The Blockchain/Cryptocurrency/Electric Cars (???) discussion thread
- Thread starter Sluggah
- Start date
Maybe so, but I still don't see the point.
Let's use more electricity than some countries on an annual basis to try to maintain a complicated computer file that tracks all the purchases of a particular fake money (that also just happens to periodically gets stolen or defrauded from said files or wallets to the tune of hundreds of millions of $$$). I mean, WTF? Just so you can go buy black market things on the sly?
Hackers steal $600m in major cryptocurrency heist - BBC News
$1.9B in crypto currency stolen by hackers last year | 2021-02-17 | Security Magazine
Once hailed as unhackable, blockchains are now getting hacked | MIT Technology Review
Cryptocurrency and crime - Wikipedia
Let's use more electricity than some countries on an annual basis to try to maintain a complicated computer file that tracks all the purchases of a particular fake money (that also just happens to periodically gets stolen or defrauded from said files or wallets to the tune of hundreds of millions of $$$). I mean, WTF? Just so you can go buy black market things on the sly?
Hackers steal $600m in major cryptocurrency heist - BBC News
$1.9B in crypto currency stolen by hackers last year | 2021-02-17 | Security Magazine
Once hailed as unhackable, blockchains are now getting hacked | MIT Technology Review
Cryptocurrency and crime - Wikipedia
Eh, don’t be so sure about that. Just wait til a certain faction of people I won’t name set their sights on how much energy it consumes and how much e-waste it creates.
In this day and age of PC culture, virtue signaling, etc I believe it’s just a matter of time til this nonsense gets cancelled too.
As for robbing banks, there’s a huge difference in stealing tangible assets vs the digital equivalent of disappearing ink. C’mon now.
In this day and age of PC culture, virtue signaling, etc I believe it’s just a matter of time til this nonsense gets cancelled too.
As for robbing banks, there’s a huge difference in stealing tangible assets vs the digital equivalent of disappearing ink. C’mon now.
Last edited:
Best of luck risking your long-term financial future on it. You very well may be left holding a virtual empty bag.
IMO some people just want to be "hip" early adopters of the newest in technology so badly that it severely clouds their judgement and ability to ignore snake oil sales pitches from those that seek to take advantage of their eagerness and naivete.
On a tangent, how ironic and hypocritical is it that a very large faction of people that believe they are "saving the world" in purchasing overly expensive Tesla's and going electric are also firmly into this cryptocurrency/blockchain craze?
I mean, let's forget for a moment that there are strong arguments that electric cars aren't any more Eco-friendly than those running on gasoline --- do these people really want to save the world or not? LOL.
On one hand they invest in what the believe to be good for the environment then in turn also invest in something that is the complete opposite in cryptocurrency.
All I can say is, people be crazy. And extremely self-serving.
IMO some people just want to be "hip" early adopters of the newest in technology so badly that it severely clouds their judgement and ability to ignore snake oil sales pitches from those that seek to take advantage of their eagerness and naivete.
On a tangent, how ironic and hypocritical is it that a very large faction of people that believe they are "saving the world" in purchasing overly expensive Tesla's and going electric are also firmly into this cryptocurrency/blockchain craze?
I mean, let's forget for a moment that there are strong arguments that electric cars aren't any more Eco-friendly than those running on gasoline --- do these people really want to save the world or not? LOL.
On one hand they invest in what the believe to be good for the environment then in turn also invest in something that is the complete opposite in cryptocurrency.
All I can say is, people be crazy. And extremely self-serving.
Last edited:
Exactly. At least if the bank is robbed, your money hasn't actually gone anywhere. Where is the FDIC insurance on Bitcoin?
For those about to compare Bitcoin to stocks, what are you actually "buying" with Bitcoin? Some mysterious small portion of a computer file that has no real tangible worth? When I buy shares of Disney, I know what I'm actually getting and what the product is. But Bitcoin is nothing more than electronic snake oil - with the pricing is so inflated and arbitrary - prices jump and fall and in the end you just hope nobody ran off with your digital file.
What's the actual draw for the "product" other than, like stocks, you hope the price goes up? Because frankly, using cash or card is a heck of a lot easier. And the price of the "product" is arbitrary and not really tied to any particular performance standard or tangible product generated. At least that I can see.
For those about to compare Bitcoin to stocks, what are you actually "buying" with Bitcoin? Some mysterious small portion of a computer file that has no real tangible worth? When I buy shares of Disney, I know what I'm actually getting and what the product is. But Bitcoin is nothing more than electronic snake oil - with the pricing is so inflated and arbitrary - prices jump and fall and in the end you just hope nobody ran off with your digital file.
What's the actual draw for the "product" other than, like stocks, you hope the price goes up? Because frankly, using cash or card is a heck of a lot easier. And the price of the "product" is arbitrary and not really tied to any particular performance standard or tangible product generated. At least that I can see.
