> fact is that bitcoin is so much better than gold and fiat, which can be mass printed, or have you money blocked in the bank, how it happened in argentina and Greece, Cyprus, where people got a 40% haircut on their deposits over 100k, (check the inflation now in Turkey 13%) the money in the bank, you don't own them, bitcoin is at core a movement against banks,
So many claims in one sentence!
Here are a few questions for you, so I can understand your thesis better:
1. How do cryptocurrencies specifically improve upon fiat currencies’ inflation when they are prone to systemic volatility? Bitcoin experienced a 40% swing in price in one day, and frequently moves out of boundaries the CME has stated would cause them to shut down trading on their futures.
2. How do you propose to get a cryptocurrency to a place of price stability without a centralized authority? I’m not saying I don’t think it’s possible, I want to hear your prediction.
3. Implicit in your thesis is the idea that money should not have been mass printed - do you think the government was ignorant of the economic ramifications or made a calculated bet that didn’t work out? How do you expect a given decentralized blockchain to do better based only on the valuation consensus of the market?
4. As it stands, most cryptocurrencies are actually traded in centralized exchanges, where the person doesn’t technically have control or autonomy over their money. How is this meaningfully better than a bank? What do you propose to improve this other than, “people shouldn’t do that?”
> whole argument against bitcoin is like the people were saying cars are so much worse than horses, because there are no paved roads, you need gas, maintenance, are noisy, can't scale, etc.
5. It’s easy in hindsight to say that cars are better than horses for mass transportation. This is because the “revolutions” that don’t work out are forgotten. For every example of horses and cars, people actually did know what they want, and it wasn’t the newfangled new thing, which turned out to be a solution looking for a problem. In other words, citing this example without further justification for your point is meaningless.
6. As a matter of fact, no, Bitcoin can’t scale. There are people reporting it can. There are people investigating it seriously. Look into the research - there are cryptocurrencies and blockchains that can scale, but they mostly do not use proof of work consensus systems, and they make trade-offs in Bitcoin’s original goals of decentralization and fault tolerance.
The funny thing is a state level actor can spend <0.01% of their defense budget to take control of >51% of the network.
That isn't even accounting for the fact they can knock others off the bitcoin network easily. If you have 10,000TH/s but cannot communicate with the network, that hash rate means nothing. DDoS or bad BGP routes, doesn't matter when the nodes have no way to talk.
The US has largest defense budget by far, and .01% would be less than $100 million, right? Could you really create enough mining capacity for that to take over the network?
Better question: by the time Bitcoin gets to the point that a government feels threatened enough to do this, will they be able to? And how will other governments respond? Will they start mining too so that no one government controls the network?
Are prone now to such swings, 40%, I didn't heard of, that , recently, we are talking in 20 years, gold was as volatile when was decoupled from dollar.
Do you know Fed is a private institution, it has as much authority as it has coca cola, atm 10 old white guys are deciding for you, but price will stabilize when there is a balance between in and out and a big enough market.
If Guverments are not ignorant how come 2008 happened, I lost my job then and lots of hardships, people I know lost their houses, etc. The Guverment is not your friend.
It can scale, lighting network + bigger blocks as the internet get better, other layers, servers get cheaper, the change from gold/silver coins to banknotes lasted 400 years you want in 7 years to be perfect.
So many claims in one sentence!
Here are a few questions for you, so I can understand your thesis better:
1. How do cryptocurrencies specifically improve upon fiat currencies’ inflation when they are prone to systemic volatility? Bitcoin experienced a 40% swing in price in one day, and frequently moves out of boundaries the CME has stated would cause them to shut down trading on their futures.
2. How do you propose to get a cryptocurrency to a place of price stability without a centralized authority? I’m not saying I don’t think it’s possible, I want to hear your prediction.
3. Implicit in your thesis is the idea that money should not have been mass printed - do you think the government was ignorant of the economic ramifications or made a calculated bet that didn’t work out? How do you expect a given decentralized blockchain to do better based only on the valuation consensus of the market?
4. As it stands, most cryptocurrencies are actually traded in centralized exchanges, where the person doesn’t technically have control or autonomy over their money. How is this meaningfully better than a bank? What do you propose to improve this other than, “people shouldn’t do that?”
> whole argument against bitcoin is like the people were saying cars are so much worse than horses, because there are no paved roads, you need gas, maintenance, are noisy, can't scale, etc.
5. It’s easy in hindsight to say that cars are better than horses for mass transportation. This is because the “revolutions” that don’t work out are forgotten. For every example of horses and cars, people actually did know what they want, and it wasn’t the newfangled new thing, which turned out to be a solution looking for a problem. In other words, citing this example without further justification for your point is meaningless.
6. As a matter of fact, no, Bitcoin can’t scale. There are people reporting it can. There are people investigating it seriously. Look into the research - there are cryptocurrencies and blockchains that can scale, but they mostly do not use proof of work consensus systems, and they make trade-offs in Bitcoin’s original goals of decentralization and fault tolerance.