Follow

@mareklach The result is: people using a not-so-anonymous, energy/power-intensive, non-taxable, unstable and non-regulated currency. Nowadays I no longer use (e.g.: , , , ) that much. I advocate for / , which is a payment system and thus works with any , and is taxable since the seller is exposed to the bank/auditor while the client/buyer is anonymous.

@adfeno These are all valid points, particularly about the enormous energy consumption. But this was a news story from Reuters, so I certainly don’t think they have much idea about that aspect of it.

Rather, I feel like its just another simple MSM smear against the concept of cryptocurrency in general, by name-dropping countries that Americans don’t think of highly, and know little about factually.

Just my impression tho

@adfeno @mareklach
(1) payment system is not a currency, you're still subject to political manipulation of the financial system, fractional reserve, bank bankruptcies, inflation, ...; (2) being heavily regulated on the seller side is not censorship-resistant at all; government can still ban/jail sellers of items they don't like

@stevenroose @adfeno True. Or they can buy too much of the currency, having a monopoly on its ownership, making it too expensive for regular people anyway.

@mareklach @adfeno I don't think it's feasibly to maintain a monopoly of ownership. If you're owning a large share and not spending it, prices will not inflate, it will stabilize as if your coins don't exist. You'll only be able to make use of your monopoly by spending the money and by doing so you'll redistribute wealth.

@mareklach @adfeno
You might have referred to the US confiscating all gold reserves and keeping a monopoly on it. It's important to note that they did this by outlawing possession of gold in their country and by convincing countries to give them their gold based on their military prominence.
With Bitcoin, which is a lot easier to move and to hide from the government, those tactics are a lot less effective.

@stevenroose Aah... but doesn't Bitcoin have a limited amount of coints circulated, which means that by aquiring the majority of them (arguably, hard to do), you can simply inflate its price by creating scarcity?

Sorry, I am not all that up to date on all the details, but that was my impression...?

@mareklach #Bitcoin does have a finite supply, yes. But my previous post argues why you can't maintain a monopoly on ownership.
If 50% of the coins never get spent (i.e. your attacker), the market will stabilize as if the entire supply is the remaining 50%. The attacker will have a huge wealth, but will only be able to use it by spending, thereby reducing its holdings.
This of course requires a world where money doesn't automatically make more money like in our current financial system.

@stevenroose I think I get it now. It’s a way better system than I imagined, and I was a fan before too. Thanks for taking the time to explain this so well.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Ecologia Digital

Mastodon da Ecologia Digital.

Construindo o ambiente digital público ~ comum ~, em prol de um ‘movimento ambiental para a rede [Internet]” -> #ecodigital

"Tal como o meio-ambiente, o domínio público (ou comum) precisa ser 'inventado' antes de ser salvo." - James Boyle, criador do ‘ambientalismo para a rede