nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Sceptics thread.

JohnnyFlash

Starting this so non-believers in cryptocurrencies, and blockchain as a tech, can have a place to discuss why.

It has become apparent to me that getting involved in other threads is 'shítting on the parade' of investors in crypto. And that was never my intention. If you all end up loaded as a result of your investments, then more power to you.

However, there is another perspective on all this. Call it a cynical eye, call it begrudgery , call it fundamentally bearish.

I'd hope that this thread becomes a place where we can discuss these things in a manner that boards.ie has come to expect.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kaymin

makeorbrake wrote: »

Go and research it. Go and read the bitcoin whitepaper. I haven't switched tact here. Bitcoin is a coin based on 'money' whereas others have positioned themselves to have completely different utilities.

In that area, there are two possibilities - store of value and more ubiquitous transactional use.

I agree that it's difficult to value and it hasn't found it's value - that's as far as that goes. As regards worthless, that's not the case. If it fails entirely as a project, sure - it will be worthless. That remains to be seen though. By the same token (excuse the pun), if your state regime and economy fails, then your FIAT is worthless. There hasn't been a time in modern history when one FIAT or other is not being taken to the shops in a wheelbarrow to buy bread!

Ok, and people don't give paper money value then? Do you want me to list out a ream of FIAT currencies that are basket cases today - and are worth nothing? At any given time, there is always a list. I can do that for currencies in recent years too if you'd like.

Yes, inflation has been rampant in a number of countries - their currency still has a value though albeit rapidly diminishing. People spend the FIAT on goods and services provided by their economy as quickly as they receive it. Wages are adjusted upwards every month or perhaps even more frequently.

Some inflation is good though - it encourages spending / investment and reduces the real cost of your debt. The limit to the size of bitcoin prevents inflation and possibly would cause deflation or stagnation.

If crypto was adopted widely to the extent that FIAT became redundant, how do you expect governments might function / run the economy? How would governments borrow, smooth out the booms and busts of the economy etc without control of the currency on which their economy is based?

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's not 'backed' by anything. It has the support of the regime that brought it in and it's implemented by force. Other than that, it's just a piece of paper. It used to be backed by something - but not anymore!

You should read Animal Farm.

FIAT is adopted by democratically elected governments in the main. It is backed by the economy - I don't understand why you think it is not. If the economy produces nothing then the FIAT has no value. People buy dollars because they want to buy goods produced / services provided by the US economy etc The Norwegian Krone is primarily strong because of the size of their foreign and oil reserves and a prudently run economy by the government.

makeorbrake wrote: »

If bitcoin is worth zero, then tell me when we can expect to see it at zero then? How long will that take?

Who knows - it may take years.

Whelo79

I know makeorbreak posted this link earlier but it may have been missed by some in his long post.

https://www.ccn.com/goldman-sachs-ceo-its-arrogant-to-think-cryptocurrency-wont-be-successful/

I will emphasise the word arrogant which is used in the article. It is quite apt for a couple of our semi-regular posters in here!

makeorbrake

Kenny Logins wrote: »

sexmag wrote: »

I'm a bit thick but what does that mean?

More indicators of mainstream adoption/acceptance.

Yup...and it doesn't get more into the conventional world than the Fed!
On mobile so have not bothered to post links - Google will pull up the relevant info

Kenny Logins

sexmag wrote: »

I'm a bit thick but what does that mean?

More indicators of mainstream adoption/acceptance.

sexmag

makeorbrake wrote: »

Bloomberg and the U.S. Federal Reserve now listing crypto indexes.

I'm a bit thick but what does that mean?

makeorbrake

Bloomberg and the U.S. Federal Reserve now listing crypto indexes.

makeorbrake

The IMF:

"We cannot rule out the possibility that some crypto assets will eventually be more widely adopted and fulfil more of the functions of money in some regions or private e-commerce networks."

"Economists continue to debate the origins of money, and why monetary systems seem to have alternated between commodity and credit money throughout history. If crypto assets indeed lead to a more prominent role for commodity money in the digital age, the demand for central bank money is likely to decline."

(report published in the last couple of weeks).

grindle

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

You like in a mature social democracy in Europe, Grindle, not some dystopian hellhole from the imagination of Ayn Rand. The tyranny of fiat stuff is all a bit hysterical.

