"Decentralization is akin to anarchy."

Interesting observation.

Private PoopyPants said:

---

The best thing about this crash is that my coworkers who wouldn't stop bugging me about crypto and how rich they were going to be have now gone silent.

They were more annoying than vegans and MLM salespeople.

---

did they seriously claim they were going to be "rich" from crypto?!?!

Quote:

---

Humans are susceptible to corruption and over time will manipulate the tools they control to favor themselves and those around them. These people are cantillionaires in the current system.

The attraction of Bitcoin is that no one can control it or change the monetary policy. By voluntarily participating in the Bitcoin Network, you're necessarily agreeing to the rules of the network...21 million limit on production, etc.

---

This is false especially once the network is owned by "cantillionaires."

Predmid said:

---

...

If you think bitcoin will not have a ruler (or doesn't already have one), then you are deluding yourself with nonsense utopian ideals.

Congrats on being the rube.

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Humans are susceptible to corruption and over time will manipulate the tools they control to favor themselves and those around them. These people are cantillionaires in the current system.

The attraction of Bitcoin is that no one can control it or change the monetary policy. By voluntarily participating in the Bitcoin Network, you're necessarily agreeing to the rules of the network...21 million limit on production, etc.

---

This is false especially once the network is owned by "cantillionaires."

---

It's a risk but one mitigated by the price. The higher it is, the more expensive it is to get a majority. And you can't otherwise break or steal it by virtue of the design.

If someone bought up BTC with the idea of controlling it, the price would probably skyrocket first due to supply and demand. Unless the price falls a lot more, I think it's safe.

exp said:

---

tysker said:

---

exp said:

---

tysker said:

---

exp said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Bitcoin is a vehicle, a tool, imagine the invention of the car and you're telling people how to buy and sell it as if it's the only use for the car (Makin money off it.) I'm out here telling people to get a car and learn to drive it to help their families travel further, longer, faster.

---

This is antithetical to what a BTC is. From the BTC whitepaper abstract and conclusion:

Quote:

---

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
----
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust

---

BTC is a payment system protocol. Nothing more, nothing less.

---

What are you talking about?

Money, or a payment system protocol if you prefer, is a tool precisely as this poster described. It's a tool for a decentralized society of inter-reliant individuals to communicate, store, and transfer value across space and time in a trustworthy way. Adverse Event here is advocating that people learn to use the "car" for its inherent utility, same as people learn to use bitcoin for its inherent utility as a immutable, censorship-resistant form of global hard money.

There's nothing "antithetical" about this. I think rather you're not understanding the point, which is okay. A lot of people prefer fiat money and fiat consequences. It's natural with the programming we all receive.

---

A car is a depreciating asset with long term value of 0 and is useless if there are no roads or mechanics to fix issues. What value are you transferring across time and space?

---

Respectfully, I don't think you're understanding how analogies work in the english language.

The analogy is that cars have utility. The utility of a car is it can move you around. The utility of Bitcoin, not a car, is that it can transfer value across space and time. Please re-consider your response with this clarification being made apparent.

---

Cars have a utility now but that same car has value trending toward zero. And even still the current utility of a car, or any tool really, requires other agents. A hammer is useless without nails or wood. And over time, any individual hammer decreases in marginal value.

The utility of BTC, in your opinion, is that is it a store of value. I argue, that value, like any tool or technology will trend toward zero, mostly because it has no obvious intrinsic value.

---

Tysker, I'm going to take a break because you don't seem to be making sound arguments.

The fact that cars have utility but also depreciate is...not relevant. Does your dollar depreciate? No (though it does get debased!!!). Does it have utility? Yes. We're talking about the utility of BTC as money. You're getting weirdly drawn off the scent of the argument by talking about car depreciation and other irrelevant points.

If BTC value trends to zero, you have a huge opportunity to profit off your insights buy adding the Short Bitcoin ETF to your retirement portfolio. Just set it and forget it and you should be really, really wealthy.

---

You brought up the car analogy, not me. The same question still exists, what is the value? You're just another poster the refuses to answer this basic question, because, imo, you either havent considered it, dont want to admit you're guessing, or are making stuff up ( need youtube videos and tweets to defend yourself).

LMCane said:

---

Private PoopyPants said:

---

The best thing about this crash is that my coworkers who wouldn't stop bugging me about crypto and how rich they were going to be have now gone silent.

They were more annoying than vegans and MLM salespeople.

---

did they seriously claim they were going to be "rich" from crypto?!?!

