An insight on Bitcoin

[Edge-]

You're basically saying the crack dealer aint at fault for crackheads.
Reminder housing crisis: Banks gave loans to anyone who asked even if likely to fail the debt, let their rating agency friends give the bad debt a high rating and sold it as "save debt" off at premium prices to pension funds which meant more money to repeat the process. And when the scam bubble finally collapsed who paid for the bailout? common people.

Completely irrelevant. That's a policy/regulation failure and has nothing to do with currency types. You could do the same thing with crypto replacing USD. This is a non-example you're attempting to make here.

[mbit2]

Completely irrelevant. That's a policy/regulation failure and has nothing to do with currency types. You could do the same thing with crypto replacing USD. This is a non-example you're attempting to make here.

I replied to the question if banks influence debt creation with a concrete example how. Try reading context before posting irrelevant replies.

[Endus]

I replied to the question if banks influence debt creation with a concrete example how. Try reading context before posting irrelevant replies.

There would still be banks doing the same things if the official currency were Bitcoin, because those services aren't offered by crypto exchanges. You're not really arguing against banking by supporting crypto, and cryptos in no way an improvement over normal currency in this.

[Cæli]

I'll explain this to you in baby terms.

A group of 100 people use coins made of unobtanium as their currency, and they can telepathically know where all unobtanium is at all times. There are only a finite number of units of unobtanium in the entire universe, so that has to cover all potential transactions within that group of 100 people. Johnny has 100 coins equivalent 1 unit of unobtanium stuffed beneath his mattress in savings.

One year later, the group's size has increased to 102. The amount of transactions has increased, so in order to cover that amount the coins have to be made smaller; 1 unit of unobtanium used to mean 100 coins, but now 1 unit translates to 150 coins. Johnny's savings have now decreased in value despite the total units of unobtanium not changing.

To be honest I don't know what point you want to make. We're not talking about changing some exchange rates, we're talking about adding a decimal. Those who have 0.01 "unobtanium" still have that 0.01 after.
I'll reiterate my point, which is a fact: there will be in the end a fixed supply of bitcoins. if you add a "decimal", or the ability to "divide" it into smaller units, there is no existing supply increased. 0.01 is always 0.01. otherwise if that was increasing the supply, that means you could have 21000001 bitcoins at some point. which is not the case.
And if I really want to be precise, I can also say that currently you cannot add decimals to the base layer, because that would require a protocol update, but that is possible in theory if need be.

See answers https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/qu...tely-divisible

*Case 2: fractionalizing the currency requires you to either lower prices, or price new users out of the system. It's the same thing.

You're... clearly not understanding how monetary systems work...

Same thing as the above reply, and I even forgot what your point was too. If you add a decimal, you don't increase the existing supply. Prices don't change. You're not turning 0.1 into 0.01. You turn 0.1 into 0.10 in the protocol.

You're adding zeroes in the wrong place.
You can now send 1*10^-9 instead of 1*10^-8
You add the zero before the number, not after. For the actual use case.

Yes, if you have 0.1 BTC it's great. But most people won't, And the more people who use it, and the more uses you have for it. The smaller piece will be used. And the whales will keep being whales and sit on as much as they can get away with. So in this new BTC monetary supply the workers will, again, be screwed over by the owners.
And earn 0.00025 BTC a week. Spend 0.00002 on food a day. Give 0.000001 for candy for their kids at weekends.
etc.

Until there's more of us. When they earn 0.000025.

Again see above reply. You add zeros, 0.1 doesn't turn 0.01, that's not how bitcoin works if that's what you believed. 0.1 turns into 0.10, that's what it means to add a decimal. Nothing is diluted here. That includes the fruit of the labor of the workers.

It's worse. We can find more gold. As you yourself pointed out, Bitcoin is inherently finite. Which makes the problems with a limited supply literally impossible to address meaningfully, where gold-based economies had options like "invade your neighbours and plunder their treasuries" or "build more gold mines". Literally what wars were fought over, in the past.



These aren't problems your positions even hypothetically could fix. Workers can't save because they don't have funds that aren't earmarked for necessary consumption. Saying they've "earned the right to" is dehumanizing garbage, because you're blaming people who struggle to afford food and rent for not putting money that could go towards either into a bank account to accrue value slowly.



