Bitcoin is Stupid and Does Not Deserve an Emoji (blog post)
Bitcoin is Stupid and Does Not Deserve an Emoji (blog post)
35 crypto companies got together to make a change dot org petition called "Bitcoin Deserves an Emoji".
F that
You're viewing a single thread.
Bitcoin has the right idea, but did not execute it properly, primarily because it was the first and technology has improved and it has not. Monero is actually doing what bitcoin was meant to do and acting as a transactional currency, medium of exchange, and store of value.
Look at my totally stable store of currency bro, trust me bro, this is totally useful as a means of exchange and you can trust in its future value bro, just believe me.
Now, overlay that price chart with a transaction count chart averaged out over say 90 days and what you will notice is that big spike up to 400 and above was at basically no transaction volume which makes it seem more like that was hype. Looking at the price chart over shorter timeframes such as a year will show you that the transaction count is actually increasing now and the price is staying quite stable.
"Ignore the glaring flaws and look only at the parts I tell you to" is great fiscal policy and inspires a lot of trust. You nerds are basically sending PGP emails to each other and pretending it's money. It isn't — it's literally nothing.
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree.
No, because the rest of us have to deal with the environmental destruction wrought by your virtual paperclip maximizer. it affects everyone.
Fine, go after the industries that are doing more, such as industrial processing for making glass and other things that require high temperatures, the global transportation industry, etc.
Why would I "go after" an industry producing something useful, rather than grifters powering GPUs to do absolutely nothing of value? We can get to the glass industry once we've culled the useless garbage first.
Monero is CPU based. And actually we are providing something of value in that we are providing a private currency not controlled by any government where no government can tell you you can or cannot use it because they have no power to stop you from doing so. Now, whether you believe that is something we need in this world or not is a different value set.
no government can tell you you can or cannot use it because they have no power to stop you from doing so
I mean they can kick down your door and seize or hack your PC. That threat is enough to stop most people, making the currency pretty useless in countries that have cracked down on it.
If the goons are kicking down your door, there's not a whole lot you're going to be able to do to stop them from doing so, because they will find something against you. On average, the typical US adult commits three felonies per day. So if they want you, they will get you. Obviously, that's done by making more and more things illegal to make more and more people criminals.
Why should we care what they go after? If they regulate or tax mining, that's just a difficulty adjustment that won't impact our security budget.
There's a Pareto improvement to be had here.
Your comment costs data-center energy, please help save the environment by not commenting.
Monero is mining-resistant, which means mining farms are going to be unprofitable. The people mining Monero are regular enthusiasts, so that should mean there's less wasted energy from a ton of people competing over the same number of coins. Oh, and Monero has no maximum block-size, which keeps transaction costs low (which means even less competition over mining).
I don't know of a good way to estimate Monero electricity usage, but I'm guessing it's way less than Bitcoin has per transaction, or at least it would be if they had a similar number of transactions. Monero is a lot more complex currency (so one transaction will actually spawn a bunch of "fake" transactions), but that mining-resistance is doing some work.
Here's Monero's webpage, which has some discussion on energy usage, which I think I've summarized well above.
I don’t know if this argument is the winner you thought it was. A currency where people aren’t using it as a means of exchange because of price fluctuations is a failure.
No, no, hear them out. It's actually super great that when you walk into the grocery store the loaf of bread is $1.50, and by the time you walk to the bread aisle it's $0.72, and by the time you walk to the cashier it's $2.10. This is actually super great, because there's also a medium country's worth of electricity being consumed to enable that.
When i pick up a loaf of bread its 0.012, and when i check out its 0.012. Currentsies are going to shift against each other. The exact same thing would occur if you walked into a store in, say, Germany and handed them dollars. Also, do you mind telling me how much energy the banking system uses to run their equipment, build their buildings, have their employees come to their branches, move armored trucks full of cash, etc. Like, I can understand the power use thing being an issue. But if you want to go after something that would make more of a difference, how about figuring out thermal bricks or something for industries making glass? Which produces a hell of a lot more greenhouse gases than crypto mining does. Industrial processes are a huge polluter. Or how about the global transportation system?
This is the poster child for whataboutisn. You literally just argued that it's okay for cryptocurrencies to pollute and waste energy because it takes energy to make glass too.
It fluctuates with an I narrow range, and as it gets more adoption, that range is continuing to narrow. As a matter of fact, I sell items for Monero and I keep my prices completely stable and people do come to buy things. https://xmrbazaar.com/user/shortwavesurfer2009/. I have my prices set in such a way that they will stay stable until at least December 1st of 2024 at which time I will update them if need be.
