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

seannash

unkel wrote: »

You can use Revolut card for this. Transfer the EUR to the Revolut account from your current account. This is instant and it is free. Then pay with the Revolut card in GBP. You get the interbank currency exchange rate, so no losses there either!

Revolut's aim: "building a fair and frictionless platform to use and manage money around the world"

I got my Revolut card completely free of charge. There are no monthly charges either.

Who needs crypto when you have Revolut? :pac:

I explored that option (I have a revolut card also) but the daily limit wouldn't allow me to complete it (5k I believe)
My mate didn't have a revolut card and didn't have time to wait for one

Grumpypants

I'm buying from a private seller so can't transfer funds to some random guys account without having the keys in my hand. Can't do an instant transfer on the day, as you know, money can't move instantly :rolleyes:. I can't travel with £13k on me as I'll get arrested for money laundering !! I can't stay over there for a week waiting for the banks to sort their ****e out.

No idea why Ulster are being so annoying, AIB gave my missus 10K in 30 mins after a 5 min phone call.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

True, and also to be fair there are already more economical solutions for people who want to use them.

Just had a quick look in my N26 app and if I wanted to transfer $12k to a US account I can have it done directly from the bank’s app with a few clicks and the fee is 36 euros, which I wouldn’t call cheap but not nearly as bad as the type of figure given in the previous exemple (they send the money through TransferWise).

Sure albeit not always workable. If you need a transfer directly into another account overseas, there are limits and also, regrettably Revolut/N26 don't support customers based in lots of other countries (outside of Ireland, etc.).

Bob24

Just saw the economist has a piece on crypto this week: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/bitcoin-and-other-cryptocurrencies-are-useless

Just the title makes it a good fit for this thread, they aren’t exactly very enthusiastic! (seeing the them expressing some doubts/caution is no surprise, but what I didn’t expect is that they have absolutly nothing positive to say about crypto)

sexmag

Bob24 wrote: »

Just saw the economist has a piece on crypto this week: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/bitcoin-and-other-cryptocurrencies-are-useless

Just the title makes it a good fit for this thread, they aren’t exactly very enthusiastic! (seeing the them expressing some doubts/caution is no surprise, but what I didn’t expect is that they have absolutly nothing positive to say about crypto)

"It is particularly hard with cryptocurrencies because, as our Technology Quarterly this week points out, there is no sensible way to reach any particular valuation."

There are,many enthusiasts use different techniques, just like with stock trading and just like with that it's not certain- argument: because we have no way of finding a definitive answer is wrong

"Users must wrestle with complicated software and give up all the consumer protections they are used to. Few vendors accept it. Security is poor."

Complicated- no,for a first time user may be but the same can be said for anything,give up all consumer protections- what like bank fees,delays,transaction times,proof of identities? Security is poor- No it's not,the only thing that makes security poor is human error,blockchain and crypto wallets are unhackable

"Economists define a currency as something that can be at once a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of account. Lack of adoption and loads of volatility mean that cryptocurrencies satisfy none of those criteria"

The other thread links many many many adoptions which I can't link here but as an example Volkswagen will be using IOTA by 2019

The whole article stinks of being written by a banker or someone who has a serious case of envy from FOMO

Grumpypants

Watching old money collapse in India and Venezuela. Makes all those arguments redundant.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

but what I didn’t expect is that they have absolutly nothing positive to say about crypto)

Confirmation bias is problematic - but so too totally nonobjective viewpoint

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

Confirmation bias is problematic - but so too totally nonobjective viewpoint

There is no objective journalism (at most there is journalism claiming to be objective) and that paper is no exception. But the thing is the editorial line of The Economist tends to be a good represention of the way of thinking in liberal/financial circles (i.e. not just observers but also stakeholders and influencers when talking about something related to money and finance). Hence their opinion is relevant regardless of agreeing with it as it will drive decisions with actual impact in the real world, and I’m surprised to see only negative points.

Haven’t had th chance yet but I’ll have a look at the more detailed report this is referring to and see if they detail their views a bit more.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

There is no objective journalism (at most there is journalism claiming to be objective) and that paper is no exception.

All media is prejudiced whether they realise it or not. There may be a bias but they may set out to be objective.

Not even mentioning one single upside to blockchain/crypto is hard to figure.