Working for Bitcoin rather than USD does not in any way address the wage issues that leave them with no liquidity to put into savings. It just means they're also tied into a highly volatile currency that could crater in value leaving them short on rent or food for the month, the kinds of issues that can easily render you homeless or malnourished/dead.

You really don't understand how life is for anyone below the upper middle class, do you?



You're literally inserting a "market casino" by using a volatile speculative agent like Bitcoin instead of a stable currency. Where going bust means you're starving and homeless. And you can't not gamble, because then you're starving and homeless, guaranteed.



It's a "you" problem because nothing you're saying makes any sense, and actively works against worker interests on every level. Even a regular savings account will provide returns on savings that nearly offset inflation. And any more-reliable investment will outpace inflation pretty darned consistently, way more so than frickin' bitcoin. Presuming they have enough liquidity to save, which isn't true for like half the working population.



Meaning you're adding decimals (which still makes no sense; those decimals always existed, that's how math works) doesn't actually do anything; it's just making it easier to write into accounting ledgers.

I am not denying the issues that inequality can cause. Is your point that a fixed supply currency system would increase poverty for some because some other very selfish people would hoard much more? If workers are paid in a currency that is never devalued, and they decide to save, then I don't see how those workers would get poorer. That's literally the only thing I'm interested in in this system : workers and poor people receiving money not having their potential savings devalued. And I doubt any rational person would object to that.

I am not blaming people who struggle. I keep telling you that in our world, some people have benefited too much, which is why some other people are now struggling financially.

The wage issue is a big problem and it has to be fixed, yes. And I'm not advocating for using bitcoin right now, I'm saying that if such a system is adopted and the currency is actually stable, people's savings wouldn't get devalued by some people creating more money.

Workers being able to save without having it devalued isn't "working against workers".

If you're sticking your assets in a vault, sure.

If you're making normal investments to grow those savings, what you're claiming here is factually incorrect. Retirement plans literally work by compounding savings and investments over time so you end up with far more at retirement than you originally put in, in terms of value, not just actual dollars.



What's baffling is why you think a 21-year-old who just got their first post-college job and negotiated their salary is in any way whatsoever affected by the value of their grandparents' wages 80 years ago (to pick a number). That 21-year-old is negotiating that salary based on current values of the dollar, not those of 80 years ago; inflation over time has had no effect whatsoever on that salary negotiation, other than increasing the dollar amount that he'll be asking for.

You keep insisting on this, and it doesn't make a lick of sense on any level whatsoever. And before you say it; no, the Cantillon Effect doesn't support your claims here. It might have some application to the decay of wages where you're not getting cost-of-living increases yearly by contract, but that effect is reset every time you get a new job or renegotiate your salary (where you don't have cost-of-living baked in). It can't be generational, because prices weren't set generations ago.



We're not asking for humility. We're asking for explanations that hold up to basic scrutiny. Which you have not provided, and apparently will not. It doesn't matter if your claims are good enough for you. You're trying to convince us. You can believe the Earth is hollow and filled with hostile Mole-Men, and if you want any of us to believe you're not a crazy person, the onus is on you to back that claim up. Just saying "I believe it" means we file you with the crazy people.

Investing will always carry some risk. I believe it would be preferable if there was a single stable currency that couldn't be diluted in which people could save. Investing to attempt to increase their wealth, that's the choice of each individual.

I'm not talking about salaries, I'm talking about savings. In your example the life savings of the grandparents would go to their children, assuming they had anything to give to them. Inflation does have an impact on those savings. The children would receive less than they could have if there were no inflation of the money supply. And that stolen wealth hasn't been lost for everyone. To be clear when I mention inflation I mean "monetary inflation". The cantillon effect does support the fact that people close to money creation benefit at the expense of those who have their savings devalued. Which is the big problem I have with inflation.

I'm not even trying to convince anyone here, I just stated facts and opinions initially, then I just proceeded to reply to people saying various things.

And by the way, all in all it doesn't seem that your intentions are different than mine; it just seems we disagree on the cause (hence the solution). I'm still open to hearing about your solutions to fix the problems we're having.

I mean, do you think the global economy is so simple? That national economies so simple that just "occasionally adding a zero" can effectively maintain a supply of money with a dynamically growing population and changing economic needs.