I've never heard of anybody so happy to be screwed. Leaders around the world were genuinely worried a decade ago that they'd set us up for that kind of dystopia and they've only pushed it out by circlejerking loans to eachother. They're not happy with the currently unstable situation themselves and another black swan could lead to severe societal repercussions and possible breakdown.
I'm delighted the façade is pleasing to your eyes, but it makes you seem like the type of guy who would have patted Bertie on the back when he told Dave McWilliams to kill himself when he called a spade a spade.
Bertie's in control Dave, nothing to worry about, this is ideal and everything is fiiiiiiiine. :rolleyes:

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

...proof of work coins will never be used to buy 8 cans and 20 benson and hedges. Slow, inefficient, and very insecure compared to the wonderful service offered by companies like Visa and Paypal.

I've paid for dinners, drinks, hotels, records and games with PoW coins. Why do you always insist on spouting crap?
Slow, yes, inefficient, yes, insecure... No. It's too early for you to be having a drink, lay off it. Between VISA and PayPal tens of millions of people's personal data has been leaked (so secure!) and tens of millions have been scrimped from them in fines for incorrect use of funds and corrupt business practices (such service!).

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The other proofs might have merit, but all I can see at the moment is them gravitating towards centralisation and trust models anyways.

This is you misunderstanding PoS, consciously and wilfully ignoring staking contracts because it doesn't suit your narrative. ETH's PoS will be more decentralised than BTC's China-led mining by a wide wide margin. It's literally forking a contract! Instead of a few pools dominating the landscape there can be hundreds or thousands of pools.

You:

I've barely looked into it but it's all a sham.

CFTC Chairman Giancarlo:

If there were no #Bitcoin there would be no distributed ledger technology. ... Distributed ledger technology has extraordinary potential.

CFTC Commissioner Rostin Behnam:

...virtual currencies may – will – become part of the economic practices of any country, anywhere. Let me repeat that: these currencies are not going away and they will proliferate to every economy and every part of the planet. Some places, small economies, may become dependent on virtual assets for survival. And, these currencies will be outside traditional monetary intermediaries, like government, banks, investors, ministries, or international organizations.

We are witnessing a technological revolution. Perhaps we are witnessing a modern miracle.
...
Blockchain is more than technology: it is an advance that reaches out into every aspect of life. We could use Blockchain to address the most basic, the most primal problems on our planet: corruption, income distribution, poverty, food, and health care. And, the fear billions of people experience everyday as they try to survive.

Funny that. There seems to be some sort of disconnect between self-confessed closeminded luddites who haven't a notion what they're on about versus people who see a desparate need for trustlessness after a catastrophic financial collapse and then a revolutionary concept rears it's head.

sexmag

makeorbrake wrote: »

I maintain - you do NOT want crypto to succeed for whatever warped reasoning. On the other side of the argument, people here have acknowledged all manner of challenges and problems that need to be overcome by this nascent technology. The flip side - you won't even acknowledge a single merit of cryptocurrency / blockchain/DLT technology.

This is it.

Other than vague "oh there might be 1 thing good" but over all JF and PPL do nothing but argue the negative.

Any good debator will say the positives and the negatives as it makes them come across better and will always strenghten their argument

makeorbrake

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

You like in a mature social democracy in Europe, Grindle, not some dystopian hellhole from the imagination of Ayn Rand. The tyranny of fiat stuff is all a bit hysterical.

My God, listen to yourself. Comparatively (against dystopian hell holes that do exist and in which crypto has much more utility) we might be doing better. However, an innate part of human endeavour is to improve upon what went before. There are many ill's in your 'mature social democracy'. There are many ills with FIAT - and if you don't recognise that, there is no way you are approaching this discussion with an open mind. As we speak, the piece of paper in your pocket is losing value - because someone decides to print more of it.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

As Paddy said, there might be a few use cases for a massively inefficient and resource intensive write once database.

You have BOTH very quickly stated that there are limited use cases (or in Paddy's case he *thinks* there might be..lol) but when asked neither of you can come up with one redeeming facet of cryptocurrency.
As regards 'inefficient and resource intensive', you're talking about the energy usage of one crypto when there are others and of course, you don't acknowledge the utility of a totally immutable blockchain.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The other proofs might have merit, but all I can see at the moment is them gravitating towards centralisation and trust models anyways.

Sure, because you see what you want to see.

I maintain - you do NOT want crypto to succeed for whatever warped reasoning. On the other side of the argument, people here have acknowledged all manner of challenges and problems that need to be overcome by this nascent technology. The flip side - you won't even acknowledge a single merit of cryptocurrency / blockchain/DLT technology.

makeorbrake

kaymin wrote: »

I'm bemused by your line of argument. On the one hand a tokens worth is determined by its utility but when a token has little utility you say it is a store of value.