---

I had a guy come up to me every single day at work. Every single day.

"Bitcoin and Ethereum are up again today. Next year I'm going to cash out I won't have to work anymore. You'll still be stuck working here."

Every.

Day.

Ag81Golf said:

---

Help me out here. He invested $2500.00 using a credit card and the investment climbed to a half mil?

He didn't cash out or at least take half of it and diversify?

Greed overwhelms the simple minded.

---

My thoughts exactly. The dude is greedy as hell. How do you NOT cash out at a half a mil when your investment was $2500. I mean, you HAVE to know that it's due to go down at some point soon. And even if it didn't (here's the greed), you just made a cool $497, 500.00. I don't care if it went up to a million after I cashed out, I'd still feel lucky know it was a risk to hold on to it after it went up so much. He deserves what he got.

Private PoopyPants said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Private PoopyPants said:

---

The best thing about this crash is that my coworkers who wouldn't stop bugging me about crypto and how rich they were going to be have now gone silent.

They were more annoying than vegans and MLM salespeople.

---

did they seriously claim they were going to be "rich" from crypto?!?!

---

I had a guy come up to me every single day at work. Every single day.

"Bitcoin and Ethereum are up again today. Next year I'm going to cash out I won't have to work anymore. You'll still be stuck working here."

Every.

Day.

---

Fool he was and is probably broke now. He was going to wait a YEAR?

Decay said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Humans are susceptible to corruption and over time will manipulate the tools they control to favor themselves and those around them. These people are cantillionaires in the current system.

The attraction of Bitcoin is that no one can control it or change the monetary policy. By voluntarily participating in the Bitcoin Network, you're necessarily agreeing to the rules of the network...21 million limit on production, etc.

---

This is false especially once the network is owned by "cantillionaires."

---

It's a risk but one mitigated by the price. The higher it is, the more expensive it is to get a majority. And you can't otherwise break or steal it by virtue of the design.

If someone bought up BTC with the idea of controlling it, the price would probably skyrocket first due to supply and demand. Unless the price falls a lot more, I think it's safe.

---

Something like 60% of the total coins available are held by 15,000 addresses which hold 100 or more coins. And like 2000 address hold over 1,000 coins which totally about 40% of the total.

You can definitely steal it; with no recourse.
Using derivatives, one can control large amounts without segments of the market knowing and any one person or entity can acquire large amounts without the marketplace knowing (via multiple wallets).

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Money is communication.

---

What does that mean?
does money communicate information across time and space? What information does money communicate to a market, or especially a free market? If money isn't communication, why do we talk about it so much? Etc. I'm not sure which part to explore but I'm not sure I can simplify the language further than money is "communication technology" first invented a millenia ago (does Graham Hancock think the civilizations wiped out in the Younger Dryas period had money?).

Money is a medium of exchange. It allows value to be exchanged based upon whatever concept of "value" the parties have, whether that value be chickens, an hour of labor, a gallon of fuel, an autograph, a conversation, or whatever.
what is value other than digits on a ledger communicated across space time for work performed, commodities, and debts/credits
But it is a way for value to be exchanged.
The exchange of value is communicated how?

My issue with crypto is it seems the only value ever exchanged was for more crypto, not altogether different from always cashing in lottery tickets to buy more lottery tickets.
you're right, there are a ton of people who haven't grasped the concept of bitcoin outside of degenerative gambling behavior, which might be the only aspect you've focused any attention towards.

I've never seen one single store, and maybe two web sites, that would accept crypto as a form of payment.how many entities does Cashapp service? Even if you remain unaware of the growth of bitcoin acceptance in its 13 years of existence in physical or digital retail, NOT CRYPTO mind you, you've got to be competent to know that there are far more entities accepting bitcoin than the 3 youve seen.... does a country count? How many countries until it does count?

---

Turning on bitcoin payments is as simple as a few lines of API code for just about any entity, person, child, goat, cow, dog.

And money is an abstraction of value that traverses space and time, but with artificial packet loss. Packet loss is what happens when you get a garbled phone call. It means bits of information lost or destroyed in transit. In electrical transmission it's called transmission loss.

You know PACKET LOSS, sometimes the phone call/zoom will get incredibly slow/l**** and then speed up really fast to catchup to reality [well, reality as displayed by zoom/computer]. For some reason that analogy really resounds right now with jerome Powell, CPI, blame it on Russia, etc.

And in reference to packet loss of money attempting to convey accurate data across space and time im talking about inflation/deflation/QE&QT/unpredictable monetary policies/global economic disruptions/etc. If that wasn't clear enough.