What is wealth building, we just can't know can we?

It's a fairly thoroughly studied concept, and working for a wage is generally agreed upon to be one of the most ineffective methods of doing so. IT's not some arcane, esoteric topic philosophers still debate over a cup of tea.



This is like...how economies work, dude. In general.



In the current world there's no FDIC insurance for BTC that I know of. My savings in the bank are insured, though, up to $250K (not that I have that much rofl).



No, it's just an infinitely appreciating commodity that gets infinitely fractionalized over time, allowing those who can stockpile whole-sums (i.e. 1 BTC) to leverage that as generational wealth, as a core feature of a hard-limited currency. Rather than a consequence of policies as the currency concentrations of wealth and inequality are driven by with fiat currency. A core function of fiat currency is not to allow those who "get dollars early" to be able to leverage those into near endless wealth simply by virtue of that money existing. It has to do something, hence why there are interest rates on savings accounts to allow your money to grow with inflation.



No, it just is designed to promote longterm inequality and wealth concentrations at levels unprecedented with fiat currency simply by "existing".

In our current system yes, investing or exploiting people is required to become very wealthy legally.

Your savings in the bank are insured in terms of supply, not in terms of value. Some unlucky people have their national currency devalued. If you're on the dollar and the dollar becomes worthless, you can be insured 250k, if you received that after your currency was devalued and the funds lost, who cares. States cannot guarantee the value of their currencies that's why some national currencies go to zero in terms of value.

See above for the "fractionalized" subject.
"A core function of fiat currency is not to allow those who "get dollars early" to be able to leverage those into near endless wealth simply by virtue of that money existing." > That's too bad because that's exactly what happens. If you're critical of the current system then that's something. Good luck trying to change that. In my view this is even more unlikely than bitcoin actually succeeding. And then you will have to fight new attacks on your "fixed" system, generation after generation.
Interest rates would be decent if it worked with certainty and always prevented devaluation of the savings relative to inflation, it doesn't.

[Edge-]

See above for the "fractionalized" subject.
"A core function of fiat currency is not to allow those who "get dollars early" to be able to leverage those into near endless wealth simply by virtue of that money existing." > That's too bad because that's exactly what happens. If you're critical of the current system then that's something. Good luck trying to change that. In my view this is even more unlikely than bitcoin actually succeeding. And then you will have to fight new attacks on your "fixed" system, generation after generation.
Interest rates would be decent if it worked with certainty and always prevented devaluation of the savings relative to inflation, it doesn't.

It happens as a result of policy decisions, not as a core function of fiat currency. It's literally a core function of crypto, crypto cannot work any other way unless you're minting more crypto which you are strongly arguing against.

Cornelius Vanderbilt was worth around $105M when he died in 1877.

Back then that was absurd wealth that was astronomical and boggled the mind. Nowadays? Yeah, not very much because the value of the dollar has changed over time and simply sitting on $105M in a vault over all these years - with that money doing nothing economically (which is the whole point of money) - it loses immense value. That's a good thing. If that money is to grow and keep up with inflation over time, it needs to be invested somewhere.

Now if he had 1M BTC back then and put it in a vault do you know what would happen nowadays? Without that BTC doing anything, not invested into any business ventures or anything, just literally sitting in a locked vault, it's appreciated immensely as the price of 1 BTC has dramatically increased and prices for goods and services have had to become fractionalized to smaller and smaller as BTC needs to be reduced to smaller values to keep up with a growing number of economic participants and economies that see more transactional value year after year.

If, somehow, someone gets half of all BTC and simply decides to put it in a vault, effectively removing it from the market, what happens then? The remaining half of the BTC needs to be fractionalized way down and the price of 1 BTC itself skyrockets as companies and people try to adapt to the fact that there's now half the amount of money in the economy and still the same number of people needing to buy groceries and pay rent. Hell, someone removing any significant amount of BTC from the economy by putting it in a vault is going to impact the value of BTC and require that things be repriced to adjust to the new values.

[Belize]

Same thing as the above reply, and I even forgot what your point was too.

No wonder crypto is a flaming dumpster fire of scams when its most ardent defenders have this short a memory...

If you add a decimal, you don't increase the existing supply. Prices don't change. You're not turning 0.1 into 0.01. You turn 0.1 into 0.10 in the protocol.