Go and research it. Go and read the bitcoin whitepaper. I haven't switched tact here. Bitcoin is a coin based on 'money' whereas others have positioned themselves to have completely different utilities.

In that area, there are two possibilities - store of value and more ubiquitous transactional use.

kaymin wrote: »

You can't seem to countenance it is worthless.

I agree that it's difficult to value and it hasn't found it's value - that's as far as that goes. As regards worthless, that's not the case. If it fails entirely as a project, sure - it will be worthless. That remains to be seen though. By the same token (excuse the pun), if your state regime and economy fails, then your FIAT is worthless. There hasn't been a time in modern history when one FIAT or other is not being taken to the shops in a wheelbarrow to buy bread!

kaymin wrote: »

Legal tender is backed by an economy.

It's not 'backed' by anything. It has the support of the regime that brought it in and it's implemented by force. Other than that, it's just a piece of paper. It used to be backed by something - but not anymore!

kaymin wrote: »

You can't seem to countenance it is worthless. .. Bitcoin is backed by wishful thinking.

Ok, and people don't give paper money value then? Do you want me to list out a ream of FIAT currencies that are basket cases today - and are worth nothing? At any given time, there is always a list. I can do that for currencies in recent years too if you'd like.

If bitcoin is worth zero, then tell me when we can expect to see it at zero then? How long will that take?
We might as well approach it that way as there is absolutely no point in going down the road of an intrinsic value discussion - as it's been done to death. The only way it will be resolved is with hindsight..following the passage of time.

Bitcoin not for me but too arrogant to say that it won't have a future - Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein

Lloyd Blankfein:

If you could go through that fiat currency where they say this is worth what it's worth because I, the government, says it is, why couldn't you have a consensus currency?

makeorbrake

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Dentacoin, verge, potcoin, EOS, bunnytoken, waltonchain all of them are based on stupid premises. I may as well just copy the list of coins from coinbase.

That is NOT the question I asked you. I didn't ask you for a list of ANY coins. I asked you to expand on the applications that blockchain is a stupid idea for. Once again, what are the applications that blockchain technology can't be used for?

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I said maybe useful. None are springing to mind but I'm sure there has to be some application where blockchain is the solution.

You sure you're not joined at the hip with JF? He has similar amnesia when 'kind-of' suggesting that blockchain may have some value - but then when the two of you are asked to expand, you will do anything not to ever once say anything positive about blochchain technology (and go right ahead and embarrass yourself and say there isn't one redeeming aspect of that technology).

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Thing is, people will just make their own token. They're not going to suddenly decide to pay some crypto-shyster money to use their 'token' which is just a replica of the ethereum code.

Don't be daft. If a coin has utility and it's in place and has achieved real world use, sure it can be copied. But what's the incentive to change? What's the incentive to set up another network/coin? ...and don't tell me it's the coin value - that doesn't stand up.
Secondly, you might want to think before you post. Sure, plenty of projects build on the ethereum platform (and it is a platform by the way, that's the idea). However, not all coins replicate ethereum.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Yeah, that's the whole point. The value of the token will only increase if its used for something

So you accept that value will increase in those circumstances...Yah!:rolleyes:
So do I.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

(other than as a way to scam actual money from gullible people).

I'm not talking about pump n dumps or scam coins. I'm talking about the serious projects.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Yeah, that's the whole point. The value of the token will only increase if its used for something (other than as a way to scam actual money from gullible people). Most of these tokens aren't even used by the crypto development companies themselves for delivering the utility and ownership of the token is no guarantee of any ownership of the network. For example Ripple doesn't use XRP for any of its transactions.

Ripple is a centralised token. It's not de-centralised Paddy.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Same for EOS.

EOS hasn't even gotten started yet - they launched some days ago, they've only just gotten round to establishing consensus. Just correcting you on that - not in any way endorsing it as a token).

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

The companies just build hype then dump off a load of their pre-mined coins.

Same point as above. You don't have to buy in to a project with pre-mined coins unless they simply don't involve mining in the first instance. If the latter, then it goes on the qualities of the project.

JohnnyFlash wrote:

There’s no coin being used in anger at all - most of them are effectively dead at this stage.

Then why are you here? If that's your view, what's to discuss? You've said that blockchain has nothing to offer (aside from trying to cover your bases by saying it has some uses but won't list a single redeeming aspect of blockchain tech). Do you think you will bludgeon people into submitting to your bias?