Monero will not scale. All attempts at "improved" altcoins have just sacrificed scalability in exchange for features that look good in the short term to investors that don't know any better.
There are people dedicated specifically to Monero scaling and they are a hell of a lot smarter than me and do not see any reason why it cannot be scaled properly. Look at some talks by Articmine
I'm not interested in spending a ton of time on this, but I did go and watch this short interview with him about scaling misconceptions.
Wasn't convincing at all. For one, the guy comes across as kind of dishonest. Not scammer-level dishonest, but more like a politician. The main thing though is that he's just a big-blocker, which is just a total dead end. Having everyone store every single transaction that was ever made until the end of time is just not realistic.
In order to scale to any globally significant number of users, a cryptocurrency needs a second layer to aggregate transactions, such as Lightning. Monero seems to have nothing in this regard beyond "However, academic and industry research is ongoing and promising in this area."
they are a hell of a lot smarter than me
You should not be investing money in something based on this level of understanding, and you *definitely* should not be advocating it to others. Scaling is an existential problem for cryptocurrencies. Their utility is based on their monetary value, and their monetary value is based on investor assessment of their future utility. Without the ability to scale, there will be no growth in utility, which means no investment other than temporary dumb money, which becomes a vicious cycle.
You should not be investing money in something based on this level of understanding
IMO, you shouldn't be investing in cryptocurrencies or any currencies for that matter. Currencies should be used, not hoarded with the expectation of gain. If you're buying cryptocurrencies as an investment, you've already lost.
Where cryptocurrencies have value is as a medium of exchange. In many parts of the world, the central bank isn't trustworthy and end up causing runaway inflation, such as in Venezuela, Argentina, and Turkey. This is because there is a lot of political gains to be had by manipulating the currency to make things appear better than they are. The US hasn't had this issue largely because the Federal Reserve is largely immune to politics (they're appointed by the executive and confirmed by the Senate, but that's about it). But that's not guaranteed to always be the case. Board members can be removed, and the President and Senate can theoretically pack the Federal Reserve board in the same way as packing the Supreme Court.
The great thing about cryptocurrencies is that you don't need to trust anyone to use it. Here are the parties involved in a transaction:
- you
- the other party
- miners verifying blocks
- source code maintainers
Each of those has checks in place. You and the other party don't need to exchange secrets, only information that is totally acceptable to be shared (pub keys, not private keys). With something like Monero, you can even make a separate key for each transaction if you'd like. Miners compete against each other to validate transactions accurately, and if a miner tries to cheat, their results are excluded. Source code maintainers work in the open, so researchers (or you!) can and do look at the code.
With fiat, you have to trust the central bank and banking regulators. If you don't trust your central bank, you're SOL.
The cost of using a cryptocurrency vs a central bank is that lack of central oversight, meaning you'll see more variation in valuations. However, this should smooth out as more people use it as a currency (so more even inflows vs outflows). There isn't something like the US dollar or Euro's target 2% inflation rate, so we could see deflation instead of inflation if cryptocurrencies catch on or if people flee to it from investments in a bear market or something.
The value of a cryptocurrency is the demand for that currency. Just like fiat, it has value if we believe it has value. Fiat currencies aren't based on anything more than supply and demand for that currency, just like crytocurrencies, with the big distinction that valuations also take into account trust in the backing back (whereas cryptocurrencies include trust in the network and code).
IMO, you shouldn't be investing in cryptocurrencies or any currencies for that matter. Currencies should be
used, not hoarded with the expectation of gain. If you're buying cryptocurrencies as an investment, you've already lost.Cryptocurrencies literally cannot function without speculative investment. Even in the absence of formal investors, *someone* has to be the first person to accept the tokens in exchange for something of value, in hopes that they will have value of their own in the future. Until then, the tokens are unusable.
Further, the market cap and liquidity of a cryptocurrency impose practical limits on what it can be used for. You can't very well conduct a billion dollar transaction through a cryptocurrency that has a market cap in the millions. Investment raises the market cap, "unlocking" these higher-value use cases. Conversely, loss of investor confidence will reduce the market cap, and effectively reduce the utility of the coin.
This is why ability to scale is so important. The current market values of Bitcoin and the various alts are based far more on speculative investment than they are on usage. Those investors believe that the coins will see far more usage (and have far more natural demand) in the future than they do today. If that turns out not to be the case due to an inability to scale, investors will start to flee, and the vicious cycle will start.