Bob24 wrote: »

The Economist tends to be a good represention of the way of thinking in liberal/financial circles (i.e. not just observers but also stakeholders and influencers when talking about something related to money and finance).

I guess it's an influencer in and of itself..

Bob24 wrote: »

Hence their opinion is relevant regardless of agreeing with it as it will drive decisions with actual impact in the real world,

Of course - all media has an impact to a greater or lesser degree.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

Confirmation bias is problematic - but so too totally nonobjective viewpoint

I think this should be a sub title on this forum..

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this should be a sub title on this forum..

I don't have any problem with your viewpoint. Perhaps you think disccusion here is bad - I don't although I'd welcome more objective critique. By comparison, the sub-reddits for the various projects are ridiculously partisan. That said, people just posting crypto is rubbish, you're all stupid - and not engaging in actual discussion is less than useful. Haven't seen you post much - feel free to do so.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

Perhaps you think disccusion here is bad... That said, people just posting crypto is rubbish, you're all stupid - and not engaging in actual discussion is less than useful. Haven't seen you post much - feel free to do so.

Hey..no, I don't think discussion is bad, but I think cognitive bias is very apparent in the whole crypto debate. Tbh I kind of see it more on the pro crypto side..no matter what is said, or how many are shown to be scams, it doesn't matter. I also think a lost of the crypto scene buzzwords etc are subtle psychological tools to keep the bubble going..the whole fomo, hodl, moon, believe in the technology etc. All the price alerts etc were dopamine hits driving it..

I dunno man, I don't want people to lose money, and tbh. I'm probably sick I didn't invest back in 2012..but I reckon by now the people who are going to make money off crypto have already made it.

I realise there's an element of cognitive bias in this post

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Hey..no, I don't think discussion is bad, but I think cognitive bias is very apparent in the whole crypto debate.

I don't disagree with you.

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh I kind of see it more on the pro crypto side.

Perhaps. I know that the space changed completely once people had the opportunity to make $. People started backing various projects so with both money and ego on the line, things start to get very partisan.

That said, you will always find partisan views on either side of the discussion. Everyone brings their own bias' to the table (whether we're conscious of it or not). There are plenty with vested interests on the naysayer side with a vested interest to talk it down so it's a double edged sword.

Deleted User wrote: »

or how many are shown to be scams, it doesn't matter.

I guess that's where viewpoints start to diverge as some have categorised projects with value as being scams. Those same projects may never succeed but that doesn't make them scams. Further down the pecking order, there are out and out scams....dreamt up by people that are harnessing the current buzz around crypto. In a year or two, they will be making the same play around whatever is hot/new then. i.e. they have nothing to do with the crypto space and they certainly don't define it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I also think a lost of the crypto scene buzzwords etc are subtle psychological tools to keep the bubble going..the whole fomo, hodl, moon, believe in the technology etc. All the price alerts etc were dopamine hits driving it..

Not sure...I mean everyone has to be responsible and act responsibly or they're always likely to get burnt. Recognition of FOMO is a good thing...if you can see that happening. In that respect, it's no different than conventional markets. There are plenty of people trading emotionally on S & P 500, etc.

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno man, I don't want people to lose money,

Don't have an interest in that either - but people have to take personal responsibility for their decisions.

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon by now the people who are going to make money off crypto have already made it.

I think there's a lot of mileage left in this yet. It's sticking around - it's not going to disappear. By and large practical application has yet to happen...so it's all early days yet.

Lastly, I always say this is a two track thing. Of course, some have speculated on the tech financially. There will be winners and losers in that game.

The more broader consideration is simply the tech itself - without getting involved with the speculative end. There is a wealth of people working away on the actual technology - oblivious to the speculative circus.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

I don't disagree with you.

Perhaps. .....

Comprehensive, reasonable answer that I'd mostly agree with..

grindle

Deleted User wrote: »

Comprehensive, reasonable answer that I'd mostly agree with..

Pick apart the bits that you wouldn't sher!
Chances are if you think this is the end of the gravy train then you think it's all about BTC and/or replacing fiat currency? Ethereum has expanded well beyond that. Sometimes people think blockchains spring into existence to solve problems that aren't there when the truth is that humans long ago created and continue to create the problems (fraud, human error, laziness, inefficiencies) which need to be solved and hopefully will be solved or at the very least whittled away to a nub.