Now you’re starting to sound like a boomer or even a “get off my lawn you crazy kids!” grandpa. It’s ok if you don’t like or even don’t get it. But insulting people who use or buy something you don’t care for is kind of weird. People don’t only buy electric cars to “save the world”. Some buy it cuz it’s more technological advanced, some buy it cuz they like the look, some buy it cuz they just hate paying for gas or going to the gas station. Not every electric car driver is some hypocritical hippie. I’m sure back in the day some people thought the idea of buying stocks were crazy. Why buy “a part” if a company who’s value can go up or drop to $0. You’re not really an owner that can go in and order people around. Everything new sounds weird to some people. Might work out, might be a bunch of crap. As long as it doesn’t hurt you…
Lol. I knew I’d get this type of response. Because it just HAS to be for the reasons you dreamed up, right?
Like it can’t possibly have anything to do with logic and common sense, right? SMH.
It has zero to do with “not getting it”. We clearly get it. However, unlike you and some others, you choose not to see the massive downsides. And most of all, that it ain’t real!
As for not liking it, sure, I don’t like anything that leads to massive e-waste and power consumption. For, again, something that isn’t tangibly real. And will be forever hackable as ALL tech always is and always will be.
Wasn’t the idea of getting away from fossil fuels and other pollutants to actually be more eco-friendly? Cryptocurrency/data mining isn’t eco-friendly.
Dismissing our arguments for the reasons stated is just silly talk. You’re reaching. Grasping at straws. I guess that’s all you got, because you surely can’t defend it’s negatives all of which are truth, not opinion.
As for insulting anyone, my apology that you feel insulted by what has previously been said. However, you should heed your own advice and not throw stones from a glass house with regard to labeling others if it bothers you so much.
Point has been made. There’s nothing more to be gained by continuing to go back and forth and we’re clearly way off topic, so I’ll gladly bow out and let you guys continue arguing insanity.
As you were.
Like it can’t possibly have anything to do with logic and common sense, right? SMH.
It has zero to do with “not getting it”. We clearly get it. However, unlike you and some others, you choose not to see the massive downsides. And most of all, that it ain’t real!
As for not liking it, sure, I don’t like anything that leads to massive e-waste and power consumption. For, again, something that isn’t tangibly real. And will be forever hackable as ALL tech always is and always will be.
Wasn’t the idea of getting away from fossil fuels and other pollutants to actually be more eco-friendly? Cryptocurrency/data mining isn’t eco-friendly.
Dismissing our arguments for the reasons stated is just silly talk. You’re reaching. Grasping at straws. I guess that’s all you got, because you surely can’t defend it’s negatives all of which are truth, not opinion.
As for insulting anyone, my apology that you feel insulted by what has previously been said. However, you should heed your own advice and not throw stones from a glass house with regard to labeling others if it bothers you so much.
Point has been made. There’s nothing more to be gained by continuing to go back and forth and we’re clearly way off topic, so I’ll gladly bow out and let you guys continue arguing insanity.
As you were.
Last edited:
Sure, Bitcoin is just a portion of a computer file that has no tangible value aside from what society agrees it is worth. But that's really no different than the $20 bill in your wallet. In the end, money is just a proxy for the exchange of goods/services/labor that doesn't require a simple one-time one-to-one barter. What it does require is that everybody believes that if they exchange their goods/services/labor for that $20 bill, that they can then turn around and exchange the $20 bill for goods/services/labor that they want or need. The $20 bill is worth what society agrees it is worth, no different than Bitcoin. It's all fiat currency.
Where there's a contrast between the two is in how confident people in general are that this piece of money is going to continue to be recognized by society as money, and at a similar (or increasing) value. Nobody wants money that's going to drastically deflate or go away. Right now, there's not a good reason to believe that your $20 bill is going to become worthless, but there's certainly hesitation about whether Bitcoin is going to stick around. But in my guess, in 100 years there probably isn't going to be a lot of paper/coin money around - everything is going to be electronic. Even today, it seems that the majority of transactions are being done digitally anyhow, using credit or debit cards. The question is whether down the road the dominant currency is going to be (ostensibly) governmentally backed or not. Frankly, the way the government prints money right now, deflating the value of people's savings, I wouldn't be surprised to see a shift towards blockchain currencies that have very low inflation factors.
So, in the end it's all going to be electronic, and the question is going to be which currency the public favors. Dollars are familiar and comfortable right now. Blockchain currencies are mysterious. But they said that the automobile would never replace the horse, and that there would never be a need for a person to own their own computer. Technology that is useful eventually gets adopted, and I wouldn't bet against blockchain currency any more than I'd bet against cars and smart phones being replaced with something better. Live long enough, and you'll probably be using blockchain currency too. And I say this as somebody who holds no blockchain currency.
