What do you think of adding a low% of crypto allocation

[theolympians]

In the meantime, you can:

• Manage the risk by choosing your exchange / broker carefully. Maybe onshore, maybe a public co, etc. Also, there are Bitcoin-only brokers that are (imo) at the safer end of the spectrum simply because they're not participating in / promoting the alt-coin shitshow.
• Minimise your exposure by self-custodying your Bitcoin immediately following purchase. 1 hour exposure = 0.01% of 1 year exposure.

Oh my, we have gone full circle. We should invest in credible institutions with a track record. I agree!

Start-ups are always riskier, more so with new faces associated with them. Social Media OTH promotes many charlatans. FTX was only the newest.

I think people are focused on this more in light of FTX's collapse.  FTX's former CEO, ironically, wanted to start FTX to properly handle leveraged products without collapsing.  But the safer route is an exchange that doesn't offer leverage, like with U.S.-based exchanges.

FTX also raises a separate legal question: if someone bought Bitcoin on FTX, then sent that Bitcoin to their own wallet (self-custodying)... would they be subject to clawbacks?

The current CEO of bankrupt FTX plans to claw back political donations.  But if he wants billions back from Binance's CEO, he could have a legal fight on his hands.  CZ could argue he offered to buy FTX, suggesting he was ignorant of the fraud, and a day later saw the books and declined to go further.

But if one's financial intermediary is not loaning out one's crypto deposits to try and earn a spread, how do they make money? By charging transaction fees? If fractional banking was outlawed in the crypto world, for example, the only crypto exchanges/banks/brokerages would have to charge commissions. Otherwise, if there was no way to earn money, they couldn't exist. This is why there is no free Western Union.

We're all used to stock brokerages with zero-commission trades, but in the background, they are loaning your shares to short sellers, earning spreads between futures and cash yields, doing options trades, etc. with your assets, and of course selling your data. I have some reservations about all this stuff with stocks, but FTX suggests the model cannot be made to work in the hyper-volatile and unregulated crypto universe where even the biggest counterparties and coins can collapse overnight.

If a crypto website says it is not trading your assets to make money for itself, that raises questions about what possible way they could be earning money if not by stealing depositors' money or doing some Robinhood game of picking a penny off the B/A spreads.

Looking at the broader picture, let's think about how the narrative has shifted:

• 2016: Crypto is going to allow frictionless, free transactions with no intermediaries, transforming the global economy!
• 2019: These noobs who lost their life savings because they left their coins in wallets on sketchy websites are doing it wrong.
• 2022: Here are some guidelines to find a crypto website that is less likely to collapse - um... ooops... - here are NEW guidelines based on the ever-shrinking unique set of characteristics of crypto websites which haven't collapsed... yet.

The point is perhaps to know the business model of your financial helpers, and to steer clear of unregulated markets where some dufus could take on silly amounts of risk and no one would notice.

[LateStarter]

A quick Google shows that the Wiki decision to stop accepting crypto donations was more about avoiding association with the ongoing environmental debate and scam concerns. Furthermore, it was initiated and pushed by the creator of web3isgoinggreat.com - clearly someone with a crypto-axe to grind. It definitely wasn't a simple 'not worth the hassle' decision.

The reason I brought up Wikipedia is that it comes from populist, decentralized  "anyone can edit" grass-roots, is self-funded, no pay walls or subscriptions, operates mostly with volunteer labor, and is largely democratic.  It seems logical that there would be some natural overlap between Wiki supporters and crytpo-enthusiasts.  And because Wiki is donor supported, it needs to make it easy to accept payments by as many channels as possible, including across international borders.   So again there seems to be some natural overlap.   And indeed Wiki began accepting crypto donations in 2014, so they were pretty early.   But protecting your reputation is a hassle.   If crypto-donations were flowing over the transom it would be one thing.  But crypto-donations were on the order of about a hundredth of a percent of the total.   A rounding error of a rounding error.   With such little demand, the decision to stop accepting crypto does become pretty simple and the Wiki foundation voted overwhelmingly to stop accepting it.   That goes to my point that even after eight years too few people were donating via crytpo channels to make it worthwhile, and this is an area that would seem to be a natural fit. 

This goes back to the chicken and egg problem, a record 66% Bitcoin did not move in the last year, and 45% has not moved in two years.   

https://cryptoslate.com/over-66-of-the-total-bitcoin-supply-hasnt-moved-in-the-last-one-year-setting-a-record

In order for Bitcoin to be useful as a currency, it needs to circulate.  But the people who own it are holding it.

I'm not particularly surprised (or dismayed) by the Wikipedia decision. My only objection is the framing of it as a simple "because so few people were donating that way it wasn't worth the hassle" decision.

The evidence shows that it was the outcome of a fairly rancorous campaign: "1. we shouldn't endorse (risky investment) crypto AND 2. cryptos may not align with our commitment to environmental sustainability AND 3. we risk damaging our reputation".
I agree that the small amount of crypto donations made the decision easier, but overlooking/ignoring the strong anti-crypto campaign is omitting 3/4 of the story.

You might think there should be a natural Wiki/crypto overlap/fit, but there clearly isn't. Someone vaguely familiar with MMM might think a typical freedom-loving, alternative-lifestyle, unconventional, independent-thinking, norm-challenging Mustachian is probably a Bitcoiner . . . .

So, why didn't many people donate to Wikipedia with Bitcoin ? I suggest:

• Because those (in poor/unstable nations) currently using Bitcoin as a currency don't have the means to donate.
• Because those (in wealthy/stable nations) with the means to donate are not currently using Bitcoin as a currency.

Further detail in following post . . .

"Environmental Concerns" what a load of crap. If it was making them $$$ they would continue to accept it. A public statement is the last place I would look to. I agree with telecaster.

If you think Wikipedia's public statements are "a load of crap", you obviously don't think Wikipedia is "populist, decentralized 'anyone can edit' grass-roots" and "largely democratic" - which was, kind of, the point.