[Deleted User]

grindle wrote: »

Pick apart the bits that you wouldn't sher!
Chances are if you think this is the end of the gravy train then you think it's all about BTC and/or replacing fiat currency? Ethereum has expanded well beyond that. Sometimes people think blockchains spring into existence to solve problems that aren't there when the truth is that humans long ago created and continue to create the problems (fraud, human error, laziness, inefficiencies) which need to be solved and hopefully will be solved or at the very least whittled away to a nub.

Well, it was initially about replacing currency. Like, at the start, bitcoin couldn't be hacked, couldn't be traced etc. Now it appears the exchanges can be hacked. I've just googled ethereum uses. A lot of them seem almost redundant, like they're creating a problem for ethereum to solve. I've spent quite some time thinking about uses for crypto (two brothers that were crypto heads). I dont know, maybe software piracy was one area I thought it might work. But, I can't see how holding the coins now would be of any benefit.

Like, really, say in your idealised technological dystopia crypto did catch on, there will be standards put in place. It will be ran by the Nation states who will develop new coins on whatever technological standard works.

The gravy train you speak of is a pyramid scheme. A lot of people got burned at Christmas. You're all waiting for another bottom level to come in. There are still issues with tether and the energy footprint.

Cognitive bias is a major aspect of this, on both sides. I think in time a lot may find out they hodled for too long.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, it was initially about replacing currency.

I don't know about 'replacing' but true, bitcoin was first out - and that's not concerned with anything other than money - whether that be store of value, transactional use, specific transactional use cases, etc.

Deleted User wrote: »

bitcoin couldn't be hacked, couldn't be traced etc. Now it appears the exchanges can be hacked.

It's true - it's never been hacked.
Exchanges are a different kettle of fish - they're centralised. Of course, they are learning - seeing some professionalism come through in recent months compared with what went before. However, there is always more sensitivity as hackers can make off with crypto in a way they couldn't achieve with electronic FIAT. That said, this is all in development. Decentralised exchanges are being worked on. Other security solutions are being developed. Many don't incorporate the fact that it (crypto generally) is in fluid development.
On tracing, well that's simply people misunderstanding. By it's very nature, it's totally public - transactions are set in stone on the block chain for all to see. Now, if you can access the system without anyone knowing your identity - then it can be that nobody knows who those transactions belong to. If someone goes through a centralised exchange, then no more privacy (well, for transactions that chain back to the exchange at least). The code is already there to actually make BTC private. Other coins also have built in privacy.

Email was available in 1991 but your granny couldn't use it until many years later.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've just googled ethereum uses. A lot of them seem almost redundant, like they're creating a problem for ethereum to solve.

I'm not sure which use cases you came up with. Right now, it's largely being used as a platform for other crypto's to launch on. However, it's hit the same scaling issue as Bitcoin. That problem is being worked on by way of projects such as Plasma, Raiden and BloXroute...to name a few.

Again, the 'email' example above applies.

Deleted User wrote: »

But, I can't see how holding the coins now would be of any benefit.

If you DO end up with a blockchain which you believe will result in a profound use case, then the expectation is that the demand for that token will increase over time. If there is a limited supply of the coin/token, then laws of supply/demand kick in - i.e. as use case kicks in, value in the coin will increase.

Deleted User wrote: »

Like, really, say in your idealised technological dystopia crypto did catch on, there will be standards put in place. It will be ran by the Nation states who will develop new coins on whatever technological standard works.

I'm not sure of your point? Are you saying that if crypto's start to fulfil their promise, then nation states will shut them down? Who knows, maybe they will. China seems to be taking this approach. However, nation states have to be careful - as this could come back to bite them in the ass.
Cause and effect.

Lets look at geopolitics and the games being played by the Trump administration. It's been talked about pre-trump - but now more than ever, other countries want to get out from under the USD as a reserve currency. USD being reserve currency has to a large extent underpinned the success of the U.S. for many years.
Along similar lines, the U.S. are imposing sanctions (or trade tarriffs as either an economically or politically motivated weapon). So...Turkey, Iran, Venezuela, Russia....
Venezuela have become the first country to introduce a state crypto. Iran are soon to follow. Turkey said that if U.S. forced their hand, they would look at 'other options' (which could only mean crypto in the context of Erdogan's comments). Russia have been mulling it over and Putin has said that they would look at it - at least to tackle sanctions.