JohnnyFlash wrote:

Bitcoin can’t be used as digital cash due to the network verification times and cost per transaction.

As you well know, bitcoin hit a scaling issue. A whole host of solutions are being worked on to resolve. Once again, someone like you would truly stop innovation in it's tracks given the opportunity.

JohnnyFlash wrote:

Ethereum isn’t much better, and all the coins built using their code is worse than useless.

Same point - you have been aware that ETH are in the process of addressing said issues through Sharding and Casper. Someone like you would stop innovation in it's tracks given the opportunity.

JohnnyFlash

You like in a mature social democracy in Europe, Grindle, not some dystopian hellhole from the imagination of Ayn Rand. The tyranny of fiat stuff is all a bit hysterical.

As Paddy said, there might be a few use cases for a massively inefficient and resource intensive write once database. But proof of work coins will never be used to buy 8 cans and 20 benson and hedges. Slow, inefficient, and very insecure compared to the wonderful service offered by companies like Visa and Paypal.

The other proofs might have merit, but all I can see at the moment is them gravitating towards centralisation and trust models anyways.

Crypto is like the modern day equivalent of the fondue set.

grindle

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

The thing that no one here has been able to explain is what holding a "token" for one of these companies that are developing blockchain based solutions. In traditional capital raising models companies offer you shares/equity in the company in return for your cash investment. Crypto-companies get your money but you get a worthless "token" with no ownership of the company that you hope to offload to some shtook for a higher price.

We've tried to explain so many times but you're unconvinced and preoccupied by the greater fool spiel ye like to parrot.
Look at the Binance coin BNB, it's a perfect example of token economics. It serves a function (halves fees) and the more popular Binance becomes the more people will want that token. You can buy it to use it for the service it provides (worth it) or you can speculate on it by buying a stack, placing your bet that Binance will keep growing with the market - big popular exchange gets bigger and more popular, it's hardly unthinkable.

kaymin wrote: »

I'm bemused by your line of argument. On the one hand a tokens worth is determined by its utility but when a token has little utility you say it is a store of value. You can't seem to countenance it is worthless. Legal tender is backed by an economy. Bitcoin is backed by wishful thinking.

You don't consider Bitcoin's security and immutability to be a utility, other people do.
Legal tender is back by a gun (not often I'd agree with Paul Krugman on anything but he's right about that), fiat has been considered a corrupt experiment in wholesale robbery since it's inception. Backed by an economy, that's a laugh. Wasn't very well backed a decade ago when the world got rinsed by the scum in power. The dominant world currency at any time is backed by the most powerful war machine at any given time, nothing else.

I'd agree that Bitcoin is backed by wishful thinking - that's generally how idealism works. It was a noble experiment, an attempt to usurp the current shítpile. I consider it a failure as it currently stands but the idea is still here and it's still as important a concept as any lofty idea which seeks to remove control by tyranny.

JohnnyFlash

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Dentacoin, verge, potcoin, EOS, bunnytoken, waltonchain all of them are based on stupid premises. I may as well just copy the list of coins from coinbase.

I said maybe useful. None are springing to mind but I'm sure there has to be some application where blockchain is the solution. Thing is, people will just make their own token. They're not going to suddenly decide to pay some crypto-shyster money to use their 'token' which is just a replica of the ethereum code.

Yeah, that's the whole point. The value of the token will only increase if its used for something (other than as a way to scam actual money from gullible people). Most of these tokens aren't even used by the crypto development companies themselves for delivering the utility and ownership of the token is no guarantee of any ownership of the network. For example Ripple doesn't use XRP for any of its transactions. Same for EOS.

The companies just build hype then dump off a load of their pre-mined coins.

Excellent summarisation, Patrick. There’s no coin being used in anger at all - most of them are effectively dead at this stage. Monero and Dash are probably being used in the dark web markets. Bitcoin can’t be used as digital cash due to the network verification times and cost per transaction. Ethereum isn’t much better, and all the coins built using their code is worse than useless.

Looking forward to the Tron main net launch next week. Lots of ‘investors’ are going to have crypto pie all over their jumper.

kaymin

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly, this is a discussion - there is no 'gotchya'

Secondly, the utility bitcoin is chasing is either store of value or use as a transactional currency. Other 'coins' are not specifically chasing the 'internet of money'.

I'm not sure what your point is other than wheeling around to a debate that has been well trodden at this stage i.e. the intrinsic value of bitcoin, yada, yada. If so, that discussion will go round in circles incorporating the intrinsic value of the piece of paper in your wallet right now. You're skeptical on this? Fine. I guess the only way that will resolve itself is with time i.e. check back and see where its at in another 5 years.

