• SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    You are right, crypto has nothing to do with currency printing. And yes, the environmental side too is a problem (unless it is produced inline with recycled energy) But governments issuing currency is a relatively recent phenomenon. Historically, people traded de facto currencies and IOUs amongst themselves.

    Bitcoin was conceived out of the 2008 financial crisis, as a direct response to big banks being bailed out. It’s literally written in Bitcoin’s Genesis block. The point of Bitcoin has always been to free people from the tyranny of big government AND big capital.

    Crypto isn’t that popular in developed countries with functioning monetary systems… untill of course those big institutions fail. I am still quite surprised, this side of Bitcoin is rarely discussed on Lemmy, given how anticapitalist it is.

    I get it libertarian, bad. And to some degree, there are a lot of problems there. But the extreme opposite ain’t that rosy either.

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Are you really using all of human history as a timeframe to say that currency is a relatively recent phenomenon?

      Again, I’m not anti-cryptocurrency, but it’s not really a currency anymore than any other commodity in a commodity exchange, or a barter market.

      And I don’t care if it’s livestock, or Bitcoin, I’m not accepting either as payment if I sell my home, or car. Not because of principles, but because I don’t know how to convert livestock into cash, and I can’t risk the Bitcoin payment halving in value before I can convert it to cash.

      And who was talking extremes? I’m just pointing out the absurdity of the claims that crypto is the replacement for, or salvation from, our current economic system, or the delusion that currency backed by a nation is somehow just as ephemeral as Bitcoin, or ERC20 rug pulls.

      You said Bitcoin was designed to free us from the tyranny of big capital, but it’s been entirely co-opted by the same boogeyman. So regardless of the intentionality behind the project, it’s now just another speculative asset.

      Except, unlike gold or futures contracts, there’s no tangible real world asset, but there is a hell of a real cost.

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s because of what crypto turned into and the inherent flaws in the system. Crypto currencies are still backed by and dependent on traditional currency, and their value is too unstable for the average person. The largest proponents of crypto have been corporations - big capital, as you put it - and there’s a reason for that (though they’re more on the speculative market of NFTs looking to make a profit off of Ponzi schemes).

      In the end, crypto hasn’t solved any problems that weren’t already solved by less energy intensive means.

      • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Actually it does solve some problems of traditional currency, problems for which there are few if any other solutions. It’s both much harder to counterfeit and it can be designed to be more traceable. It just also has its own problems like the stupidly high energy consumption, though this is gradually being fixed. The reason big governments don’t want in is probably because they can’t control it to the same degree they can with government backed fiat.

        Generally though money has tons of problems both in concept and specific implementations. As I keep saying maybe we should come up with a better system.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I wouldn’t say that it’s harder to counterfeit so much as that the methodology is radically different due to the untrusted, peer to peer nature of crypto. Because of the way that that works, in order to fake a transaction you need to convince the majority of ledgers that the transaction occurred (even if the wallet that is buying something doesn’t have anything in it). Because the ledger is ultimately decided by majority vote. You can trace the transaction, but wallets are often anonymous, so the trail ends at the wallet. Especially since somebody would use a burner wallet to do such a thing. It’s basically buying something with a hotel keycard with a stolen RFID on it.

          I think governments don’t want anything to do with it because its nature causes it to be too unstable in its value. It would be like tying the value of your country’s currency to the value of day trade stocks. One day, your money is worthless; a week later, it’s skyrocketing in value.

          At the end of the day, currencies are a system of abstraction to simplify the process of trade - whether between people or countries. We agree that the magic paper is worth the same amount because it’s easier than arguing that the magic rock that gave your wife cancer is worth at least 2 goats, not one. It’s always going to be a flawed system in some way. Crypto’s flaws just make it an ideal system for black market dealings compared to traditional fiat currency in its current setup, on top of the energy and computing costs.

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You’re kind of right but also very wrong. You can’t convince the other ledgers that there is money in an empty wallet because all of the money in the whole system is known about. In Bitcoin every single transaction is known, every time a new coin is known. Not just by one or two people, but by every other full bitcoin instance in the entire system.

            What you can actually do is something called a 51% attack. This allows you to spend money you do indeed have multiple times over. It’s called a 51% attack because you need at least 51% of the processing power of the entire network under your direct control. So basically it’s like cheating people by buying 51% of a bank and using that control to do dirty dealing. Actually getting to that point is incredibly hard unless you’re a very rich state actor or something. At that point you might as well not bother and just mine like crazy instead of cheating the system and risk getting caught. Someone who has 51% of the processing power of the system would also get the majority of coins mined for themselves. I’ve seen attempts at a 51% attack but they only really work on small cryptos and even then it’s very unlikely to succeed and go unnoticed for long.