An insight on Bitcoin

[Grimbold21]

Probably because repeating "generalizing is bad" is not demonstrating that pro crypto ideology isn't rooted in a bigoted conspiracy theory regarding control of the financial system, lol.

And this is where the willing (and ideological driven) stubbornness comes back in.

The author doesn't demonstrate that, period. It's not a case of "cause I said so".

How can you paint me as having blinds on, when you willingly refuse to admit that:

- The crypto movement has adherents that subscribe to conspiracy theorists
- The crypto movement has been defined along the beliefs of a conspiratorial minority

are not the same thing.

How can you accuse someone of being blind, when you perpetuate the logic of defining a broader concept or group according to its extremist minority, despite the fact that you have 0 evidence to make that claim?
But you keep holding on this fallacy, and when the next whatever identity related thread comes up, I'll be glad to watch your hypocrisy unfold.

Then again, this isn't entirely surprising from you. I have a vague recollection of you some years ago going through "I've had enough!!!" phase, and now you're quite comfortable with fighting fire with fire. The irony is that you know - and still continue to - that employing that same facetious logic as your opponents do just delegitimizes your position.

[Elegiac]

How can you paint me as having blinds on, when you willingly refuse to admit that:

- The crypto movement has adherents that subscribe to conspiracy theorists
- The crypto movement has been defined along the beliefs of a conspiratorial minority

are not the same thing.

I've not claimed they are: what I've pointed out is that the former is evidence of the latter because the former are the folks who originated the drive to take currency out of central hands in the first place wayyyy back in the gold bug days.

[Grimbold21]

I've not claimed they are: what I've pointed out is that the former is evidence of the latter because the former are the folks who originated the drive to take currency out of central hands in the first place wayyyy back in the gold bug days.

So you're suggesting that the people who first got into the subject of Cryptocurrency way back in the early 80s, and then all the way to 2009 with the development of Bitcoin and its ensuing mining operation were driven by anti-Semitism.

Or you're suggesting that when this first started it attracted conspiracy nuts in enough number for you now to comfortably claim that Crypto is inherently bigoted.

Despite the fact Bitcoin came about because the dude was tired of idea of having a third party mediating online transactions, and the only thing remotely connected to banks is the inference that banks can be corrupted and prone to bad decisions.


So yea, zero evidence.

[Muzjhath]

We have come into truly preposterous and horrifying wrongthink 1984 tier territory, where people are perceived as enemies when there are no other arguments to be made. Calling people antisemitic, racists, rapists, child molesters or I don't know what else comes out of the proverbial hat, in order to demonise them because you have no other argument, doesn't paint the other person as such, but it makes you look like an absolute moron.

Which is the reason why I didn't respond to Edge, who is also apparently a mod here, when he made a similar claim, I really didn't want to point this out and embarrass him.

"People who are pro crypto are antisemites". Kindly fuck off. I'm also expecting a full apology.

Except, Elegiac (nor Edge-) aren't calling people that. They are saying (righly) that the core arguments used for "decentralized currency" has a huge history of anti-semetic issues baked in. And a that it is likely that a lot of the same people who introduced that language into the crypto circles are biggots who knew what they were doing. Same as "Global Banking" is often a dogwistle for the Rothschild bank and other istitutions of that nature. A thing most people are unaware of.
And while I've got huge issues with the global financial market and how it functions and defrauds nations. That's because tax evasion and that I think they are shortsighted fools. (I am of the opinion that Big Oil were idiots when they publicly denounced global warming and paid money for fraud. Instead of just being quiet on the issue and buying up green tech and changing what they did as their primary income).

The reason they bring this up is that they want you to reflect on why you think a decentralized currency is a good idea. Why you want to go back to what would be in all practicallity a Gold Standard. When the global economy left the gold standard for a good reason.
Because we could just peg everything back to gold if it's better for money, so why not peg it back to gold? Why use a resource we don't already have?

Who benefits by limiting the money supply the way Cryptocurrency will limit it? (Hint, it's not the "common" man).

You shouldn't see this and get defensive, you should see this and get introspective. Which I know can be hard. What value is there in having a currency where you can't control the inflation/deflation rate of? Where deflation bubbles will happen due to that specific thing?
If you are in the financial situation to use the cryptocurrency bubble to make money. Do it. Just realize it'll never amount to more than another type of Security transaction along with Bonds and Stocks.

And, imo, is a waste of what blockchains can be used for. We've got money, and while in the long-term we'll probably move away from non-digital representatives of currency, I don't see that happening in this century.