[LateStarter]

A deflationary currency can't work because it would always buy more in the future ??

Assuming Bitcoin (+Lightning) continues to grow, and grow:

Bitcoin purchasing power will continue to rise until it approaches some sort of equilibrium, ie. it will tend towards stability.
In the extreme, Bitcoin purchasing power would probably just track the global GDP trend.

At some point, holding Bitcoin looks preferable to holding inflationary local fiat currency - even as a short-term store of value risk/benefit proposition.
The reason for using Bitcoin as a currency is not necessarily because people want a better means of exchange (though some do). It's because people want a better store of value, then hold Bitcoin in preference to fiat, and then need/want to spend it.

For some in in very_high_inflation nations, that point has already been reached.
For others in developing nations, that point might be reached soon.
For others in wealthier nations with a more stable curency, that point may not be reached for some time.
Regardless, as time goes on, it will make more sense for more people to transition to, and transact in, Bitcoin rather than local fiat currency.

[waltworks]

It sure AF hasn't so far, though. I remember reading about how everyone was going to be accepting bitcoin 5+ years ago, but I've still never met anyone who has done a transaction, and the crowd I hang with is full of tech dorks.

-W

[MustacheAndaHalf]

It sure AF hasn't so far, though. I remember reading about how everyone was going to be accepting bitcoin 5+ years ago, but I've still never met anyone who has done a transaction, and the crowd I hang with is full of tech dorks.

I've personally bought VPN service with it - private browsing paid for with private payment.  That example aside, Visa handles payments better than Bitcoin, assuming you're not paying 1% foreign transaction fees.

I'm a bit negative on Bitcoin and more optimistic about Ethereum.  The Ethereum Merge switched to energy saving "proof of stake", using 99.9% less energy, and giving it an advantage over Bitcoin.  NFTs run over Ethereum, not Bitcoin, and various other new things seem to be happening more there.  Bitcoin is an overpriced technology commodity that hasn't yet panned out.  Critics will say it never will, optimists say it's not out yet.  For Ethereum, new developments are visible and ongoing, so I think ETH is more interesting than BTC going forward.

There are a few Bitcoin Futures ETF, but the first one (BITO) grabbed all of the investment dollars and passed $1 billion AUM before falling dramatically last year.  And ETH fell with BTC - but I think ETH could have a higher recovery than BTC, eventually overtaking it for the highest market cap.  So I'm considering moving 0.5% into ETH now, and just letting it sit and rot.

[LateStarter]

It sure AF hasn't so far, though. I remember reading about how everyone was going to be accepting bitcoin 5+ years ago, but I've still never met anyone who has done a transaction, and the crowd I hang with is full of tech dorks.

-W

The default for your dorky friends is to transact via the most advanced, respected, reliable banks in the world using the strongest fiat currency in the world. They are the luckiest people in the world in this respect and have little motivation to do anything different. If you're looking for Bitcoin_as_a_currency progress, you're looking in the wrong place.

There is a big wide world beyond the US. The situation is different for most people and very different for many.

[EverythingisNew]

I think the halvening of Bitcoin in 2024 will be the end of it. It will become too expensive to mine. Without a first market, it will only have a secondary market and will become like Beanie Babies minus the physical object… so nothing. Without the miners there is no game to it anymore.

Other crypto might do better if it can keep mining costs reasonable.

[waltworks]

The default for your dorky friends is to transact via the most advanced, respected, reliable banks in the world using the strongest fiat currency in the world. They are the luckiest people in the world in this respect and have little motivation to do anything different. If you're looking for Bitcoin_as_a_currency progress, you're looking in the wrong place.

There is a big wide world beyond the US. The situation is different for most people and very different for many.

Very true. Are lots of people in, say, Gambia using BtC to buy and sell stuff?

Based on some very quick googling the answer is, "no".

-W

[LateStarter]

It sure AF hasn't so far, though. I remember reading about how everyone was going to be accepting bitcoin 5+ years ago, but I've still never met anyone who has done a transaction, and the crowd I hang with is full of tech dorks.

The default for your dorky friends is to transact via the most advanced, respected, reliable banks in the world using the strongest fiat currency in the world. They are the luckiest people in the world in this respect and have little motivation to do anything different. If you're looking for Bitcoin_as_a_currency progress, you're looking in the wrong place.

There is a big wide world beyond the US. The situation is different for most people and very different for many.

Very true. Are lots of people in, say, Gambia using BtC to buy and sell stuff?

Based on some very quick googling the answer is, "no".

How about their 80x more populous near neighbour, Nigeria ? Or, developing nations more generally ?

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere, but it's the developing nations that are leading the way in this respect.


* I don't know either of the quoted sources but, from a quick scout around, both look pretty objective.

[GuitarStv]

It sure AF hasn't so far, though. I remember reading about how everyone was going to be accepting bitcoin 5+ years ago, but I've still never met anyone who has done a transaction, and the crowd I hang with is full of tech dorks.

The default for your dorky friends is to transact via the most advanced, respected, reliable banks in the world using the strongest fiat currency in the world. They are the luckiest people in the world in this respect and have little motivation to do anything different. If you're looking for Bitcoin_as_a_currency progress, you're looking in the wrong place.

There is a big wide world beyond the US. The situation is different for most people and very different for many.

Very true. Are lots of people in, say, Gambia using BtC to buy and sell stuff?

Based on some very quick googling the answer is, "no".

How about their 80x more populous near neighbour, Nigeria ? Or, developing nations more generally ?

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere, but it's the developing nations that are leading the way in this respect.


* I don't know either of the quoted sources but, from a quick scout around, both look pretty objective.

Ah, Nigeria.  Must be legit then . . . all those Nigerian princes wouldn't be involved in scams!

[waltworks]

That article is not about people making transactions, it's about people "investing".

-W

[Telecaster]

How about their 80x more populous near neighbour, Nigeria ? Or, developing nations more generally ?