I'm bemused by your line of argument. On the one hand a tokens worth is determined by its utility but when a token has little utility you say it is a store of value. You can't seem to countenance it is worthless. Legal tender is backed by an economy. Bitcoin is backed by wishful thinking.

Pintman Paddy Losty

makeorbrake wrote: »

Which applications are you saying it is a stupid idea for and what are these 'niches' in which it is useful?

Dentacoin, verge, potcoin, EOS, bunnytoken, waltonchain all of them are based on stupid premises. I may as well just copy the list of coins from coinbase.

I said maybe useful. None are springing to mind but I'm sure there has to be some application where blockchain is the solution. Thing is, people will just make their own token. They're not going to suddenly decide to pay some crypto-shyster money to use their 'token' which is just a replica of the ethereum code.

I guess you mean't what's the point in holding tokens?
I have explained it - and others have before me. From my post here;

"If there is merit in the coin and use cases follow, demand rises with the utility of the coin. If the circulated volume is limited, then the price of the coin will rise....and DONT come back with this nonsense that you can create as many coins or cryptos as you like. They'll be on another network - so it doesn't matter."

If the crypto is successful, there is utility in the token - if there's utility in the token, the price will rise due to demand.
In an equity scenario, you have ownership in the company. However, if the company fails, your equity is worth jack.

Yeah, that's the whole point. The value of the token will only increase if its used for something (other than as a way to scam actual money from gullible people). Most of these tokens aren't even used by the crypto development companies themselves for delivering the utility and ownership of the token is no guarantee of any ownership of the network. For example Ripple doesn't use XRP for any of its transactions. Same for EOS.

The companies just build hype then dump off a load of their pre-mined coins.

makeorbrake

kaymin wrote: »

And if there's no utility then it's a store of value. Gotchya.

Firstly, this is a discussion - there is no 'gotchya'

Secondly, the utility bitcoin is chasing is either store of value or use as a transactional currency. Other 'coins' are not specifically chasing the 'internet of money'.

I'm not sure what your point is other than wheeling around to a debate that has been well trodden at this stage i.e. the intrinsic value of bitcoin, yada, yada. If so, that discussion will go round in circles incorporating the intrinsic value of the piece of paper in your wallet right now. You're skeptical on this? Fine. I guess the only way that will resolve itself is with time i.e. check back and see where its at in another 5 years.

sexmag

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

The thing that no one here has been able to explain is what holding a "token" for one of these companies that are developing blockchain based solutions. In traditional capital raising models companies offer you shares/equity in the company in return for your cash investment. Crypto-companies get your money but you get a worthless "token" with no ownership of the company that you hope to offload to some shtook for a higher price.

Sometimes its not just tokens you are getting, im directly involved in a crypto and blockchain start up.

I cant go into too many details due to the NDA but at the moment we have investors who are being offered tokens and shares in the company, some just tokens and we will also be releasing coins but that has nothing to do with them and their investments at this point. Theyve read our investors whitepaper, are happy of what we are planning on doing and are being provided with tokens for their investments and the predicited ROIs on these, if they are unhappy after a certain time with how we are progressing they are allowed sell them (in line with the terms of the investment of course) or if they are happy then their part of the share of the company will have been worth it. All investment is a gamble really, its just following their right projects

Also @makeorbrake i love seeing that you have posted, your comments are always fair, truthful, quite unbiased and open to debate, keep it up mate

kaymin

makeorbrake wrote: »

If the crypto is successful, there is utility in the token - if there's utility in the token, the price will rise due to demand.

And if there's no utility then it's a store of value. Gotchya.

makeorbrake

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I think blockchain implementations are a really stupid idea for most utilities but might be useful for one or two niche areas.

Which applications are you saying it is a stupid idea for and what are these 'niches' in which it is useful?

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

The thing that no one here has been able to explain is what holding a "token" for one of these companies that are developing blockchain based solutions.

I guess you mean't what's the point in holding tokens?
I have explained it - and others have before me. From my post here;

"If there is merit in the coin and use cases follow, demand rises with the utility of the coin. If the circulated volume is limited, then the price of the coin will rise....and DONT come back with this nonsense that you can create as many coins or cryptos as you like. They'll be on another network - so it doesn't matter."

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

In traditional capital raising models companies offer you shares/equity in the company in return for your cash investment. Crypto-companies get your money but you get a worthless "token" with no ownership of the company that you hope to offload to some shtook for a higher price.