Now....of course, these first implementations are rubbish. From Venezuela and likely from Iran. However, it's the start. Crypto will be successful up to a point in circumventing sanctions - but then - at some stage - one of them will be cornered into using a proper crypto. They wont want to - as all governments are about control - but the U.S. will force them into that corner (through attacking their state crypto...or state crypto simply wont work...can't see the Petro working).

As for use cases, where do you start?

Micro-transactions (at levels visa won't function at), machine to machine payments, online identity secured via blockchain, health records secured via blockchain, the coming Internet of Things with billions of censors (meaning billions of data points) and the trade of that data for micro amounts. Taking back control over your data and actually having the ability as an individual to sell that data (should you choose to), land registry records via blockchain, ability to pay people in real time by the hour, a tokenised marketplace (rather than the current conventional markets); over the air updates (which can be more efficiently achieved via centralised databases/systems but need crypto to be auditable); bank to bank transfers (already in play with Ripple); Remittances (limited application right now but scope to disrupt the industry).....i'm only scratching the surface.

Deleted User wrote: »

The gravy train you speak of is a pyramid scheme. A lot of people got burned at Christmas. You're all waiting for another bottom level to come in.

You are talking about short term greed/speculation as distinct from the tech or the medium to longer term prospects of the actual tech. You cant stop people from speculating - that's their own decision. Markets get overvalued all the time - but markets are ultimately efficient and correct themselves. Pyramid scheme? ..no. Peoples ability to over and undervalue?...sure - happens all the time...and in fairness, trying to achieve price discovery is a lot more difficult with crypto.

Deleted User wrote: »

There are still issues with tether

Couldnt agree with you more - I can't wait to see the back of Tether. However, there have been a plethora of stablecoins launch in the last couple of months and a few more to launch imminently. They are going to address the shortcomings of Tether. I hope the market can wean itself off Tether before something nasty happens.

Deleted User wrote: »

and the energy footprint.

The energy issue is misunderstood - See this.

Deleted User wrote: »

Cognitive bias is a major aspect of this, on both sides. I think in time a lot may find out they hodled for too long.

Agree completely. For that reason, it's healthy to see the contrarian view (just not the nonsense that went on here before with a couple of individuals who wouldn't actually engage in a discussion and never had the objectivity to accept a single positive in the tech)

[Deleted User]

Apologies now, I don't know how to multi quote..

On the hacking, can people not just see who hacked the exchange, or when they used the bitcoin if it's all public?

Your grandmother probably isn't using hotmail..(ok she might be..dammit, I thought there would be more email providers that had been lost along the way..)

On the expectations around demand for the tokens increasing..tbh I don't really see that happening..once the technology is there and proven to work new standards will be put in place..

Th UN will just go "We're moving to the e-dollar..this is money now"..

And in relation to this coming back to bite the state in the ass..tbh I see a lot of the enthusiasm around crypto coming from a kind of a "post-2008-we've-all-watched-too-many-conspiracy-theory-documentaries-****-the-system" kind of a mindset. A lot of lads on YouTube, that would be playing video games if they weren't crypto gurus..

All those use cases..
1. What level does visa not function at..will there be peasants in Bangladesh buying rice with ripple?
2. Machine to machine payments..wtf?..matrix sh1t..
3. Online identity..hmmm..a stretch..is that not cryptography as opposed to the blockchain..
4. Health records..I dunno..maybe?, but probably a new system..
5. IOT..interesting Freudian slip there..when you're talking of trading data for micro amounts.
6. Taking back control of your data. What?. You will be doing the opposite of this. This is crypto ideology.
7. Tokenised marketplace. Sorry, but more crypto ideology buzzwords.
8. Updates..I dunno, maybe, but again, just maybe..
9. Banks. "Ripple is the bankers coin.."
10. Remittances. Isn't that the whole point?

I agree there could be some uses for the blockchain technology..But, I don't think it will be as revolutionary as ye think.

Pyramid scheme. Are you not sitting at home hoping a load of new people go out and but crypto causing the price to go up Monday?