Right, but if you add a decimal to create more fractionalization of a currency, and don't adjust prices down you either:

A. Change nothing and have a closed ecosystem that literally cannot grow since the total available supply cannot be put into more hands
or
B. Create a system where new users that are now earning "less" due to having an extra 0 after the decimal and before the next non-zero number are literally entering the system at a disadvantage.

To expand on this, assume that you have 100 coins. You have 95 of those coins distributed to 95 users so they each get one coin as their "salary" (let's just assume they're only getting paid once for simplicity) and the price of item Whatever is 1 coin. Each of these users can buy 1 item Whatever. You then realize you have 10 users that you still need to introduce to the system, but only have 5 coins, so you add a decimal and give each of these users .4 coins as their "salary", so that in total you distribute 4 coins and have 1 left over. You didn't create any coins, but now new users are earning less than previous users. And this problem gets worse and worse as the situation scales up.

It's why limited money supply systems simply do not work. The romans figured this out over 2000 years ago and would frequently mint new coins to increase the total available money supply as the roman republic and later empire expanded. I'm sure if I dug deeper I could find even earlier civilizations that did this.

"BuT wHaT aBoUt InFlaTiOnArY dEbAsEmEnT" I hear you say. By fractionalizing a coin you're still getting to the same point, just in reverse. Instead of overprinting money, and this making the price of things rise as a currency becomes worth less, you're keeping the prices the same, but reducing the purchasing power of a currency by having it be doled out in smaller and smaller proportions.

To touch on your "just save more money if you're poor!" point that I'm not quoting because it's fucking stupid, that only works if the poor aren't spending all of their available currency on basic life necessities like "food" and "water" and "shelter from the elements". It also only works if those in control of a currency don't fractionalize said currency in cahoots with those controlling wages using the fractionalization as a justification for lowering wages. "Since we now can split a coin into 100s instead of 10s, you're wage move a decimal over".

[Endus]

I am not denying the issues that inequality can cause. Is your point that a fixed supply currency system would increase poverty for some because some other very selfish people would hoard much more? If workers are paid in a currency that is never devalued, and they decide to save, then I don't see how those workers would get poorer. That's literally the only thing I'm interested in in this system : workers and poor people receiving money not having their potential savings devalued. And I doubt any rational person would object to that.

The currency will always get devalued, and you specifically pointed to the process; decimalizing and using fractional amounts. Under a fixed-supply monetary system with a growing population and economy, there will be more and more demand for currency, meaning the value of that currency skyrockets, meaning that you will not be paid the same amount. Employers will immediately tie all future contracts to adjust automatically with deflation, so that when the value of a "coin" doubles, your salary drops by half. We already do the reverse with cost-of-living raises baked into contracts, and that's where doing so isn't in the financial interests of corporations; if we add that financial incentive (as you intentionally do), they'll have every reason to require such clauses.

If your salary was 500 "coins" a month, just to make up a number for the sake of comparison, then when the value of that coin doubles, you're not suddenly taking home a coin worth twice as much, you're taking home half as many coins, for the same value representation. And unless you've been able to secure savings, you can't ever grow that income. And as has already been pointed out, half or more workers literally can't put away savings, so your system is doing nothing but benefiting the wealthy, who can afford to hoard coins.

There is no practical way for the lower-income workers to benefit from this. At all. Because you're targeting a completely irrelevant factor and doing nothing about the actual cause of exploitation.

The wage issue is a big problem and it has to be fixed, yes. And I'm not advocating for using bitcoin right now, I'm saying that if such a system is adopted and the currency is actually stable, people's savings wouldn't get devalued by some people creating more money.

Which is not currently a problem. Savings in savings accounts generally roughly keep pace with inflation, and savings accounts aren't meant for long-term savings in the first place. CDs and such are better and guaranteed options. Inflation's generally around 2%, give or take, in a managed fiat-currency economy. At my current bank (RBC), CDs are about a 4% return rate. That requires you "lock in" your money for a set period, from 6 months to 5 years, and there's penalties for withdrawal, but it's a common form of retirement plan; you keep cycling CDs around and live off the interest. Workers are already able to save money and generate wealth over time by doing so.

The problem is that so many workers don't have enough liquidity to save in the first place, and changing the currency will do absolutely fuck-all to help correct that, and I have no idea why you think it even could.