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere, but it's the developing nations that are leading the way in this respect.


* I don't know either of the quoted sources but, from a quick scout around, both look pretty objective.

It makes sense that in countries without a well-developed banking system people would look for alternatives.  In the first article, it said Nigerians are increasingly buying Tether, not Bitcoin. 

[waltworks]

Given that the consensus at this point I think is that Tether is a big fraud, it's going to be a huge bummer for Nigerians when that one unravels.

-W

[BicycleB]

Re developing nations adopting new fintech faster than USA, I have seen it myself.

In 2010 I visited Kenya and found it full of people paying for purchases via their phones (flip phones, using a system of codes transmitted via text, linked to payment accounts associated with their phone number). "Mpesa", I think, was the name of the leading company. We had nothing as effective or convenient in the US then, let alone as widespread.

Adoption occurred partly because of the lack of previous widespread banking and non-cash payment systems. The principle that adoption can occur faster where it's needed more seems proven to me by this example, though whether this will happen regarding crypto could be different.

My guess is that crypto won't end up dominating such spaces very often, but that's different from impossible.

[Telecaster]

In 2010 I visited Kenya and found it full of people paying for purchases via their phones (flip phones, using a system of codes transmitted via text, linked to payment accounts associated with their phone number). "Mpesa", I think, was the name of the leading company. We had nothing as effective or convenient in the US then, let alone as widespread.

Adoption occurred partly because of the lack of previous widespread banking and non-cash payment systems. The principle that adoption can occur faster where it's needed more seems proven to me by this example, though whether this will happen regarding crypto could be different.

M-Pesa was developed by Vodaphone after they noticed people were using cell phone minutes as a medium of exchange.   M-Pesa allows people to send and receive money via their cell phones without the need of a bank, and they can even send cash if needed.  It is faster and cheaper than Bitcoin. 

[gary3411]

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infinitely-hostile

[BicycleB]

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infinitely-hostile

I like ACX but hadn't seen this article. Thanks for posting.

This shifted my thinking (I should have realized more of this before, but didn't know as many examples and hadn't given it enough weight. Also appreciated the "few hundred interesting projects and long tail of 1,000 scams" frame, and the challenging but insightful comparison to education).

[talltexan]

Given that the consensus at this point I think is that Tether is a big fraud, it's going to be a huge bummer for Nigerians when that one unravels.

-W

I am long on crypto-, but I must admit that I was disappointed to log into gemini and see Tether listed among the currencies they track and store there.

[LateStarter]

It sure AF hasn't so far, though. I remember reading about how everyone was going to be accepting bitcoin 5+ years ago, but I've still never met anyone who has done a transaction, and the crowd I hang with is full of tech dorks.

The default for your dorky friends is to transact via the most advanced, respected, reliable banks in the world using the strongest fiat currency in the world. They are the luckiest people in the world in this respect and have little motivation to do anything different. If you're looking for Bitcoin_as_a_currency progress, you're looking in the wrong place.

There is a big wide world beyond the US. The situation is different for most people and very different for many.

Very true. Are lots of people in, say, Gambia using BtC to buy and sell stuff?

Based on some very quick googling the answer is, "no".

How about their 80x more populous near neighbour, Nigeria ? Or, developing nations more generally ?

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere, but it's the developing nations that are leading the way in this respect.


* I don't know either of the quoted sources but, from a quick scout around, both look pretty objective.

Ah, Nigeria.  Must be legit then . . . all those Nigerian princes wouldn't be involved in scams!

I'm assuming this is a clumsy attempt at humour rather than a serious point.

[LateStarter]

That article is not about people making transactions, it's about people "investing".

Which of the 2 articles ?

The Nigeria article discusses remittances at length.
The more general article is almost entirely about payments/currency.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I am long on crypto-, but I must admit that I was disappointed to log into gemini and see Tether listed among the currencies they track and store there.

Do you mean because of suspicious promotions involving free Tether years ago, or the aborted audit of their finances?

Last year when Celcius created a panic in stable coins, Tether (USDT) handled all withdrawls.  Whatever percentage of assets they actually hold, they have always been able to service withdrawals - and they've been tested several times.

On Gemini that probably doesn't matter, since it's a U.S. based exchange that allows purchases and withdrawals directly in USD.  I recently bought some ETH on Gemini, on their trading screen (lower fees that way).

[LateStarter]

How about their 80x more populous near neighbour, Nigeria ? Or, developing nations more generally ?

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere, but it's the developing nations that are leading the way in this respect.


* I don't know either of the quoted sources but, from a quick scout around, both look pretty objective.

It makes sense that in countries without a well-developed banking system people would look for alternatives.  In the first article, it said Nigerians are increasingly buying Tether, not Bitcoin.

The article does mention Tether once. Ethereum is mentioned once too.

Did you miss the several references to Paxful (a Bitcoin-only platform) and one to LocalBitcoins (a Bitcoin-only platform) ?

Check your Confirmation Bias.

[GuitarStv]

It sure AF hasn't so far, though. I remember reading about how everyone was going to be accepting bitcoin 5+ years ago, but I've still never met anyone who has done a transaction, and the crowd I hang with is full of tech dorks.

The default for your dorky friends is to transact via the most advanced, respected, reliable banks in the world using the strongest fiat currency in the world. They are the luckiest people in the world in this respect and have little motivation to do anything different. If you're looking for Bitcoin_as_a_currency progress, you're looking in the wrong place.

There is a big wide world beyond the US. The situation is different for most people and very different for many.

Very true. Are lots of people in, say, Gambia using BtC to buy and sell stuff?

Based on some very quick googling the answer is, "no".

How about their 80x more populous near neighbour, Nigeria ? Or, developing nations more generally ?

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere, but it's the developing nations that are leading the way in this respect.


* I don't know either of the quoted sources but, from a quick scout around, both look pretty objective.