[Grimbold21]

Except, Elegiac (nor Edge-) aren't calling people that. They are saying (righly) that the core arguments used for "decentralized currency" has a huge history of anti-semetic issues baked in. And a that it is likely that a lot of the same people who introduced that language into the crypto circles are biggots who knew what they were doing. Same as "Global Banking" is often a dogwistle for the Rothschild bank and other istitutions of that nature. A thing most people are unaware of.
And while I've got huge issues with the global financial market and how it functions and defrauds nations. That's because tax evasion and that I think they are shortsighted fools. (I am of the opinion that Big Oil were idiots when they publicly denounced global warming and paid money for fraud. Instead of just being quiet on the issue and buying up green tech and changing what they did as their primary income).
.

Except they are, at least indirectly.

Two articles have been linked here to endorse what frankly is a conspiracy theory. Ironic that isn't it?. The two articles share their use of conjecture and fringe groups to fuel the misrepresentation of the whole.

The Slate article bases its entire reasoning on some events of May 2018 around a crypto site called Zycrypto, the forbes one is about cherry picking a population to construct a generalization.

Hell Slate's author even ends with:

Let’s be clear: The anonymous hatred on /biz/ doesn’t implicate the broader cryptocurrency community or blockchain industry, most of which is dedicated to transparency, open access, privacy, and other values that stand to benefit marginalized communities of all kinds. But bitcoin’s anti-banking rhetoric can be easily misconstrued or abused, and its division into haves and have-nots is fueling a wave of rage as dreams of easy money die.

I mean, what's it gonna be? Is crypto anti-Semitic or is just fringe nutcases trying to spread their long debunked theories?

This is the nonsensical logic that Americans love engaging in, particularly the woke gang: Well what you're saying sounds awfully like bullet points from the alt-right, so I guess that makes you one, hehe lol

As for my accusation that they're endorsing a view that brands crypto users as anti-Semitic, I'll refer you back to this gem in the forbes article:

Given the fact that a growing percentage of cryptocurrency miners are criminals, do you want to support such criminals by executing cryptocurrency transactions? Or does that make you as evil as the criminals themselves?

Ask yourself: is there a moral difference between donating to the Nazi party and being a Nazi yourself?

It's awfully ironic that Elegiac prances about extremists hiding behind language and unable to recognize or admit that the above is essentially the reader being politely told If you participate in this, you're a criminal and a nazi too

Not to mention I already linked an article from the same source which states that criminal use accounts for an insignificant % of crypto transactions and actually dropped in 2020.

So, to me what we have is a conspiracy theory based on conjecture, guilt by association and logical fallacies. Chiefly among the latter is the emotional manipulation of which the above quote is a prime example, you know, guilt tripping.

As to what we have going on in this forum and thread, is yet another example of double standards, demonstrated by the use of fringe voices which are often mocked here when the subject being discussed is one that they have some affinity for.

[Muzjhath]

I mean, what's it gonna be? Is crypto anti-Semitic or is just fringe nutcases trying to spread their long debunked theories?

This is the nonsensical logic that Americans love engaging in, particularly the woke gang: Well what you're saying sounds awfully like bullet points from the alt-right, so I guess that makes you one, hehe lol

The article you quote points it out. Those who use the anti-banking rhetoric are problematic. Either they know the history of it and are pushing it for that reason. Or they are being useful idiots.
If they do not know the history they should be introspective, look into it, and stop using the anti-banking aspect of the argument (Which "decentralized from shadowy interests that magic currency out of nowhere", absolutely is an argument about).

What Elegiac, Edge- and I are all pointing out is that one of those arguments used is problematic. Look into that argument, and either find a good economic reasoning behind it and put those reasons front and center dropping the mention of banks, or drop it fully. (Unless you agree with the underlying reasons it is being pushed in the first place).
No one is saying "Because of A you are B". They are saying "A is an argument of B. Are you aware of that? And if so are you B or are you using it accidentally without thought?"
And most people go "I AM NOT B! THUS A CAN'T BE AN ARGUMENT FOR B!"

As for the criminality. It's a good question. One of the reasons I didn't get into bitcoin when it took a dive in 2018 was because of how much criminal transactions that can be done through it. I didn't see the pros for my personal potentail gain outweighing those cons (I'd be getting into it as a security, hoping to make return on investment. Not as "cash"). So on a fully deregulated trade one always ought to think about others who use it and how. So everyone in it isn't a criminal, but using bitcoins absolutely helps criminals. And I didn't want to help them at all and wish money laundering through banks and real-estate tomfoolery was far more diligently checked.
And I very seldom see proponents for it wanting to try and stop it, it's just a "side effect of the privacy".