Tsyker: what or when is the value of any vehicle accurate? is it the dollar price at sale? The cost of goods sold? or some % of the value of the lifetime of transported goods/people/etc? Does price = value 1:1 or is there some philosophical conundrum at play here?

The value of any number of bits or bitcoin is very much a calculation based on the moment its needed, and it's external environments. What is a bar of gold worth to you when it's removed from your sphincter at the border crossing, fleeing an oppressive government?

What's 100 bitcoin in a brain wallet worth as you cross a border butt ass naked? 100 BTC.

Link to data?

I originally read it on River.com (https://river.com/learn/who-owns-the-most-bitcoin/

But its linked to here:
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

black_ice said:

---

Will bitcoin bounce back though?

---

I think it will. at least a few more times.

not sure it ever gets back to $69,000 but it will move up from it's current $20K levels at some point.

Quote:

---

What's 100 bitcoin in a brain wallet worth as you cross a border butt ass naked? 100 BTC.

---

Using illegal immigration as your proof of concept probably isnt going to earn you many kudos on this forum.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

I've never met anybody who could really explain in plain English why I should pay you real money for Crypto, unless it was for illegal transactions. It always struck me as another tulip bulb or beanie baby craze.

---

because if you put in $5000 in BTC six years ago you could have made $150,000 at the highs

tysker said:

---

I originally read it on River.com (https://river.com/learn/who-owns-the-most-bitcoin/)

But its linked to here:
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

---

Now do the same for countries and individuals, who's wallet has the fattest stacks of cash and accurate % of current overall distribution of that cash, and also account for no counterfeits.... impossible task!

Isn't that amazing? We also can prove the US govt has 70k bitcoin on hand, if not more. Pretty damned amazing.

Adverse Event said:

---

tysker said:

---

I originally read it on River.com (https://river.com/learn/who-owns-the-most-bitcoin/)

But its linked to here:
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

---

Now do the same for countries and individuals, who's wallet has the fattest stacks of cash and accurate % of current overall distribution of that cash, and also account for no counterfeits.... impossible task!

Isn't that amazing? We also can prove the US govt has 70k bitcoin on hand, if not more. Pretty damned amazing.

---

The golden rule applies: He who owns the gold, rules.
We know exactly who has the power and it aint you or I. IIRC, the USG is not allowed to hold more than 200k BTC at anytime so it auctions it off.

Funny do these counts take into account leverage, swaps, IOUs, or derivatives on staked coins? What is the value of outstanding loans on exchanges and how much interconnected systemic risk is there?

none of those videos disprove my thoughts. They amplify them.

What y'all even talking about with owning the network. You can own 80% of all BTC and have no more influence obey the network than a no coiner.

There's no such thing as a cantillionaire in Bitcoin

bmks270 said:

---

exp said:

---

tysker said:

---

Adverse Event said:

---

I think your definition of payment, in other words, is limited in scope, but maybe you could correct my misunderstanding.

If you believe "payment" only relates to the financial sense, I disagree. A time stamp can be considered payment, and a time stamp could represent any form of data.

---

I would argue that is blockchain technology, not BTC itself.

---

Blockchain as a technology is essentially a decentralized public ledger/database. Could be used for anything. We could have a public ledger to track real estate ownership.

Bitcoin currently is the leader on the front nine for becoming the public ledger of money.

---

Who do decentralized databases serve?

At the end of the day, nearly all databases will be centralized and controlled by the people collecting the data and maintaining. Decentralization for its own sake isn't better, it's worse.

---

Exactly. Blockchains are nothing more than a solution looking for a problem.

Bruce Schneier wrote on this recently at https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2022/06/on-the-dangers-of-cryptocurrencies-and-the-uselessness-of-blockchain.html

From the page:

Quote:

---

To me, the problem isn't that blockchain systems can be made slightly less awful than they are today. The problem is that they don't do anything their proponents claim they do. In some very important ways, they're not secure. They don't replace trust with code; in fact, in many ways they are far less trustworthy than non-blockchain systems. They're not decentralized, and their inevitable centralization is harmful because it's largely emergent and ill-defined.

...

"By its very design, blockchain technology is poorly suited for just about every purpose currently touted as a present or potential source of public benefit. From its inception, this technology has been a solution in search of a problem and has now latched onto concepts such as financial inclusion and data transparency to justify its existence, despite far better solutions to these issues already in use. Despite more than thirteen years of development, it has severe limitations and design flaws that preclude almost all applications that deal with public customer data and regulated financial transactions and are not an improvement on existing non-blockchain solutions."