Ah, Nigeria.  Must be legit then . . . all those Nigerian princes wouldn't be involved in scams!

I'm assuming this is a clumsy attempt at humour rather than a serious point.

Not at all.

I'm about to come into some serious after helping a Nigerian prince perform some wire transfers, and if he's in favour of crypto then that's all the assurance I need!  Such an upstanding fellow would never lead a person financially astray.

[LateStarter]

It sure AF hasn't so far, though. I remember reading about how everyone was going to be accepting bitcoin 5+ years ago, but I've still never met anyone who has done a transaction, and the crowd I hang with is full of tech dorks.

The default for your dorky friends is to transact via the most advanced, respected, reliable banks in the world using the strongest fiat currency in the world. They are the luckiest people in the world in this respect and have little motivation to do anything different. If you're looking for Bitcoin_as_a_currency progress, you're looking in the wrong place.

There is a big wide world beyond the US. The situation is different for most people and very different for many.

Very true. Are lots of people in, say, Gambia using BtC to buy and sell stuff?

Based on some very quick googling the answer is, "no".

How about their 80x more populous near neighbour, Nigeria ? Or, developing nations more generally ?

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere, but it's the developing nations that are leading the way in this respect.


* I don't know either of the quoted sources but, from a quick scout around, both look pretty objective.

Ah, Nigeria.  Must be legit then . . . all those Nigerian princes wouldn't be involved in scams!

I'm assuming this is a clumsy attempt at humour rather than a serious point.

Not at all.

I'm about to come into some serious after helping a Nigerian prince perform some wire transfers, and if he's in favour of crypto then that's all the assurance I need!  Such an upstanding fellow would never lead a person financially astray.

That's terrific - congratulations.

Be careful though. Your post implied that you were judging the character of the entire nation based on that of these 'upstanding' princes. That may not be wise.

[GuitarStv]

It sure AF hasn't so far, though. I remember reading about how everyone was going to be accepting bitcoin 5+ years ago, but I've still never met anyone who has done a transaction, and the crowd I hang with is full of tech dorks.

The default for your dorky friends is to transact via the most advanced, respected, reliable banks in the world using the strongest fiat currency in the world. They are the luckiest people in the world in this respect and have little motivation to do anything different. If you're looking for Bitcoin_as_a_currency progress, you're looking in the wrong place.

There is a big wide world beyond the US. The situation is different for most people and very different for many.

Very true. Are lots of people in, say, Gambia using BtC to buy and sell stuff?

Based on some very quick googling the answer is, "no".

How about their 80x more populous near neighbour, Nigeria ? Or, developing nations more generally ?

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere, but it's the developing nations that are leading the way in this respect.


* I don't know either of the quoted sources but, from a quick scout around, both look pretty objective.

Ah, Nigeria.  Must be legit then . . . all those Nigerian princes wouldn't be involved in scams!

I'm assuming this is a clumsy attempt at humour rather than a serious point.

Not at all.

I'm about to come into some serious after helping a Nigerian prince perform some wire transfers, and if he's in favour of crypto then that's all the assurance I need!  Such an upstanding fellow would never lead a person financially astray.

That's terrific - congratulations.

Be careful though. Your post implied that you were judging the character of the entire nation based on that of these 'upstanding' princes. That may not be wise.

You mean not all Nigerians are above reproach?

[LateStarter]

It sure AF hasn't so far, though. I remember reading about how everyone was going to be accepting bitcoin 5+ years ago, but I've still never met anyone who has done a transaction, and the crowd I hang with is full of tech dorks.

The default for your dorky friends is to transact via the most advanced, respected, reliable banks in the world using the strongest fiat currency in the world. They are the luckiest people in the world in this respect and have little motivation to do anything different. If you're looking for Bitcoin_as_a_currency progress, you're looking in the wrong place.

There is a big wide world beyond the US. The situation is different for most people and very different for many.

Very true. Are lots of people in, say, Gambia using BtC to buy and sell stuff?

Based on some very quick googling the answer is, "no".

How about their 80x more populous near neighbour, Nigeria ? Or, developing nations more generally ?

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere, but it's the developing nations that are leading the way in this respect.


* I don't know either of the quoted sources but, from a quick scout around, both look pretty objective.

Ah, Nigeria.  Must be legit then . . . all those Nigerian princes wouldn't be involved in scams!

I'm assuming this is a clumsy attempt at humour rather than a serious point.

Not at all.

I'm about to come into some serious after helping a Nigerian prince perform some wire transfers, and if he's in favour of crypto then that's all the assurance I need!  Such an upstanding fellow would never lead a person financially astray.

That's terrific - congratulations.

Be careful though. Your post implied that you were judging the character of the entire nation based on that of these 'upstanding' princes. That may not be wise.

You mean not all Nigerians are above reproach?

I mean not all Canadians are above making over-generalisations.

[LateStarter]

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infinitely-hostile

I like ACX but hadn't seen this article. Thanks for posting.

This shifted my thinking (I should have realized more of this before, but didn't know as many examples and hadn't given it enough weight. Also appreciated the "few hundred interesting projects and long tail of 1,000 scams" frame, and the challenging but insightful comparison to education).

That's an interesting and well written piece.

And there's something for everyone. I like the article and most here will love the lively discussion below it   :-)

[the_gastropod]

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infinitely-hostile

This article ultimately gets to the point that many of us have been saying throughout this thread: crypto is a tool for regulatory arbitrage. And that's it.

Between that, the author makes some pretty silly claims, like Vietnamese people use cryptocurrency because their banks suck. No. They are speculating on crypto much the same way virtually every other adopter is. 23% of Vietnamese people were engaged in play-to-earn video games like Axie Infinity (whose developer, incidentally, is based in Vietnam).

And then the other major use-case is remittances. And they use cryptocurrencies for remittances not because they're technically superior or more efficient in any way to existing technology. They're using them to bypass local laws and regulations. Is this just? Maybe. But it's frustrating that this fact always seems get glossed over.