Are they not printing way more tether all summer, rather than trying to phase it out? (I might be wrong here)

It can't be good to be setting up warehouses full of graphics cards going full pelt. Chemical manufacturing and aluminium smelting have definitive uses not necessarily there with crypto. That article had a conclusion before it was started.

I think that's it..I prefer glib one liners really..

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

On the hacking, can people not just see who hacked the exchange, or when they used the bitcoin if it's all public?

They can see it move, sure. Some 'Silk Road' money moved the other day for the first time in a few years. However, unless it's getting cashed out to FIAT then it's quite difficult to nail that down. If these guys specialise in that sort of thing, then they will find a way...and of course, it can be traded for other crypto, go through mixers, all sorts of options.

Deleted User wrote: »

Your grandmother probably isn't using hotmail..(ok she might be..dammit, I thought there would be more email providers that had been lost along the way..)

Perhaps I didn't go back long enough. On second glance, the history of email goes back to MIT / 1965. Anyway, I'm sure you are not going to argue the point with me that tech gets developed over time, right? The developmental history of the internet/www is another one I've quoted here in the past.

Deleted User wrote: »

On the expectations around demand for the tokens increasing..tbh I don't really see that happening..once the technology is there and proven to work new standards will be put in place..

I don't really know what this means? New standards? If a system has been built with an eco system around it - and it works, what's the other system? You mean it will be replicated? It's not that straight forward in the first instance. However, even if it is, then they will have to add something to make it better to motivate such a switch. I agree insofar as there may be a better crypto solution that comes along - another blockchain. That's already happening (or at least attempts at it...they've yet to be fully proven). But it will be a blockchain and it will have to be significantly better than the original.

Deleted User wrote: »

Th UN will just go "We're moving to the e-dollar..this is money now"..

I'm not sure what this is in relation to? However, given that you mention the U.N, U.N. Operations (UNOPS) have been collaborating with IOTA on a use case specific to their needs involving DLT/blockchain technology.

Deleted User wrote: »

And in relation to this coming back to bite the state in the ass..tbh I see a lot of the enthusiasm around crypto coming from a kind of a "post-2008-we've-all-watched-too-many-conspiracy-theory-documentaries-****-the-system" kind of a mindset. A lot of lads on YouTube, that would be playing video games if they weren't crypto gurus..

Crypto is a broad church. What I presented you with are real events that are happening right now. They're not disputable. The only thing that's open to interpretation is my speculation that one of these days, rather than these countries (2nd one - Iran - to launch their crypto within the next 2 months - India, Thailand, Israel, South Africa, Russia - all interested in launching one...albeit for differing rationale) using a centralised crypto, they may be forced into using a decentralised existing crypto.
I have not presented you with any conspiracy theory ;-)

Deleted User wrote: »

All those use cases..
1. What level does visa not function at

Visa can't do micro transactions. The likes of IOTA is fee-less.

Deleted User wrote: »

will there be peasants in Bangladesh buying rice with ripple?

There are other guys here that have a better understanding of Ripple - I don't think Ripple is set out for the purpose of small transactional payments. But to your point generally, if Bangladesh suffers hyper inflation with their national currency, then maybe they will use a crypto. Dash has seen Venezuela become one of it's most important markets for exactly this reason - although these are just beginnings. If nation states start using centralised state crypto's for their citizens use, will this make the switch to a decentralised crypto easier for people...if they become accustomed to the same manner of use? That's not a claim by me..that's a question that I've been pondering recently.

Deleted User wrote: »

2. Machine to machine payments..wtf?..matrix sh1t..

Matrix ****? You're kidding right? Sure, it's not today but it's not that far away. We have semi autonomous vehicles already - and the tech there to go fully autonomous - its just being refined and going through stringent testing (by the way, crypto's are already coming into play with a couple of the car manufacturers with aspects of that).
You have heard of AI? Massive amounts of money and research going into that right now. It's not so Matrix....it's the future ...but it's not a distant future.

Deleted User wrote: »

3. Online identity..hmmm..a stretch..is that not cryptography as opposed to the blockchain..

There's a separate thread we could open up on any one of these to go through it fully. Anyways, for right now - civic.com

Deleted User wrote: »

4. Health records..I dunno..maybe?, but probably a new system..

It's more or less the same issue (in principal) as online identity type solutions. It's highly sensitive data that has to remain private (in terms of the individual it pertains to) whilst also being able to share the substance of the data within health systems. It's a difficult problem to solve - but an important one.

