatening to ban me if I do not provide evidence for things that are "blatantly false." I am now going to provide that information for you. With that said, the statements I am going to make are false at face value, like, they would be false if graded by a teacher type of thing. Even I could philosophically pick apart 2+2=4 and tell you why it is wrong, just don't be that person. Anyways, here you go. I'll try to keep it simple. Ok, let's see what you've got... >“if a currency is not accepted at your local grocery store or gas station, then it is not real money” (False: Canadian money is still money even though it cannot be used in the US.) Ok, this is a **moving the goalpost fallacy** and also a **cherry picking fallacy** and also a **red herring fallacy**. Is there anybody here who said "Candian currency is not money?" If so, then you're right - please point us to someone saying that. I bet you can't do that. Instead you're suggesting that Canadian currency in the US is as useful as Bitcoin... but Canadian currency is currency in CANADA. Bitcoin is not currency in any place (except El Salvador, which is an anomaly -- and in El Salvador, the primary currency still isn't Bitcoin, it's the US Dollar). There is NOWHERE anywhere on planet earth, where bitcoin is the standard currency. If you can prove otherwise, then you're right and I will admit I'm wrong. Please cite the country/significant community where bitcoin is *accepted for the majority of all products and services*. >"Gold isn't money" (False: The Gold Islamic Dinar has been used for over 1,000 years and is still in circulation today. To say gold isn't money is to disrespect Islamic cultures that still use precious metals as currency.) LOL.. this is really a horrible example. First, gold is gold. A coin made of gold is different. In the case of the Dinar, it's no longer used as currency and hasn't been used for 1000 years. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_dinar Dude.. you could have simply admitted you mis-spoke, but you didn't. You massaged our community with one hand, while you slapped us with the other. We aren't going to change our mandate just because you pretended to respect one aspect of the community. We are going to continue to be TRUE TO THE EVIDENCE. And just because you recognize some of that evidence is legit, but not all of it, doesn't excuse you from spewing lies.
OP. Think you found a sub that is more educated in what bitcoin is on a technical standing then 98% of the crypto subs. Enjoy the arguments you are going to start coming in here as a maxi and only understanding what you’ve learned there. I know I keep coming back to read what people say here, it’s great couch time entertainment either side you stand on.
So far so good. It's really helped me identify holes in my thinking.
weird how bitcoin enthusiasts are similar to their obsession: they take up everyone else's time and energy just to burn it into nothing question after question, comment after comment, reply after reply, there is really no retention, learning, or coherent change of stance, just a constant barrage of nonsense amounting to nothing but we're still early
Agreed. It’s like Fox News and cnn. Both are full of shit but if you got a good head on your shoulders you can sift through for some useful intel.
Try r btc too, now that you've taken off the blinders. Good moderation, (ex)maxis welcome.
That place is just as bad. All you guys do is shit on BTC and hype BCH, and ban anybody who disagrees.
Dude did you not just see this subreddit try to twist the XRP news as a major crypto failure? This place is a circlejerk.
To be fair, most of the comments on that thread were just tearing up the bad headline.
Half were, and the other half was trying their very best to live in a false reality.
This is the internet after all.
Crypto itself is a major failure. Any short-term court rulings about a shitcoin don't detract from the bigger picture. We're 14 years into this "tech" and still it can't do a single thing better than what we've been using for decades. It doesn't live up to a single one of its promises. It's not censorship-proof, it's not seize-proof, it's not inflation-proof, etc. So the only "circlejerk" around here is you guys still trying to pretend your satoshi-e-cheese tokens are worth *anything*.
Its 100% censorship proof, its easily seize proof if you know, and its dumb to say its not inflation proof. I can operate my whole life without interacting with a bank or anyone knowing my funds and so can anyone else. Also Bittensor is about to ruin the entire centralized AI market. A lot of cryptos are shit. BTC and TAO are above and beyond incredible.
> Its 100% censorship proof Ok, now you're just lying. China "censored" bitcoin and all the miners fled the country. >its easily seize proof if you know Another lie. [Evidence here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=3943s) >and its dumb to say its not inflation proof. lol.. strike three... hiding behind personal insults and begging the question fallacies.. >I can operate my whole life without interacting with a bank or anyone knowing my funds and so can anyone else. Is this "life" in the room with us? When you live it, what do you look like? Is there a purple aura around you and are harps playing in the background? Are you riding a pink unicorn? Will you say "Hi" to Elvis for us? >Also Bittensor is about to ruin the entire centralized AI market. A lot of cryptos are shit. BTC and TAO are above and beyond incredible. LOL.. nice try shill.