Workers being able to save without having it devalued isn't "working against workers".

You're arguing that we change the system so the wealthy's savings can balloon in value with no risk and no need for investment into the economy, without providing any means that would allow workers to tap into the same systems, because so many of those workers already can't afford to save and nothing about your proposal change that.

So, regardless of your intent, what you're proposing is anti-worker. It's like throwing gasoline on a burning house and proclaiming that you're "just trying to put the fire out". Yeah, well, you're not.

I'm not talking about salaries, I'm talking about savings.

Which immediately means you're discarding the needs of the poorest half of workers, give or take. That's why I'm pointing out your position is dehumanizing and unfair to workers.

In your example the life savings of the grandparents would go to their children, assuming they had anything to give to them. Inflation does have an impact on those savings. The children would receive less than they could have if there were no inflation of the money supply. And that stolen wealth hasn't been lost for everyone. To be clear when I mention inflation I mean "monetary inflation". The cantillon effect does support the fact that people close to money creation benefit at the expense of those who have their savings devalued. Which is the big problem I have with inflation.

The Cantillon Effect does not support your entirely baseless claim that this leads to generational decline. Because, again, salaries are re-adjusted every few years. The Cantillon Effect covers how rapidly things diverge between such adjustments, but each salary renegotiation resets that clock, because the new salary is established based on current dollar values.

And by the way, all in all it doesn't seem that your intentions are different than mine; it just seems we disagree on the cause (hence the solution). I'm still open to hearing about your solutions to fix the problems we're having.

Nope. This is a thread about bitcoin, not about socialist market reform. We don't have to take your argument on faith until we have another argument to put it up against; your argument stands or fails on its own. And in this case, it fails. Completely. Because you have not tied any of these dots together.

The Cantillon Effect can't lead to generational decline.
Inflation doesn't harm savings, as savings have wealth-increasing measures designed specifically to offset inflation or overcome it. In the narrow example of "cash money stuffed into a mattress", it impacts that kind of savings, but it should, because it gets that cash back into the economy, where it can contribute to that economy, whereas stuffing it into a mattress excludes it from economic action. Savings accounts don't do the same thing because the bank is using those funds constantly.

Your savings in the bank are insured in terms of supply, not in terms of value.

If you mean that they're measured in dollars, that's how everything's measured. That's literally the point of a currency.

Some unlucky people have their national currency devalued. If you're on the dollar and the dollar becomes worthless, you can be insured 250k, if you received that after your currency was devalued and the funds lost, who cares. States cannot guarantee the value of their currencies that's why some national currencies go to zero in terms of value.

And? Same can happen to cryptocurrencies. Way more easily, because there's literally nothing backing those currencies.

See above for the "fractionalized" subject.
"A core function of fiat currency is not to allow those who "get dollars early" to be able to leverage those into near endless wealth simply by virtue of that money existing." > That's too bad because that's exactly what happens.

It's also exactly how all cryptocurrencies work. Which you consistently ignore.

[NED funded]

I unironically love that crypto regulations are coming NOW after a bunch of crypto exchanges turned out to be fraud. The crypto ppl cant hide now that we know their intentions

[mbit2]

I unironically love that crypto regulations are coming NOW after a bunch of crypto exchanges turned out to be fraud. The crypto ppl cant hide now that we know their intentions

They just gonna monopolize who can scam. Example: GME stock where they froze the game when the house wasn't winning.

[gondrin]

To be honest I don't know what point you want to make. We're not talking about changing some exchange rates, we're talking about adding a decimal. Those who have 0.01 "unobtanium" still have that 0.01 after.
I'll reiterate my point, which is a fact: there will be in the end a fixed supply of bitcoins. if you add a "decimal", or the ability to "divide" it into smaller units, there is no existing supply increased. 0.01 is always 0.01. otherwise if that was increasing the supply, that means you could have 21000001 bitcoins at some point. which is not the case.
And if I really want to be precise, I can also say that currently you cannot add decimals to the base layer, because that would require a protocol update, but that is possible in theory if need be.

Problem with this is when you add new people to that system, they will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage as they will never be able to earn the same amount or more then the people that were already in the system. That is one of the biggest problems with deflationary currencies. Instead of deflating the currency, you have to devalue property.