I don't think anyone needs to exchange cryptocurrencies for "something of value" for the investment to work, they just have to believe the currency itself holds value, where value is defined by supply vs demand. If enough people think others will believe it has value, then demand will increase. It's basically how MLMs work, but it can sustain itself once it reaches a sufficient number of investors.
Adding transactions for real goods and services in the mix expands the reach of the currency and can stabilize demand a bit once the initial speculators have lost interest. So yeah, there's absolutely a motivation for speculators to try to get others on-board. But it's not necessarily a requirement, as we can see with other collector fads like Beanie Babies or Baseball Cards (the only value is in trading with other collectors), but just changed to be digital (NFTs are the strongest analogue).
However, just because speculators are rewarded if you use a cryptocurrency for transactions doesn't mean you should avoid it. Use it if it provides value to you. The value proposition is:
- lower transaction fees, especially for international transactions - Bitcoin fails for small local transactions, but works well for large and international transactions; the lightning network helps for small transactions, and other currencies exist for small transactions as well
- privacy - banks can and do sell your data, and governments may be interested in your transactions as well; you can't use cash for online transactions, so there aren't many good options
- security - breaches and scams happen, and if you don't notice the issue soon enough, you could end up paying for fraudulent transactions; with cryptocurrencies, you never share your private key, so you're as safe as wherever you store that key; you can also move money between keys, so you can keep the bulk of your money safe
Even without any kind of physical backing, cryptocurrencies offer an attractive value proposition. We could probably solve the above with fiat, but that currently is not a thing. I don't recommend using cryptocurrencies for everything, nor do I recommend using it as an investment, but I do recommend using it for a few transactions here and there until you feel comfortable with it because of that value proposition.
It seems like you're arguing against a position that I don't hold? I've been invested in Bitcoin for a long time, and I'm quite familiar with its technical and socioeconomic dynamics. I'm skeptical of altcoins specifically, not of cryptocurrency as a concept.
Maybe? It reads like you're arguing that you shouldn't buy cryptocurrencies at all if you don't understand how transactions are handled. I don't think that's true, and that will just discourage the normal, everyday person from getting started. You may need that info if you're interested in investment/trading, but you don't really need to get into the weeds if you just want to pay for some online services.
The important thing for lay-people is to recognize the value cryptocurrencies can provide, understand which cryptocurrencies are "stable" (as in, not some altcoin scam), and understand transaction times and costs. That's honestly it. If we can achieve that, more people will start using cryptocurrencies for transactions where it's available, more vendors will see it as a viable payment source, liquidity will improve, and developers will address the issues as they come up.
If you're buying something other than the top few cryptocurrencies, then yes, I agree with you. But you're not going to do that if your goal is to use it as a currency, because no real vendors are going to accept whatever that new altcoin is. If you stick with the big coins and your goal is to spend those coins, you're not likely to get screwed. Bitcoin can work w/ Lightning, and Monero (my preference) is great on its own. Those are also the two that are most commonly accepted by vendors.
Maybe we agree there, idk. I think your comments read a little gatekeepy and from a "cryptocurrencies are investments" standpoint, and I think the focus should be "cryptocurrencies are currencies."
Alright, fair enough. Keep in mind though that this comment thread started with an assertion that Bitcoin didn't get it quite right, and Monero did, which is more of a big-picture analysis thing than merely "can I buy something with this". My responses have been in that vein.
That's fair. The Lightning network really is an interesting solution to the problem Bitcoin had, and I'm interested to find out if/when Monero will run into a similar problem.
While I personally agree that we should not store all transactions for all time, our storage capability is going to get exponentially better. We are able to store data in 3D discs with lasers now and can store petabytes in a single disc the size of your typical old CD-ROM and even store data in DNA if we wish. These obviously aren't going to be included in your desktop computer anytime in the near future, but they do currently exist and show that storage will not be a problem for a very very long time.
Scalability isn't quite as simple as "how much data can a well-off enthusiast from a developed country store". You need to consider the behavior of your lowest common denominator users.
You want as many users as possible to run fully-verifying nodes, rather than SPV ("simplified payment verification") nodes that can be tricked by a malicious miner. The more transactions are being done through SPV nodes, the more potential payoff there is for an attacker, and the more resources they can dedicate to an attack.
Further, if your number of full nodes gets low enough, it becomes feasible for state actors to track down and compromise the remaining node operators. At that point, you may as well just be using a centralized, government approved payment system instead.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
True bitcoiners 🤝 no-coiners "Bitcoin should be illegal"
This is 100% wrong