---

eric76 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

exp said:

---

tysker said:

---

Adverse Event said:

---

I think your definition of payment, in other words, is limited in scope, but maybe you could correct my misunderstanding.

If you believe "payment" only relates to the financial sense, I disagree. A time stamp can be considered payment, and a time stamp could represent any form of data.

---

I would argue that is blockchain technology, not BTC itself.

---

Blockchain as a technology is essentially a decentralized public ledger/database. Could be used for anything. We could have a public ledger to track real estate ownership.

Bitcoin currently is the leader on the front nine for becoming the public ledger of money.

---

Who do decentralized databases serve?

At the end of the day, nearly all databases will be centralized and controlled by the people collecting the data and maintaining. Decentralization for its own sake isn't better, it's worse.

---

Exactly. Blockchains are nothing more than a solution looking for a problem.

Bruce Schneier wrote on this recently at https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2022/06/on-the-dangers-of-cryptocurrencies-and-the-uselessness-of-blockchain.html

From the page:

Quote:

---

To me, the problem isn't that blockchain systems can be made slightly less awful than they are today. The problem is that they don't do anything their proponents claim they do. In some very important ways, they're not secure. They don't replace trust with code; in fact, in many ways they are far less trustworthy than non-blockchain systems. They're not decentralized, and their inevitable centralization is harmful because it's largely emergent and ill-defined.

...

"By its very design, blockchain technology is poorly suited for just about every purpose currently touted as a present or potential source of public benefit. From its inception, this technology has been a solution in search of a problem and has now latched onto concepts such as financial inclusion and data transparency to justify its existence, despite far better solutions to these issues already in use. Despite more than thirteen years of development, it has severe limitations and design flaws that preclude almost all applications that deal with public customer data and regulated financial transactions and are not an improvement on existing non-blockchain solutions."

---

---

100% agreed.

Blockchains are useless. The blockchain not bitcoin crowd unfortunate souls.

Bitcoin continues to operate as intended for 13 years and performs admirably in that time and continue to perform as dictated in its inception.

Cryptocurrencies are ***** Bitcoin isn't crypto.


[After reading the first paragraphs of the blog]

Quote:

---

Yes, current proof-of-work blockchains like bitcoin are terrible for the environment. But there are other modes like proof-of-stake that are not.

Yes, a blockchain is an immutable ledger making it impossible to undo specific transactions. But that doesn't mean there can't be some governance system on top of the blockchain that enables reversals.

Yes, bitcoin doesn't scale and the fees are too high. But that's nothing inherent in blockchain technologythat's just a bunch of bad design choices bitcoin made.

Blockchain systems can have a little or a lot of privacy, depending on how they are designed and implemented.

---

That's the only quotes about bitcoin in this, and what a farce. Enjoy remaining in the dark on the topic by listening to this blowhard.

The Bitcoin blockchain could easily be converted to proof of stake assuming someone can make proof of stake actually work.

Nope. Proof of stake is vaporware.

Adverse Event said:

---

eric76 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

exp said:

---

tysker said:

---

Adverse Event said:

---

I think your definition of payment, in other words, is limited in scope, but maybe you could correct my misunderstanding.

If you believe "payment" only relates to the financial sense, I disagree. A time stamp can be considered payment, and a time stamp could represent any form of data.

---

I would argue that is blockchain technology, not BTC itself.

---

Blockchain as a technology is essentially a decentralized public ledger/database. Could be used for anything. We could have a public ledger to track real estate ownership.

Bitcoin currently is the leader on the front nine for becoming the public ledger of money.

---

Who do decentralized databases serve?

At the end of the day, nearly all databases will be centralized and controlled by the people collecting the data and maintaining. Decentralization for its own sake isn't better, it's worse.

---

Exactly. Blockchains are nothing more than a solution looking for a problem.

Bruce Schneier wrote on this recently at https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2022/06/on-the-dangers-of-cryptocurrencies-and-the-uselessness-of-blockchain.html

From the page:

Quote:

---

To me, the problem isn't that blockchain systems can be made slightly less awful than they are today. The problem is that they don't do anything their proponents claim they do. In some very important ways, they're not secure. They don't replace trust with code; in fact, in many ways they are far less trustworthy than non-blockchain systems. They're not decentralized, and their inevitable centralization is harmful because it's largely emergent and ill-defined.

...