What other system??

Deleted User wrote: »

5. IOT..interesting Freudian slip there..when you're talking of trading data for micro amounts.

You'll have to spell this one out for me as I'm not following the point you're making?

Deleted User wrote: »

6. Taking back control of your data. What?. You will be doing the opposite of this. This is crypto ideology.

This is definitely NOT ideology. See No.3 above.

Deleted User wrote: »

7. Tokenised marketplace. Sorry, but more crypto ideology buzzwords.

Eh, no - not buzzwords. With respect, I don't think it's something you have an understanding of. Google it.
It may currently be the wild west but we have Initial Coin Offerings (ICO's) right now where companies raise money to fund themselves. Off the top of my head, Nasdaq, the NYSE and the Swiss Stock Exchange are getting involved with Crypto - why do you think that is?

Deleted User wrote: »

8. Updates..I dunno, maybe, but again, just maybe..

There's no maybe - it's announced for 2019. IOTA will be used for Over The Air (OTA) updates on a commercial product.

Deleted User wrote: »

9. Banks. "Ripple is the bankers coin.."

I'm not sure what your point is? It's being used right now - they've partnered with something like 200 banks I believe. They have a use case. It's a centralised entity - so many don't like it but that's not necessarily what we're talking about here - we're talking about crypto use cases - and they have one ..confirmed.

Deleted User wrote: »

10. Remittances. Isn't that the whole point?

I'm not following? The whole point? ..as in the only reason for crypto? See above - apparently not. When I'm talking about Remittances, I'm talking about Western Union, Moneygram, etc. Remittances sent to developing countries in 2017 totalled $470billion in 2017 according to the World Bank.

Deleted User wrote: »

Pyramid scheme. Are you not sitting at home hoping a load of new people go out and but crypto causing the price to go up Monday?

I'm risk off right now. I have next to nothing in crypto right now. I have friends who have trading accounts for the conventional markets that day trade, trade futures, swing trade as well as value invest. I'm might dabble in it myself if I can ever get up to speed on it. There are an insane amount of people doing that around the global all day every day. How is it any different? Does it make the underlying activities of what they place money on irrelevant? No.

Deleted User wrote: »

Are they not printing way more tether all summer, rather than trying to phase it out? (I might be wrong here)

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Tether is a centralised coin. If those that admin. it want to continue to offer it (and why wouldn't they) ..and people in the market want to continue to use it, who are you or I to stop them?

My point was - that there are much better solutions on the way - that are audited, backed by assets, etc. Even if the same people use tether going forward, many of these new stablecoins are being put in place for institutional investors to use. If they come into the market, then they water down the potency of Tether in the market. I've never used Tether - it would have saved me a fortune some time ago if I could have depended upon it - but I've never felt that I could. If some of these new offerings are made aveilable, I'd be likely to use them.

Deleted User wrote: »

It can't be good to be setting up warehouses full of graphics cards going full pelt. Chemical manufacturing and aluminium smelting have definitive uses not necessarily there with crypto. That article had a conclusion before it was started.

Firstly, I think you've missed the point on the Chem Manufacturing/Alu smelting example - the point being that they have usually situated in isolated spots with access to cheap renewable power - where there isn't a demand for such energy anyway.
Otherwise, the article was a response to a whole series of articles recently that had a conclusion before they started - and without providing the context that this aritcle does! What's more, it sets out the rationale for why it takes that opinion very strongly. And the essence of it - ties in with your response. See the very last paragraph of the article. You assume that there is no utility in that use case whereas I most certainly do. An immutable ledger that nobody can distort.
Aside from all that, what does it matter to you if they provide the capital funding for the projects themselves and use renewable energy that can't possibly be used for any other purpose (as it's 'stranded' energy no-where near another point of use).

On that note, I object strongly to the fact that you use Crimbo lights every year. They have no utility and they're destroying the planet. Can you kindly switch them off.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that's it..I prefer glib one liners really..

No problem. Nothing at all wrong with an exchange of views :-)

Grumpypants

Holy moley went to get my sterling draft, €430 is what it costs using their exchange rate !!!!

No wonder old money is working so hard to discredit crypto.

sexmag

Grumpypants wrote: »

Holy moley went to get my sterling draft, €430 is what it costs using their exchange rate !!!!