Problem with deflating property is businesses will NEVER go for that as they still have to pay workers to do their jobs. Workers themselves will not work for less and less resources. Go up to the average worker and say "Instead of making 0.1 coin this year, you are going to make 0.08 coins next year.". See what a worker will say to you if you go try that.

Go up to a homeowner and tell them that their house now is worth less than it was when they bought it. "Oh, you bought your house back 10 years ago for 3 BTC, well, it will now be worth 1.5 BTC".

Funny thing is, while a few people will use it as a currency, the vast majority will never adopt it because they don't like to see themselves making LESS(and yes, it is less). When you add a decimal point, you are literally fractionalizing it to a lesser value.

Again see above reply. You add zeros, 0.1 doesn't turn 0.01, that's not how bitcoin works if that's what you believed. 0.1 turns into 0.10, that's what it means to add a decimal. Nothing is diluted here. That includes the fruit of the labor of the workers.

Stating 0.1 and stating 0.10 is the exact same thing. If someone new comes into the system, and you only have 0.1 BTC, are you going to pay them 0.1 BTC or less for work? What happens if someone else comes into the system? With a finite supply of something, the more people that are added to the economy, the smaller the value for each person there can be. Either the value of the currency has to decrease or the value of property has to decrease in any economic system. Traditional systems want currency to devalue as it is FAR easier to change how much currency in the system to adjust for prices of property then it is to adjust the prices of property the a currency that is fixed. Property values will always decrease in a fixed currency system.

I am not denying the issues that inequality can cause. Is your point that a fixed supply currency system would increase poverty for some because some other very selfish people would hoard much more? If workers are paid in a currency that is never devalued, and they decide to save, then I don't see how those workers would get poorer. That's literally the only thing I'm interested in in this system : workers and poor people receiving money not having their potential savings devalued. And I doubt any rational person would object to that.

I am not blaming people who struggle. I keep telling you that in our world, some people have benefited too much, which is why some other people are now struggling financially.

The wage issue is a big problem and it has to be fixed, yes. And I'm not advocating for using bitcoin right now, I'm saying that if such a system is adopted and the currency is actually stable, people's savings wouldn't get devalued by some people creating more money.

Workers being able to save without having it devalued isn't "working against workers".

Problem is that it is working against workers as the moment they have to spend anything, they will NEVER earn back what they spent as they will always earn less in total currency in a fixed currency system.

At the heart of it all is that virtually nobody is using BTC as a currency. And they never will. The reason why that is, and that goes for other people who promote BTC in this thread, is that they base the value of it in dollars. They only see it as an investment, not as a currency. CURRENCIES AREN'T AND NEVER WILL BE INVESTMENT TOOLS. Currencies are meant to make buying and selling of goods and services easier as it is easier to have a common thing instead of having to figure out what a service will cost someone is whatever property they have like under a bartering system. Look at when BTC dropped. A lot of those people who bought BTC were upset at it's value dropping. That is what people who invest in it. They only want to see the number go up so they can cash out.

The moment a currency becomes an investment, it loses its ability to be used as a currency. Currencies have always been meant to be freely flowing and used to facilitate trade.

People who have BTC think it cannot ever be worthless just need to look at all of the currencies that have been through the ages that were in fixed amounts that are basically worthless today. Just because something is finite doesn't mean it has any value. Tulip Mania comes to mind on this. Salt used to be what they paid ancient people in some societies with as payment for services.

- - - Updated - - -

They just gonna monopolize who can scam. Example: GME stock where they froze the game when the house wasn't winning.

No, it is because of the fact that people were being scammed. The people being scammed are the ones wanting the exchanges to be regulated. They want the ability to reclaim funds from a scammer which cannot happen at this moment. Why do you think that the ones who are running the exchanges are starting to get arrested?

[Belize]

They just gonna monopolize who can scam. Example: GME stock where they froze the game when the house wasn't winning.

Honestly, realizing that crypto is a scam, but getting upset that someone else is doing the scamming perfectly articulates crypto better than I ever could.

[NED funded]

They just gonna monopolize who can scam. Example: GME stock where they froze the game when the house wasn't winning.

I mean I genuinely believe in crypto as a tool to fight government overreach. For example like how the Canadian government froze the bank accounts of people they disagreed with a bogus emergency act. Its not that right now tho, its a tool for people to do fraud.