Same reason you can be pro MC Clubs but against Hell's Angels. They are different things.

[Grimbold21]

The article you quote points it out. Those who use the anti-banking rhetoric are problematic. Either they know the history of it and are pushing it for that reason. Or they are being useful idiots.
If they do not know the history they should be introspective, look into it, and stop using the anti-banking aspect of the argument (Which "decentralized from shadowy interests that magic currency out of nowhere", absolutely is an argument about).

What Elegiac, Edge- and I are all pointing out is that one of those arguments used is problematic. Look into that argument, and either find a good economic reasoning behind it and put those reasons front and center dropping the mention of banks, or drop it fully. (Unless you agree with the underlying reasons it is being pushed in the first place).
No one is saying "Because of A you are B". They are saying "A is an argument of B. Are you aware of that? And if so are you B or are you using it accidentally without thought?"
And most people go "I AM NOT B! THUS A CAN'T BE AN ARGUMENT FOR B!"

As for the criminality. It's a good question. One of the reasons I didn't get into bitcoin when it took a dive in 2018 was because of how much criminal transactions that can be done through it. I didn't see the pros for my personal potentail gain outweighing those cons (I'd be getting into it as a security, hoping to make return on investment. Not as "cash"). So on a fully deregulated trade one always ought to think about others who use it and how. So everyone in it isn't a criminal, but using bitcoins absolutely helps criminals. And I didn't want to help them at all and wish money laundering through banks and real-estate tomfoolery was far more diligently checked.
And I very seldom see proponents for it wanting to try and stop it, it's just a "side effect of the privacy".

Same reason you can be pro MC Clubs but against Hell's Angels. They are different things.

The articles used do more than pointing why bigots are bigots.

It is more than clear that the articles particularly the forbes one engage in logical fallacies, primarily using a sub/fringe group to paint what the movement consists of generally.

No one was disputing the existence of bigots, rather the intentional conflation.

Moreover one doesn't get to dismiss the validity of an argument because people on extreme fringes make use of it.
If one individual or more is into crypto because they are affectionate to the idea of moving the supply and circulation of money away from traditional financial institutions, one doesn't get to come in and dismiss and undermine them entirely because one thinks they're anti semitic.

This just speaks to the larger social media culture of dismissing what one thinks. What matters only is what we've defined their stances to be.

Edit: and why are fingers problematic? Don't we dismiss and ridicule flat earthers easily? We know this "theory" is wrong and ridiculous and in no way defines what crypto is about in general

[Muzjhath]

The articles used do more than pointing why bigots are bigots.

It is more than clear that the articles particularly the forbes one engage in logical fallacies, primarily using a sub/fringe group to paint what the movement consists of generally.

No one was disputing the existence of bigots, rather the intentional conflation.

Moreover one doesn't get to dismiss the validity of an argument because people on extreme fringes make use of it.
If one individual or more is into crypto because they are affectionate to the idea of moving the supply and circulation of money away from traditional financial institutions, one doesn't get to come in and dismiss and undermine them entirely because one thinks they're anti semitic.

This just speaks to the larger social media culture of dismissing what one thinks. What matters only is what we've defined their stances to be.

Edit: and why are fingers problematic? Don't we dismiss and ridicule flat earthers easily? We know this "theory" is wrong and ridiculous and in no way defines what crypto is about in general

There is no validity to the anti-banking and anti-centralized banking that isn't couched and seeped in it. Unless one can argue why we should go back on the gold standard.
Come back with a good argument for that, and you might have a point about decentralized banking being good. Before that there is no good reasons for it.

No idea what you mean with your edit about fingers. The only thing I've done lately is ask for financial and economic reasons why we should go back to a defacto Gold Standard. Because the only other reasons against centralized banking is as mentioned a historical dogwhistle.
As for crypto in general. For the same reason as gold standard I find using it as money as it currently exists stupid. blockchain? Awesome. Cryptocurrency? Dumb. If you want to do an international money transfer there are lots of ways that are cheap to the degree of practically being free, while insuring your money.

[Rennadrel]

It amazes me how many people just keep blatantly simping for big banks and centralized money while the same groups that control all the wealth in the world continue to ensure that you live on the borderline with poverty by suppressing your wages. I'm not a big fan of cryptocurrency personally, but I do see a need for the decentralization of banks and finding ways to get more wealth into the hands of more people rather than the right few. At the end of the day, big banks need to be reigned in and it's apparent that governments have no intention of getting them under control.