No wonder old money is working so hard to discredit crypto.

And to think we all just HAD to pay that, there may be some little loop holes to get around it but your still paying through the nose.

I feel there is current stability in the market, i dont expect a big rise soon but if you play your cards right you can make some gains at the moment, theres a few coins that have a pattern where whales are buying a big amount,leaving it sit for 24 hours until its gains maybe 10% and then selling,ive made 1000% profit on one of these coins in the last 30 days buy buying it low, setting a sell order for 50% higher and then buying when it goes back down again.

My only issue is some main cryptos take a little while to send now, BTC LTC being the biggest culprits:rolleyes:

seannash

Grumpypants wrote: »

No wonder old money is working so hard to discredit crypto.

Are they?
I'm a believer in Crypto but I don't think there's an concerted effort to discredit it. I think people have opinions and are perhaps voicing them. Some in favour, others not so much

Dohnjoe

Personally I don't even think coins like BTC need a definitive "use case" to gain value over the medium and long term. People have shown there is more than enough interest in speculation on digital trinkets. There's a market for.. that market (regardless of real world intrinsic value and application)

Bob24

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Personally I don't even think coins like BTC need a definitive "use case" to gain value over the medium and long term. People have shown there is more than enough interest in speculation on digital trinkets. There's a market for.. that market (regardless of real world intrinsic value and application)

Well being a store of value (and possibly a speculative asset) is a use case in itself and yes a crypto currency could sustain only with that use case.

But in the medium/long term there cannot be dozens of them purely relying on this. I’d say only one of 2 major ones can survive acting purely for that purpose.

Dohnjoe

Bob24 wrote: »

Well being a store of value (and possibly a speculative asset) is a use case in itself and yes a crypto currency could sustain only with that use case.

A speculative asset as a "store of value" is a bit of an oxymoron

A speculative store of value changes the context entirely. Virtual penny stocks that aren't tied to anything

Bob24

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A speculative asset as a "store of value" is a bit of an oxymoron

Why? Can’t things like gold or real estate also be considered both as stores of value and speculative assets?

Gold in particular really has the full spectrum between speculation and store of value. I can make a quick trade on a gold ETF because I think for whatever reason the price will significantly increase in the short term and I’ll be able to sell in a few weeks for a hefty profit (hardcore speculation). And I can also buy a gold bar and burry it in my garden thinking whatever happens it will still be worth something when everything else has collapsed and i want to redeem my gold for whatever I need (hardcore store of value).

Dohnjoe

Bob24 wrote: »

Why? Can’t things like gold or real estate also be considered both as stores of value and speculative assets?

They have a use

But if mint your own artificial digital tokens, you are simply creating a digital asset that represents pretty much nothing but people's speculation in that asset

Bob24

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They have a use

But if mint your own artificial digital tokens, you are simply creating a digital asset that represents pretty much nothing but people's speculation in that asset

Question though was if it is an oxymoron to associate “store of value” and “speculative asset”. I think these exemples show it isn’t necessarily the case.

funkyuser

https://bravenewcoin.com/news/should-we-think-of-bitcoin-as-a-store-of-energy/

I want to hear the sceptic view on this, particularly the point "should-we-think-of-bitcoin-as-a-store-of-energy"

Dades

makeorbrake wrote: »

Perhaps I didn't go back long enough. On second glance, the history of email goes back to MIT / 1965. Anyway, I'm sure you are not going to argue the point with me that tech gets developed over time, right? The developmental history of the internet/www is another one I've quoted here in the past.

I don't buy the email analogy, personally. Email revolutionised a slow, expensive, environmentally unfriendly process - paper mail. It was clear very early that a practice that had been used by regular people for thousands of years, using runners, ravens, pigeons, horses, trains, boats, planes, boats, vans and bicycles would never be the same again.

Personal payments are not at the same place as sending someone a letter was before email. You tap a card or a phone to buy most items. For anything else you enter a four digit PIN. You pay your bills electronically, direct debit, or on the net. One click purchase on Amazon *poof* it's yours.

Blockchain might cut time and fees in the somewhat niche cases of sending large sums of money to third parties, but for most punters it's already too easy and fast to buy stuff.

There's nothing yet to get real people excited about crypto except the prospect of a quick buck.