[Endus]

I mean I genuinely believe in crypto as a tool to fight government overreach. For example like how the Canadian government froze the bank accounts of people they disagreed with a bogus emergency act.

Right, you can shove that pro-terrorist horseshit back up where it came from. Literally the same level of intentionally malicious and dishonest garbage as people claiming January 6 was a "peaceful protest".

[NED funded]

Right, you can shove that pro-terrorist horseshit back up where it came from. Literally the same level of intentionally malicious and dishonest garbage as people claiming January 6 was a "peaceful protest".

Nah bro, jan 6 was an attempted coup. The truck protestors were idiots, but their protest was legitimate even if you think they are the second coming of Hitler or whatever. Blocking roads is not terrorism even if you think they are racist, fascist, etc.

Banking is a basic necessity in our current society and people trying to weaponize it as a tool to punish those they disagree with or hold onto power in destroyed economies is inhumane. Canada, Argentina, Venezuela and many more cases are why I support crypto, it's a tool to fight back against injustice.

[Endus]

Nah bro, jan 6 was an attempted coup. The truck protestors were idiots, but their protest was legitimate even if you think they are the second coming of Hitler or whatever.

It categorically was not. It was a violent attack on the security of the capital. I live here. You have literally no idea what you're talking about, and you're acting as an apologist for terrorists; people who tried to seize the capital through physical force and issuing demands of the government to stop them, fundamentally blackmail.

Blocking roads is not terrorism even if you think they are racist, fascist, etc.

When you're doing so in the nation's capital to issue demands of the federal government, yeah, it is. The literal definition of terrorism.

Banking is a basic necessity in our current society and people trying to weaponize it as a tool to punish those they disagree with or hold onto power in destroyed economies is inhumane. Canada, Argentina, Venezuela and many more cases are why I support crypto, it's a tool to fight back against injustice.

Combined with your support for the trucker convoy, it's clear you don't care about "injustice" at all.

Particularly as the only "protest" element to the Convoy was openly anti-vaxxer bullshit. Assholes who couldn't accept mask mandates because fuck you, and that's the end of their arguments.

Plus, bringing it up with regards to Canada, whose banking system is one of the best-regulated in the world, is absolutely ridiculous.

[mbit2]

I mean I genuinely believe in crypto as a tool to fight government overreach. For example like how the Canadian government froze the bank accounts of people they disagreed with a bogus emergency act. Its not that right now tho, its a tool for people to do fraud.

You can only have both or neither. If you allow free use then naturally scammers will flock. If you allow gov control for safety you get gov abusing their control when it suits them.
Danger is the price of freedom.

[mbit2]

And THIS is really what crypto is about - it's basically this nebulous thing that lets everyone believe it will solve whatever problem they care most about, while ignoring that it can't solve all those problems at once.

I think nebulous is only insofar true as public has as usual no clue so opportunists used the hype to shill their crappy products even if it wasn't really fitting. Its like "the cloud" was used to market any product. As usual nobody is telling them exactly what it is since people in the know are a minority.

As for the former problem there is a simple solution: You want safety you pay an expert to do the dangerous job for you. People get electricians to switch light bulbs but think its smart to stick their hand into crypto without a clue. You can always diy but then you also carry the responsibility to know how.

[Belize]

In the face of SVB imploding and cryptobros gloating that their system wouldn't have this happen, regulators close one of Crypto's biggest lender, Signature Bank, while Silvergate announces liquidation of its assets.

These were essentially the two biggest banks in Crypto. Womp womp.

[Strawberry]

In the face of SVB imploding and cryptobros gloating that their system wouldn't have this happen, regulators close one of Crypto's biggest lender, Signature Bank, while Silvergate announces liquidation of its assets.

These were essentially the two biggest banks in Crypto. Womp womp.

Meanwhile Bitcoin and Ethereum up 8.5% in the last 24h.

[hellhamster]

In the face of SVB imploding and cryptobros gloating that their system wouldn't have this happen, regulators close one of Crypto's biggest lender, Signature Bank, while Silvergate announces liquidation of its assets.

These were essentially the two biggest banks in Crypto. Womp womp.

Literally who?

I only see investors losing trust in banks and parking money in crypto.