[Muzjhath]

It amazes me how many people just keep blatantly simping for big banks and centralized money while the same groups that control all the wealth in the world continue to ensure that you live on the borderline with poverty by suppressing your wages. I'm not a big fan of cryptocurrency personally, but I do see a need for the decentralization of banks and finding ways to get more wealth into the hands of more people rather than the right few. At the end of the day, big banks need to be reigned in and it's apparent that governments have no intention of getting them under control.

Except, that decentralizing the banks won't do that. It'll just make hoarding an even bigger issue. The issue isn't the size of the banks. It's regulations and the ownerclasses. There is a reason we centralized banking and only let one bank per currency issue that currency. It makes it better for those with less. (Among other things).

Do we need better enforcement of tax evasion, tax fraud, money laundering, and all of those crimes? Yes, absolutely. Decentralized banking is not how that's done. That will only make all of those issues harder to deal with.

[Zan15]

Except, that decentralizing the banks won't do that. It'll just make hoarding an even bigger issue. The issue isn't the size of the banks. It's regulations and the ownerclasses. There is a reason we centralized banking and only let one bank per currency issue that currency. It makes it better for those with less. (Among other things).

Do we need better enforcement of tax evasion, tax fraud, money laundering, and all of those crimes? Yes, absolutely. Decentralized banking is not how that's done. That will only make all of those issues harder to deal with.

Besides isn't just a few people "whales" just a replacement for "big banks"? Even worse a big entity could take control of a crypto currency legally and manipulate the hell out it and leverage full control. At least big banks have to adhere to regulations and the fed if they want to do business.

[uuuhname]

It amazes me how many people just keep blatantly simping for big banks and centralized money while the same groups that control all the wealth in the world continue to ensure that you live on the borderline with poverty by suppressing your wages. I'm not a big fan of cryptocurrency personally, but I do see a need for the decentralization of banks and finding ways to get more wealth into the hands of more people rather than the right few. At the end of the day, big banks need to be reigned in and it's apparent that governments have no intention of getting them under control.

then destroy and overthrow capitalism. if you're not advocating for dealing with the root cause of the issue then yeah, people are going to be dismissive towards you.

[Muzjhath]

Besides isn't just a few people "whales" just a replacement for "big banks"? Even worse a big entity could take control of a crypto currency legally and manipulate the hell out it and leverage full control. At least big banks have to adhere to regulations and the fed if they want to do business.

And, they can't mint their own money. Only the Federal Reserve can mint said money. Not -every single bank in the world-.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Same shit with cryptocurrencies. For example, the UK still uses the sterling pound has reference, this means you can switch pounds for gold, but that doesn't happen in the US, in other words, its just a piece of papper, its value comes from the people that use it, same exact thing with cryptocurrencies.

Here's something that will absolutely blow your mind: gold itself holds very little intrinsic value. It can be used in crafting electronics, but gold itself has had its value drastically inflated because of feeling.

Gold itself is a fiat currency. People say if you had a giant pile of US dollars in an apocalypse, it would be useless, but so would gold. Gold's value is based mostly on people's feelings about it as a pretty metal. Being able to trade a pound sterling for gold is about as useless as the US dollar being backed by feelings about the US's economy. Having a handful of sparkly metal rocks is ultimately as useless as having.

I realize most people took @Sunseeker 's point in completely weird directions, but the value of the US dollar is backed by your ability to use that dollar to buy goods and services both inside and outside the US with it. The value of the dollar is stable because the US has the military might to protect its allies and trade interests. There are multiple countries other than the US that use the USD as their main currency as well, so all of them add to the value. At a certain point, the USD might overtake gold in its global value. Likely when >50% of the world's economy is traded in USD. Gold's main "value" is in a person's ability to spend it in any country, or at least it WAS. These days, gold cant be used as a currency. You can trade it for currency, but that extra step being required detracts from its value.

- - - Updated - - -

We have come into truly preposterous and horrifying wrongthink 1984 tier territory, where people are perceived as enemies when there are no other arguments to be made.

I will say, when people who fetishize bitcoin and say "we need to decentralize currency and take power out of the hands of the bankers!" The very concept that bankers are controlling the world is mired originally in anti semitic conspiracy theories. You don't need to be anti semitic to become a useful idiot that propagates anti semitic conspiracies.