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

[Telecaster]

Yep.  I thought the author summed it up pretty well:

If nothing’s wrong with your country’s financial or political system, then you don’t need crypto. If you use crypto anyway, it will be worse than your regular financial system, because it’s trading off many things you need (efficiency, speed, safety, the good kinds of regulation) for something you don’t need (avoiding the bad kinds of regulation)...

...Over the past ten years, crypto has advanced. In 2010, it was probably 100x worse than the regular financial system. Now it’s maybe only 10x worse.

Agreed.   Most people don't need crypto and it is worse than the money you are already using.  So there's not much of a use case there. 

I do have a quibble with the Space Pen anecdote though. 

The space program has existed for more than fifty years, and mostly succeeded at reinventing things we already have on Earth, only worse. Remember the story of that special astronaut pen that cost $1 million? We already have pens on earth, for like $0.10, and they work better!

In context, he's arguing crypto is for specialized applications, just like the space pen.   So what I'm saying is unrelated to his point.  But the story isn't true. The space pen was developed privately.   Secondly, the space pen is the bomb!   I used to work outdoors in a job that required lots of note taking.   I live in the PNW, so that means in the rain.   You can buy waterproof paper, that's not the problem.   The problem is no pen works on wet paper--except the space pen.   Absolutely essential for outdoor work of that type. 

[LateStarter]

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infinitely-hostile

This article ultimately gets to the point that many of us have been saying throughout this thread: crypto is a tool for regulatory arbitrage. And that's it.

Between that, the author makes some pretty silly claims, like Vietnamese people use cryptocurrency because their banks suck. No. They are speculating on crypto much the same way virtually every other adopter is. 23% of Vietnamese people were engaged in play-to-earn video games like Axie Infinity (whose developer, incidentally, is based in Vietnam).

And then the other major use-case is remittances. And they use cryptocurrencies for remittances not because they're technically superior or more efficient in any way to existing technology. They're using them to bypass local laws and regulations. Is this just? Maybe. But it's frustrating that this fact always seems get glossed over.

As usual, I'm only commenting re. Bitcoin . . .

Who is glossing over the fact that Bitcoin can be used to bypass local laws and regulations ? It's a common promotional message that it can help people living under authoritarian/draconian regimes.

Average transaction cost of sending remittances to Vietnam = 7%. That's a pretty good reason to use Bitcoin/Lightning.

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.


46% of 2021 email traffic was spam. Are you anti-email ?
Social media a gold mine for scammers in 2021. Are you anti-socialMedia ?
Robocalls that were fraudulent accounted for 34% of all calls in 2020. Are you anti-telephony ?

Every powerful/effective technology ever invented, from the first picking up of a rock to advanced AI, has been utilised by criminals. Are you opposed to everything ?

[LateStarter]

Yep.  I thought the author summed it up pretty well:

If nothing’s wrong with your country’s financial or political system, then you don’t need crypto. If you use crypto anyway, it will be worse than your regular financial system, because it’s trading off many things you need (efficiency, speed, safety, the good kinds of regulation) for something you don’t need (avoiding the bad kinds of regulation)...

...Over the past ten years, crypto has advanced. In 2010, it was probably 100x worse than the regular financial system. Now it’s maybe only 10x worse.

Agreed.   Most people don't need crypto and it is worse than the money you are already using.  So there's not much of a use case there.

Most people ? However you view it, a very large number of people are poorly served by existing financial and political systems.


2021 Democracy_Index
Type of regime         Countries     World population (%)
Full democracies           21 (13%)        6%
Flawed democracies      53 (32%)       39%
Hybrid regimes             34 (20%)       17%
Authoritarian regimes    59 (35%)       37%


"A global comparison by Global Finance (2021) saw that in the Middle East and Africa 50% of the population is financially excluded, with South and Central America nearing 38%, Eastern Europe at 33% and Asia Pacific at 24%."


https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-index

[Stimpy]

Yep.  I thought the author summed it up pretty well:

If nothing’s wrong with your country’s financial or political system, then you don’t need crypto. If you use crypto anyway, it will be worse than your regular financial system, because it’s trading off many things you need (efficiency, speed, safety, the good kinds of regulation) for something you don’t need (avoiding the bad kinds of regulation)...

...Over the past ten years, crypto has advanced. In 2010, it was probably 100x worse than the regular financial system. Now it’s maybe only 10x worse.

Agreed.   Most people don't need crypto and it is worse than the money you are already using.  So there's not much of a use case there.

Most people ? However you view it, a very large number of people are poorly served by existing financial and political systems.


2021 Democracy_Index
Type of regime         Countries     World population (%)
Full democracies           21 (13%)        6%
Flawed democracies      53 (32%)       39%
Hybrid regimes             34 (20%)       17%
Authoritarian regimes    59 (35%)       37%


"A global comparison by Global Finance (2021) saw that in the Middle East and Africa 50% of the population is financially excluded, with South and Central America nearing 38%, Eastern Europe at 33% and Asia Pacific at 24%."


https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-index

Cool stats.

Now relate it to bitcoin and crypto in general cause I suspect....  The chart is something like this (Yes I am making this up cause I doubt there are readily available statistics on this):


Type of regime         Countries     World population (%)      Crypto Avaliable Access (%)
Full democracies           21 (13%)        6%      95%
Flawed democracies      53 (32%)       39%      85%
Hybrid regimes             34 (20%)       17%      55%
Authoritarian regimes    59 (35%)       37%      >1%

I doubt your average North Korean even knows what BTC is, let alone anyone who is not already in the privileged few in most of these regimes that are Authoritarian or worse.     Just cause you can say, "Well it a way to go around those regimes" doesn't mean that it can actually happen.   