"By its very design, blockchain technology is poorly suited for just about every purpose currently touted as a present or potential source of public benefit. From its inception, this technology has been a solution in search of a problem and has now latched onto concepts such as financial inclusion and data transparency to justify its existence, despite far better solutions to these issues already in use. Despite more than thirteen years of development, it has severe limitations and design flaws that preclude almost all applications that deal with public customer data and regulated financial transactions and are not an improvement on existing non-blockchain solutions."

---

---

100% agreed.

Blockchains are useless. The blockchain not bitcoin crowd unfortunate souls.

Bitcoin continues to operate as intended for 13 years and performs admirably in that time and continue to perform as dictated in its inception.

Cryptocurrencies are ***** Bitcoin isn't crypto.


[After reading the first paragraphs of the blog]

Quote:

---

Yes, current proof-of-work blockchains like bitcoin are terrible for the environment. But there are other modes like proof-of-stake that are not.

Yes, a blockchain is an immutable ledger making it impossible to undo specific transactions. But that doesn't mean there can't be some governance system on top of the blockchain that enables reversals.

Yes, bitcoin doesn't scale and the fees are too high. But that's nothing inherent in blockchain technologythat's just a bunch of bad design choices bitcoin made.

Blockchain systems can have a little or a lot of privacy, depending on how they are designed and implemented.

---

That's the only quotes about bitcoin in this, and what a farce. Enjoy remaining in the dark on the topic by listening to this blowhard.

---

I place a lot more credence in what Bruce Schneier has to say about security issues than any of the crypto-blowhards.

Blah blah ESG blah blah.

Okeedokee. Appeal to your authority.

For the others:

This is a perfect example of the problem of specialization in the 20th and 21st Century. Bruce Schneier is an expert in only one field and totally ignorant in just about everything else, but because he is an "Expert" he is taken seriously about something he knows nothing about. pic.twitter.com/kWKmrCy7zV

— Beautyon (@Beautyon_) July 15, 2022

In any case, asking Bruce Schneier to talk about economics, the electricity consumption of Bitcoin and other things he knows nothing about is the classic "Faulty Appeal to Authority" Fallacy. Bitcoin entrepreneurs must counter these ignorant voices aggressively with facts. pic.twitter.com/8JXz4jeCYL

— Beautyon (@Beautyon_) July 15, 2022

It is clear that Bruce doesn't understand the problem Bitcoin solves if he thinks this list in any way represents an alternative to Bitcoin. What needs to happen to Bruce (or someone he loves) is that their accounts and transactions are frozen, blocked or disabled. Then... pic.twitter.com/UAjiZcm4vo

— Beautyon (@Beautyon_) July 15, 2022

Green (intelligent legislators) is only slightly better than Bruce, with the absurd claim that speech should be regulated. Bruce doesn't understand money, why Bitcoin was written, Bretton Woods, or anything about this subject...fine, just don't let anyone know; it's shameful. pic.twitter.com/tc3n4UfEKC

— Beautyon (@Beautyon_) July 15, 2022

As I've said many times before; there are going to be people who will be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Ignorant, parochial, Autistic, insular, backwards, brainwashed people who will scream hysterically about Bitcoin. None of them will succeed in stopping it.

— Beautyon (@Beautyon_) July 15, 2022

But don't worry 1500 tech experts, 1 millions doctors, 1 billion politicians, and a trillion climate scientists are all in consensus that bitcoin is bad.

I'm not appealing to authority. Your argument is a bunch of bull*****

(You do know, don't you, that for Math people, appeals to authority have no meaning.)

I have never understood the appeal of blockchains and cannot see how they are useful. The two of us, as well as many others, have largely the same view of the matter.

Lina Hidalgo threads.

ac04 said:

---

the ignorance on this forum is so disappointing. but the beauty of bitcoin is that it is completely voluntary and everyone gets to buy at the price they deserve. it rewards intellectual curiosity and punishes hubris. and these threads are going to be hilarious in the future.

---

You could have once said the same thing about tulip bulbs.

The guy is still talking about tulip bulbs.

You deserve the hole you keep digging.

Serious question: our family invests in land. Period. It is the only thing we invest in.

What does crypto offer that land investment does not?

If I want to sell or buy, it's instantaneous, trustless, and I don't have to pay anyone to do it. Land is a great investment though.

petroleo y agua said:

---

Serious question: our family invests in land. Period. It is the only thing we invest in.

What does crypto offer that land investment does not?

---

More liquidity
Smaller barrier to entry

That's probably it. Real estate is usually a great investment.