If the crypto is successful, there is utility in the token - if there's utility in the token, the price will rise due to demand.
In an equity scenario, you have ownership in the company. However, if the company fails, your equity is worth jack.

Pintman Paddy Losty

grindle wrote: »

They're never going to listen to reason, they're too distracted wafting eachother's farts into their faces.

I'm all ears horse.

I think blockchain implementations are a really stupid idea for most utilities but might be useful for one or two niche areas.

The thing that no one here has been able to explain is what holding a "token" for one of these companies that are developing blockchain based solutions. In traditional capital raising models companies offer you shares/equity in the company in return for your cash investment. Crypto-companies get your money but you get a worthless "token" with no ownership of the company that you hope to offload to some shtook for a higher price.

makeorbrake

kaymin wrote: »

Aren't you making the case here that Bitcoin has no value?

I'm making the case that bitcoin is a blockchain 1.0 technology; that ethereum is a blockchain 2.0 technology; that a number of newer DLT projects are blockchain 3.0. None of that development would have happened without bitcoin.

Am I saying that comparitively then, bitcoin is limited in what it can achieve? Definitely. However, the scope of DLT technologies is very broad in terms of where the potential lies for them to be implemented. In terms of bitcoin, it's a case of either 'store of value' or everyday transactional use. It's still in the game with regard to both of these although it appears that bitcoin developers seem to be steering it towards the former.

I believe that bitcoin will continue to remain relevant within the space but personally I see more potential in some of the DLT tech that has arisen from it.

Finally, circling back round to the sentence in my post that you quoted, the point I was making was that this thread isn't exclusively about bitcoin and where programmable DLT technology is concerned, the clock starts at 3 years - not 10.

kaymin

makeorbrake wrote: »

Furthermore, bitcoin is NOT programmable money OR a DLT technology that can support smart contracts for other utility uses. That started with Ethereum which is 3 years old.

Aren't you making the case here that Bitcoin has no value?

makeorbrake

grindle wrote: »

They're never going to listen to reason, they're too distracted wafting eachother's farts into their faces.

The existence of a counter argument is healthy - I actively encourage it. However, that's not what these two are involved in.

grindle

They're never going to listen to reason, they're too distracted wafting eachother's farts into their faces.

makeorbrake

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Waiting 10 years now and the only use people seem to have found is as a speculative asset. Not too hopeful at this stage we're gonna see much more lad.

Rubbish. Bitcoin started as an idea shared between a few enthusiasts. There was little in the way of resources for it to bootstrap itself up the way. In the conventional environment where you would be talking about a start-up, there would be venture capital money injected to move things along.

Bitcoin is a grass roots development as it's people that have brought it up the way - not institutions or institutional money.

Furthermore, bitcoin is NOT programmable money OR a DLT technology that can support smart contracts for other utility uses. That started with Ethereum which is 3 years old.

Switching back to Bitcoin, it took a couple of hundred years to switch from coin to paper. It took 40 years to switch from paper to plastic. Secondly, have a look at this post here - scroll down to the bottom. They said that the web was a waste of time, that you couldn't find anything, that it was too slow, that it was only used by paedophiles, etc. That timeline spans over 60 years. Would you have come along after 10 and said you've achieved nothing - pack up your stuff and abandon any further development? GTF!

Whelo79

Agreed. But it is some security that they actually have/had $2.5B in their accounts very recently anyway.

Bob24

Whelo79 wrote: »

Apparently they have shown a snapshot of two bank accounts over several days which account for all the funds but it is still way short of a full audit.

+1

What this proves is that they had the corresponding cash amount on bank accounts at a point in time, which is a start. But half of that cash could for example be loans which they need to repay. Only a proper audit with full traceability of the funds would prove they actually own assets matching the total tether amount, and these assets are secure and insulated from any financial commitment their holder might have. IMO the report they published doesn't guarantee in *any* way that if every tether holder wanted to redeem their money in USD they could be paid.

Pintman Paddy Losty

makeorbrake wrote: »

- A shed load of crypto's will disappear, speculators will come and go and many will get burnt, good projects will continue to be developed, the eco systems to deal with crypto and to facilitate crypto will continue to be built out. Some excellent tech will be improved iteratively, use cases will be found and crypto will have it's real world impact.
THAT is how this is going to pan out whether you like it or not (and clearly you don't whatever your problem is - and I simply don't give a damn what that problem is).

Waiting 10 years now and the only use people seem to have found is as a speculative asset. Not too hopeful at this stage we're gonna see much more lad.