[maizefolk]

Type of regime         Countries     World population (%)      Crypto Avaliable Access (%)
Full democracies           21 (13%)        6%      95%
Flawed democracies      53 (32%)       39%      85%
Hybrid regimes             34 (20%)       17%      55%
Authoritarian regimes    59 (35%)       37%      >1%

I doubt your average North Korean even knows what BTC is, let alone anyone who is not already in the privileged few in most of these regimes that are Authoritarian or worse.     Just cause you can say, "Well it a way to go around those regimes" doesn't mean that it can actually happen.

Based on the number of countries classified as Authoritarian we can get a good sense of where the bar is between Authoritarian and Hybrid regime.

The vast majority of people living in countries in the Authoritarian category are going to be in places like China, Vietnam, Iran, and Saudi Arabia: places with very little to no democratic input into government or lawmaking, but where people do indeed have sufficient information access to have heard about bitcoin.

[seattlecyclone]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

[LateStarter]

Yep.  I thought the author summed it up pretty well:

If nothing’s wrong with your country’s financial or political system, then you don’t need crypto. If you use crypto anyway, it will be worse than your regular financial system, because it’s trading off many things you need (efficiency, speed, safety, the good kinds of regulation) for something you don’t need (avoiding the bad kinds of regulation)...

...Over the past ten years, crypto has advanced. In 2010, it was probably 100x worse than the regular financial system. Now it’s maybe only 10x worse.

Agreed.   Most people don't need crypto and it is worse than the money you are already using.  So there's not much of a use case there.

Most people ? However you view it, a very large number of people are poorly served by existing financial and political systems.


2021 Democracy_Index
Type of regime         Countries     World population (%)
Full democracies               21 (13%)        6%
Flawed democracies          53 (32%)       39%
Hybrid regimes                 34 (20%)       17%
Authoritarian regimes        59 (35%)       37%


"A global comparison by Global Finance (2021) saw that in the Middle East and Africa 50% of the population is financially excluded, with South and Central America nearing 38%, Eastern Europe at 33% and Asia Pacific at 24%."


https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-index

Cool stats.

Now relate it to bitcoin and crypto in general cause I suspect....  The chart is something like this (Yes I am making this up cause I doubt there are readily available statistics on this):


Type of regime         Countries     World population (%)      Crypto Avaliable Access (%)
Full democracies               21 (13%)            6%                                       95%
Flawed democracies          53 (32%)           39%                                      85%
Hybrid regimes                 34 (20%)           17%                                      55%
Authoritarian regimes        59 (35%)           37%                                      >1%

I doubt your average North Korean even knows what BTC is, let alone anyone who is not already in the privileged few in most of these regimes that are Authoritarian or worse.     Just cause you can say, "Well it a way to go around those regimes" doesn't mean that it can actually happen.

I very confidently predict that:
Access to mobile phones and internet will get more widespread.
Knowledge of Bitcoin will get more widespread.
Bitcoin/Lightning wallets and platforms will get easier, better and more available, and thus more appealing and useful.

Some people in these nations are using Bitcoin/Lightning now. Availability, knowledge and functionality are all increasing. The prospects look positive to me.

Yeah, NK probably has further to go than most, but would you bet against knowledge and availability rising there - via Starlink, etc. ?

[LateStarter]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

As noted previously, criminals take advantage of every technology that gives them an edge.
Also, note that criminals tend to be early-adopters. Armed With ChatGPT, Cybercriminals Build Malware And Plot Fake Girl Bots

[MustacheAndaHalf]

... the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. ...

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade.
...

When did mainstream awareness of Bitcoin start?  My approach tracks each time its market cap rose 10x.  The data from this link [1] goes back to 2013, the year Greyscale Bitcoin Trust was created, when Bitcoin had a $1 billion market cap (which is the number of BTC that exist times their price in USD).  My take is that Bitcoin awareness (mostly hatred) has been around about 5 years.

Oct 2016 : reaches $10 billion
Nov 2017 : reaches $100 billion
2021-2022 : some spiking above $1 trillion

Bitcoin hasn't just made forward progress, though : there's been backsliding and competition.  Before China banned Bitcoin, more than half of Bitcoin was mined in China (thanks to cheaper electricity).  There is a chance China reverses this [2].  Even without the ban, Bitcoin transactions have to go up against AliPay and WeChat, which are already used by 42-54% of those with mobile phones in China [3].  A faster, ubiquities competitor isn't competition I see Bitcoin overtaking.  Between competition and the ban, Bitcoin has lost ground in China.

[1]
https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/financial-services/bitcoins-market-capitalization-history/
[2]
https://www.crypto-news-flash.com/adoption-or-the-end-china-to-start-to-tax-bitcoin-and-crypto-transactions-report/
[3]
https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/alipay-statistics.html

[seattlecyclone]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

[Scandium]

Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

What does "doing well" mean for Bitcoin? How is it doing well, or any better than it did in 2009? It's still as slow and expensive to use, with no anonymity or protection. Still deflationary. Still as energy wasteful. You still can't use if for 99% of daily needs, and when you can use it it's more hassle than fiat. For people in the developed world there's no (legit) scenario where BTC is better than the alternative. And actually; for illicit use cash is probably better anyway. So exactly what kind of progress has there been for BTC as a currency?
You can buy bitcoin at regulated exchanges now? But what does that do for it as a currency? More easily acquiring a near-useless currency isn't what I'd call progress.
Yes it has "advanced" as a speculative asset, in that the price has gone up. But that isn't what the point of bitcoin was supposed to be.

[LateStarter]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

[GuitarStv]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

In this great big world, I don't know if it's really all that much better to lose your crypto when the sketchy exchange you're using folds or is hacked vs an oppressive regime stealing your money.  It's still gone in both cases.

Crypto is an area completely rotten with scammers and thieves and the crypto community isn't doing anything appreciable to improve safety.  All while pretending that it's somehow going to be the saviour of every oppressed person in the world.

[seattlecyclone]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

Tell me...in which countries does more than 1% of the population routinely use Bitcoin to purchase food?

