Does crypto do anything but cause troubles? If it's not actively destroying the environment, then it's endangering financial stability.
How does the government not step in here?
How does the government not step in here?
“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”
Who outside of the automotive industry would notice if cars disappeared?
That's your answer: pollution is still a concern but only one of those is balanced against significant real-world benefits for people other than the sellers.
There's interplay with other actors of course, the people that trade bitcoin are one of those actors. This kind of interaction also exists for physical objects like cars, they also only get their value by interacting with the rest of the world.
But yes if cars would disappear this would have an impact on more people simply because there are more people involved in the manufacturing process.
I was thinking more about the impact on users, not just producers. There are millions of people living in low-density housing where they have limited alternatives to go to work, shop, etc. – maybe e-bikes could be an option for some but in most cases you’d be talking redesign of entire cities. Many, many businesses would be disrupted - some fatally.
That’s what it looks like for people outside of an industry to depend on a technology. This can be seen especially in the case of the web: 30 years ago, a company in San Francisco making a mistake would not have meant that people in cities around the world would have trouble communicating or taking orders from customers. People find WhatsApp so useful that they based their daily life on it. Repeat for online ordering, advertising, support, etc.
Contrast with Bitcoin: statistically, almost nobody uses it for business or personal transactions and the few who do almost always have alternatives — usually cheaper and faster, if ideologically unsatisfying. If it disappeared tomorrow, there would be no lines at stores, no accountants wondering how to pay suppliers, nobody waiting for their paycheck or unable to get a mortgage.
My previous skepticism of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency was due to short-sightedness. You almost have to dip your toes in, in order to understand its potential.
Memory of time passing seemingly gets very compressed the further back you go.
Additionally, Bitcoin is an attempt at disrupting elements of the financial world (and cryptocurrencies as-a-whole are going after ALL of finance, not just elements of it). This is _the most powerful and well-funded aspect of modern civilisation_, so there's going to be severe resistance (to put it mildly) to any threat.
It's also difficult to understand the concepts that are foundational to cryptocurrencies, and the average persons eyes glaze over (personal terminology my wife uses when I try to explain technologically difficult things that she really has no interest in) at the slightest dip into its technicalities.
Better examples may be smart phones, but mobiles have been around since the mid-80's at least (that suitcase-sized portable phone in Lethal Weapon), and laptops are of a similar vintage (my argument being that smart phones are a combination of these two existing technologies).
Smart phones also have that immediate-dopamine-hit working for their adoption rate whilst Bitcoin and cryptocurrency are a 'longer game' (arguably you could say those already on the 'inside' for crypto get the dopamine hit of profit or potential riches - rightly or wrongly, healthily or otherwise).
Think of cryptocurrency as building a brand new Central Banking and Wall Street infrastructure. 13 years is still breast-feeding against that behemoth.
Bitcoin, crypto, NFTs, it's always the same: "You don't get it, because you don't understand the fundamentals. <Insert obscure lingo here>".
It's just wrong. There is no real value for most people. That's why crypto bros hide behind complicated terminology. That's why the value proposition of Bitcoin changed a couple times. That's why the terminology shifts all the time as well. "DeFI" wasn't mainstream until like a year ago or two. The next bullshit terminology is "web3".
The potential (I say potential because I'm aware enough to know that certain things are not yet proven) value for "most people" is a reduction of the corruption inherent in the processing of financial transactions. This is far enough separated from the average persons day to day that it doesn't seem to have value. But things like the GFC bring that awareness to the fore... briefly.
The terminology doesn't "shift all the time" and if that's how you see it then you're not keeping up and therefore your opinion and commentary carries little weight. The terminology you're talking about is new functionality offered by the ecosystem, it's not a rebranding or business pivot, it's a new branch of services.
DeFi is an example of the services that can be built upon cryptocurrency (with smart contracts) and, like the cause of this discussion, takes time to build awareness and a customer base.
Web3 is just another branch of functionality that can sit atop cryptocurrency / smart contracts. The terminology may well be bullshit, just like "social" was web-2-point-oh way back seven years ago, but it's the concept that matters, and the alternative, or disruption, that it facilitates.
Web3 appears to be a kind of meta-internet. Bullshit terminology aside, I'm interested to see what will come of it.
The pricing for hardware, software, and especially connectivity meant that this was an upper-middle-class or richer phenomenon at first and it wasn’t until the mid-to-late 90s that it had become common for lower-middle class families to have a networked computer.
All of that is completely unlike Bitcoin’s day one availability to a billion people.
Despite those barriers, because network connectivity had actual value to people who weren’t selling it, unlike Bitcoin, many normal people paid money to get access to services like Compuserv or GEnie, the earliest ISPs started connecting businesses and schools, you’d hear about people taking an elective at the local college to get a student account, etc. Technical work adopted as allowed - email/Usenet support, FTP sites, Telnet access to applications and forums, etc. were all common before the web – but so were people reading the news, getting stick quotes or researching, playing games, or socializing - the first met-online marriage happened in the late 1970s if memory serves. Real people found it useful enough to pay extortionate telco rates, deal with modems, even getting second phone lines to avoid disruption.
That all contrasts sharply with Bitcoin which arrived in a world where a billion people had the ability to use it. The lack of adoption has been due to the lack of a need – and especially the community’s tendency to say “you don’t get it!” and rant when people explain real concerns such as cost, fraud, or lack of benefit over the other options. This is a dead tell for when people have major conceptual problems: if you can’t explain a system to a non-specialist at a high level, something is wrong. The fact that 13 years in people are still unable to come up with a compelling pitch for why someone would want to use Bitcoin beyond speculation tells us that long-term success won’t happen without major changes.
The central bank analogy doesn’t work, either, because that didn’t arise out of nothing but was rather formalizing existing banking relationships with goals like stability. That evolved over centuries and, most importantly, constant daily use — nobody went from storing money in the couch cushions to a central bank without an intermediate state. Similarly, central banks are backed by some form of real value. A pure fiat currency like Bitcoin with weak backing, plenty of competition, and no innate demand is not what you’d use for such a system — and, indeed, anyone who is familiar with the history can see that’s the concept people who’d bought into Bitcoin pivoted to after failing at the original goal of being a currency.
And yet 13 years later it seems to be pretty healthy. I wonder if there's maybe more to it than what you are allowing yourself to see?