[matt4pack]

It amazes me how many people just keep blatantly simping for big banks and centralized money while the same groups that control all the wealth in the world continue to ensure that you live on the borderline with poverty by suppressing your wages. I'm not a big fan of cryptocurrency personally, but I do see a need for the decentralization of banks and finding ways to get more wealth into the hands of more people rather than the right few. At the end of the day, big banks need to be reigned in and it's apparent that governments have no intention of getting them under control.

Cypto is literally about putting wealth in the hands of the few since it's used almost universally as an asset and not a currency.

[Jastall]

It amazes me how many people just keep blatantly simping for big banks and centralized money while the same groups that control all the wealth in the world continue to ensure that you live on the borderline with poverty by suppressing your wages. I'm not a big fan of cryptocurrency personally, but I do see a need for the decentralization of banks and finding ways to get more wealth into the hands of more people rather than the right few. At the end of the day, big banks need to be reigned in and it's apparent that governments have no intention of getting them under control.

Who do you think already controls crypto? The guy who owns ten Ethereum shares? The one with a rack of five scalped 3080s mining the stuff? No, it's the big companies who have entire warehouses of GPUs in China and guys like Musk and his ilk who can buy billions worth of (insert literally any crypto here) and blatantly manipulate its value with nothing but tweets and memes.

The kind of Silicon Valley jock that already has a heavy hand in crypto is no better than Wall Street bankers. You're kidding yourself if you think that. Crypto isn't changing shit about the world except make already rich people richer.

[Fluttershy]

And, they can't mint their own money. Only the Federal Reserve can mint said money. Not -every single bank in the world-.

I could make my own coin right this instant lol, takes 3 mins to copypaste something. "cryptocurrencies" are useless. The distributed ledger technology they're based on has incredible use, far more than you can imagine.

[Feltima]

Bitcoin's and more so PoW's impact on society and the environment will begin to dwindle as adoption turns the market from being speculative to utility-based. Cryptocurrencies like XRP will thrive. The company that builds around the asset? They've partnered with 38% of the world's top 100 banks, and have becoming a revolving door for US agencies, as well as working with and having deep ties to the IMF.

Their latest acquisition was adding a former us treasurer, Rosa Gumataotao Rios, to their board of directors. Her signature is still on the dollar as we speak. Did I also mention that it's exponentially faster than BTC while being CARBON NEUTRAL? Yes, you heard that right, it's CARBON. NEUTRAL. See? The whole scalability/sustainability is a BTC and ETH problem, not a crypto problem. There will be a basket of cryptocurrencies that are going to define a new financial system in the not too distant future. Ripple is even leading the initiative to turn the entire space carbon neutral:

https://forkast.news/cryptocurrency-...ple-ken-weber/

[Elegiac]

Bitcoin's and more so PoW's impact on society and the environment will begin to dwindle as adoption turns the market from being speculative to utility-based. Cryptocurrencies like XRP will thrive. The company that builds around the asset? They've partnered with 38% of the world's top 100 banks, and have becoming a revolving door for US agencies, as well as working with and having deep ties to the IMF.

Their latest acquisition was adding a former us treasurer, Rosa Gumataotao Rios, to their board of directors. Her signature is still on the dollar as we speak. Did I also mention that it's exponentially faster than BTC while being CARBON NEUTRAL? Yes, you heard that right, it's CARBON. NEUTRAL. See? The whole scalability/sustainability is a BTC and ETH problem, not a crypto problem. There will be a basket of cryptocurrencies that are going to define a new financial system in the not too distant future. Ripple is even leading the initiative to turn the entire space carbon neutral:

https://forkast.news/cryptocurrency-...ple-ken-weber/

I'm willing to bet "net zero" doesn't factor in the emissions involved in producing the infrastructure for cryptocurrency regardless of where the electricity to actually run the shit comes from. It's still increasing demand for energy and materials for a financial instrument that doesn't do anything but build wealth for marginal actors.

At the end of the day, crypto is just commodity money for tech bros. It's not going to replace fiat.

[Fluttershy]

I'm willing to bet "net zero" doesn't factor in the emissions involved in producing the infrastructure for cryptocurrency regardless of where the electricity to actually run the shit comes from. It's still increasing demand for energy and materials for a financial instrument that doesn't do anything but build wealth for marginal actors.

At the end of the day, crypto is just commodity money for tech bros. It's not going to replace fiat.

Hate to break it to you, but CBDCs are cryptocurrencies. The only non-government owned DLTs that will survive are the ones that offer real world use ie an immutable ledger. "decentralized finance" is a bubble that I will enjoy seeing pop, idiots who speculated with shitcoins like btc or eth are in for a wild ride eating bugs in 2030.