[LateStarter]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

In this great big world, I don't know if it's really all that much better to lose your crypto when the sketchy exchange you're using folds or is hacked vs an oppressive regime stealing your money.  It's still gone in both cases.

Crypto is an area completely rotten with scammers and thieves . . .

I mostly agree

. . . and the crypto community isn't doing anything appreciable to improve safety.

The Bitcoin 'community', inasmuch as such a thing exists, is largely promoting "Bitcoin, not crypto" in 2023. There is a very strong "not your keys, not your coin", anti-crypto, anti-crypto-casino-exchanges, anti-VC-quick-profit-ponzi-shitcoin vibe among Bitcoiners, and that message is being pushed out. Also, several prominent Bitcoiners were warning about issues with FTX and Celcius, etc. some time before they blew up.

Unfortunately, and predictably, many people ignore these messages because Bitcoiners are clearly not disinterested parties - they would say all that, wouldn't they.

What would you like to see the honest players doing to clean up the crypto world ? The crooks running the casino-exchanges, launching ponzi-shitcoins, etc. are crooks - they don't care.

All while pretending that it's somehow going to be the saviour of every oppressed person in the world.

If Bitcoin helps them, that's great - I think it will. If it doesn't, they'll presumably keep looking for a better solution.
It seems unlikely that poor and desperate people will waste much time/energy on anything that isn't of immediate and obvious benefit to them.

[LateStarter]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

Tell me...in which countries does more than 1% of the population routinely use Bitcoin to purchase food?

I don't know. Maybe none. Ask me again in 2 years.

I'm not claiming rampant adoption anywhere . .

[Villanelle]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

In this great big world, I don't know if it's really all that much better to lose your crypto when the sketchy exchange you're using folds or is hacked vs an oppressive regime stealing your money.  It's still gone in both cases.

Crypto is an area completely rotten with scammers and thieves . . .

I mostly agree

. . . and the crypto community isn't doing anything appreciable to improve safety.

The Bitcoin 'community', inasmuch as such a thing exists, is largely promoting "Bitcoin, not crypto" in 2023. There is a very strong "not your keys, not your coin", anti-crypto, anti-crypto-casino-exchanges, anti-VC-quick-profit-ponzi-shitcoin vibe among Bitcoiners, and that message is being pushed out. Also, several prominent Bitcoiners were warning about issues with FTX and Celcius, etc. some time before they blew up.

Unfortunately, and predictably, many people ignore these messages because Bitcoiners are clearly not disinterested parties - they would say all that, wouldn't they.

What would you like to see the honest players doing to clean up the crypto world ? The crooks running the casino-exchanges, launching ponzi-shitcoins, etc. are crooks - they don't care.

All while pretending that it's somehow going to be the saviour of every oppressed person in the world.

If Bitcoin helps them, that's great - I think it will. If it doesn't, they'll presumably keep looking for a better solution.
It seems unlikely that poor and desperate people will waste much time/energy on anything that isn't of immediate and obvious benefit to them.

 Because no poor or desperate person every bought lottery tickets or put money on a craps table or joined a MLM? 

[Scandium]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

well... yes? When it comes to the personal finance decision of "should I get some BTC"; yes I only care about what works for me. I'm glad you at least admit that crypto is pointless for me, and everyone like me. So that would  mean also (I'd bet) every single person on this forum, 99% of reddit etc. Basically all 1.2 billion people living in the developed world. But how many of the crypto-evangelist are "westerners" vs people in the developing world?

On the larger claim of "BTC will help oppressed people"...? When I see the Winkelwoss twins, Jack Dorsey and every cryto-bro suddenly show deep, heartwarming concern for the plight of people of sub-Saharan Afrika, when that just so happens to  also align with their personal financial interest...? My eyes rolled so hard I'm still recovering, and I had to pay 14 Eth to my optometrist (oh wait I can't!).

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid. Anyone who's not loaded up on BTC will see that the best solution is to use the systems we have. Hell, dropping dollar bills from orbit would probably be more efficient. I would think this would be obvious, but most people in the developed world aren't poor because "oppressive government take their money", it's because they have no money. In general, dictators take money from those who have it. So yes, I guess if you're an oligarch in an oppressive regime you do have a use for crypto. Congrats! We have a use case! (of course Putin's goons will just take a steel pipe to your knees until you give up your crypto wallet)

[JAYSLOL]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid.

All this 100%, and you forgot the kicker, it’s an open source technology that can be easily and cheaply replaced at any time with another coin/token if people so desire

[LateStarter]

We're talking about a tool designed, for no other reason, than to break the law. Is it useful in cases where it's handy to break the law? Sure. Does it—by design—also allow for massive perpetration of fraud and scams? You bet.

That's just ridiculous. Bitcoin was developed to address the problem of central banks issuing infinite fiat money. There is zero evidence to suggest it was developed by criminals solely for criminal purposes.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that more than a decade after its invention Bitcoin is less useful for most legitimate transactions than fiat currencies. Its design is well-suited to facilitating illegitimate transactions though.

Yes, it has been more than a decade since a little group of cypher-punk nerds launched an entirely new and radically different money system that challenges 100's of years of history and $trillions of self-interested resistance to change. Bitcoin's doing pretty well all things considered, but there's a long way to go. Look at the progress in the past decade, and extend that forward another decade. Interesting times.

"A long way to go" is an understatement. I can't pay for my groceries or utilities or bus fare or preschool tuition or taxes or anything else in my life with Bitcoin. USD payments are expected for all of these things, and they work well. My donor advised fund will grudgingly accept Bitcoin donations over US$50k in value; anything less isn't worth their time to sort out. I remember back when Bitcoin was much newer I paid for a couple of Humble Bundles with it; seemed kind of novel to trade a virtual currency for virtual media. They've since phased that option out because Bitcoin just isn't as easy to deal with as regular money.

To convince the masses to switch you need to show how the new technology is markedly better: there needs to be a "killer application" allowing someone to do something with the new technology that would have been too difficult with the old. Paying for my groceries is quite easy with USD!

The main thing approaching a "killer app" that Bitcoin has going for it is the difficulty for governments to seize it when you perform a transaction they would rather you didn't make. For licit transactions the system is just set up to make it plenty easy to pay in fiat currency.

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

In this great big world, I don't know if it's really all that much better to lose your crypto when the sketchy exchange you're using folds or is hacked vs an oppressive regime stealing your money.  It's still gone in both cases.

Crypto is an area completely rotten with scammers and thieves . . .

I mostly agree

. . . and the crypto community isn't doing anything appreciable to improve safety.

The Bitcoin 'community', inasmuch as such a thing exists, is largely promoting "Bitcoin, not crypto" in 2023. There is a very strong "not your keys, not your coin", anti-crypto, anti-crypto-casino-exchanges, anti-VC-quick-profit-ponzi-shitcoin vibe among Bitcoiners, and that message is being pushed out. Also, several prominent Bitcoiners were warning about issues with FTX and Celcius, etc. some time before they blew up.

Unfortunately, and predictably, many people ignore these messages because Bitcoiners are clearly not disinterested parties - they would say all that, wouldn't they.

What would you like to see the honest players doing to clean up the crypto world ? The crooks running the casino-exchanges, launching ponzi-shitcoins, etc. are crooks - they don't care.

All while pretending that it's somehow going to be the saviour of every oppressed person in the world.

If Bitcoin helps them, that's great - I think it will. If it doesn't, they'll presumably keep looking for a better solution.
It seems unlikely that poor and desperate people will waste much time/energy on anything that isn't of immediate and obvious benefit to them.

 Because no poor or desperate person every bought lottery tickets or put money on a craps table or joined a MLM?

That's a fair point.

[LateStarter]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

well... yes? When it comes to the personal finance decision of "should I get some BTC"; yes I only care about what works for me. I'm glad you at least admit that crypto is pointless for me, and everyone like me. So that would  mean also (I'd bet) every single person on this forum, 99% of reddit etc. Basically all 1.2 billion people living in the developed world. But how many of the crypto-evangelist are "westerners" vs people in the developing world?

I acknowledged, as things stand, Bitcoin has no great use for you as a currency.
It has possible use as an investment / store of value - depending on your outlook.

On the larger claim of "BTC will help oppressed people"...? When I see the Winkelwoss twins, Jack Dorsey and every cryto-bro suddenly show deep, heartwarming concern for the plight of people of sub-Saharan Afrika, when that just so happens to  also align with their personal financial interest...? My eyes rolled so hard I'm still recovering, and I had to pay 14 Eth to my optometrist (oh wait I can't!).

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid. Anyone who's not loaded up on BTC will see that the best solution is to use the systems we have. Hell, dropping dollar bills from orbit would probably be more efficient. I would think this would be obvious, but most people in the developed world aren't poor because "oppressive government take their money", it's because they have no money. In general, dictators take money from those who have it. So yes, I guess if you're an oligarch in an oppressive regime you do have a use for crypto. Congrats! We have a use case! (of course Putin's goons will just take a steel pipe to your knees until you give up your crypto wallet)

If you don't trust the views of rich white guys, what about those of someone closer to the ground ?

What about this, published just a few hours ago: Bitcoin is Hope for Africa featuring Farida Nabourema

[Scandium]

This is just the same "it's no use to me, therefore it's no use to anyone" argument again.

My repeated response is: You're a wealthy westerner with easy access to the strongest currency and most reliable banking services in the world. You don't have a great need/urgency for change.

The world is much bigger than lucky you and your grocer.

well... yes? When it comes to the personal finance decision of "should I get some BTC"; yes I only care about what works for me. I'm glad you at least admit that crypto is pointless for me, and everyone like me. So that would  mean also (I'd bet) every single person on this forum, 99% of reddit etc. Basically all 1.2 billion people living in the developed world. But how many of the crypto-evangelist are "westerners" vs people in the developing world?

I acknowledged, as things stand, Bitcoin has no great use for you as a currency.
It has possible use as an investment / store of value - depending on your outlook.

On the larger claim of "BTC will help oppressed people"...? When I see the Winkelwoss twins, Jack Dorsey and every cryto-bro suddenly show deep, heartwarming concern for the plight of people of sub-Saharan Afrika, when that just so happens to  also align with their personal financial interest...? My eyes rolled so hard I'm still recovering, and I had to pay 14 Eth to my optometrist (oh wait I can't!).

Anyway, the idea that an unregulated, insecure, scam-ridden, technologically complex, slow (just 10 min to pay for that cab ride), expensive to use (what are gas fees up to now?), payment system is supposed to help people who can't afford shoes is obviously laughably stupid. Anyone who's not loaded up on BTC will see that the best solution is to use the systems we have. Hell, dropping dollar bills from orbit would probably be more efficient. I would think this would be obvious, but most people in the developed world aren't poor because "oppressive government take their money", it's because they have no money. In general, dictators take money from those who have it. So yes, I guess if you're an oligarch in an oppressive regime you do have a use for crypto. Congrats! We have a use case! (of course Putin's goons will just take a steel pipe to your knees until you give up your crypto wallet)

If you don't trust the views of rich white guys, what about those of someone closer to the ground ?

What about this, published just a few hours ago: Bitcoin is Hope for Africa featuring Farida Nabourema

Ok I didn't listen to the whole thing, just skipped through what I thought was the relevant section. But all I heard were cryptobro talking points; decentralized, immutable, belongs to everyone, "stable" (LOL!). Nothing about the practical issues of how a nigerian farmer can set up a wallet and pay $50 gas fees and wait 20 min, to sell his harvest to... someone (?) with a currency that swings 20% in a day and is not accepted by his government?

Can you give us a breakdown on how BTC will help people with no money, and how these practical problems are solved?