Where there's a contrast between the two is in how confident people in general are that this piece of money is going to continue to be recognized by society as money, and at a similar (or increasing) value. Nobody wants money that's going to drastically deflate or go away. Right now, there's not a good reason to believe that your $20 bill is going to become worthless, but there's certainly hesitation about whether Bitcoin is going to stick around. But in my guess, in 100 years there probably isn't going to be a lot of paper/coin money around - everything is going to be electronic. Even today, it seems that the majority of transactions are being done digitally anyhow, using credit or debit cards. The question is whether down the road the dominant currency is going to be (ostensibly) governmentally backed or not. Frankly, the way the government prints money right now, deflating the value of people's savings, I wouldn't be surprised to see a shift towards blockchain currencies that have very low inflation factors.
So, in the end it's all going to be electronic, and the question is going to be which currency the public favors. Dollars are familiar and comfortable right now. Blockchain currencies are mysterious. But they said that the automobile would never replace the horse, and that there would never be a need for a person to own their own computer. Technology that is useful eventually gets adopted, and I wouldn't bet against blockchain currency any more than I'd bet against cars and smart phones being replaced with something better. Live long enough, and you'll probably be using blockchain currency too. And I say this as somebody who holds no blockchain currency.
Crypto currency is not a currency, it's an asset. The value of crypto currency depends on whether or not one is able to buy it cheap and sell it high--like any other asset. People do not accumulate crypto currency with the intent of spending it as money, like they would from their checking account. People do accumulate crypto currency with the intent to sell it later. Again, it is an asset, and imo, not a very good one. For me, it's not much different than snake oil.
Electric cars are great, so long as the manufacturer builds it in a way that allows the owner to repair it. For example, Tesla builds the frame for their cars using a single piece of aluminum. This means that if you get into an accident in your Tesla, there is a really good chance that your car will be totaled, preventing the opportunity to make a simple repair. Get into an accident in your Tesla, you will probably have to buy a new one. Conversely, Toyota and Honda do make electric cars that can be repaired if in an accident, and are much less likely to be considered "totaled".
It's not a currency, and it cant compete with actual currencies that are insured by the federal reserve. Who wants to switch from insured money over to crypto currency that might lose 20% of it's value overnight? It's much more of a "get rich quick" scheme than it is a currency.
Calling crypto currency "the future of money" is certainly a claim. Now where is the substantiation?
Calling crypto currency "the future of money" is certainly a claim. Now where is the substantiation?
Since its too hard to multi quote.
FDIC only insures 250K, so when you are talking billions thats kinda irrelevant.
Saying "risking" long term money. I mean we do that every day, we just decide what kinda risk we want, right? You invest in a stock of a company that could be out of business. Or you buy treasuries or money market instruments and keep your money liquid and safe. Or you bury it your backyard and you have other types of risk.
Capt. is exactly right, it's not too much different from our current money system, in that we just accept what $20 is worth.
Chupacabra is more correct in stating it's not a digital currency to spend, but more as an investment and way to leverage certain digital markets.
Blockchain technology isn't just about the attached digital currency, it's about the math behind it the ability to solve problems. Most of which, we don't even know yet.
But this started from an NFT, which is made with blockchain tech and another way to invest in something. As with many things like this, a few will make a lot, many will make or lose a little.
FDIC only insures 250K, so when you are talking billions thats kinda irrelevant.
Saying "risking" long term money. I mean we do that every day, we just decide what kinda risk we want, right? You invest in a stock of a company that could be out of business. Or you buy treasuries or money market instruments and keep your money liquid and safe. Or you bury it your backyard and you have other types of risk.
Capt. is exactly right, it's not too much different from our current money system, in that we just accept what $20 is worth.
Chupacabra is more correct in stating it's not a digital currency to spend, but more as an investment and way to leverage certain digital markets.
Blockchain technology isn't just about the attached digital currency, it's about the math behind it the ability to solve problems. Most of which, we don't even know yet.
But this started from an NFT, which is made with blockchain tech and another way to invest in something. As with many things like this, a few will make a lot, many will make or lose a little.
250K of FDIC insurance is far more than the average person will have in any one account. You can also get an additional 250k of insurance by just opening another account, and so on, and so forth. Average person opening a bank account so they can deposit their wages into it will never come near having billions of dollars. The point is this: if it cant replace the federal reserve bank (which it cant), it cant be the future of money. It might be a future caveat to stock trading, but it isnt replacing the currency we have, and it will never be widely accepted as an alternative currency.
The point is money to be made by those who are currently holding the crypto currency. The back end is that someone who buys it gets screwed, such as El Salvador, or any other poor country that the idea of converting to crypto currency gets peddled to. I agree with Sluggah that it needs to be canceled.
Oh, I get that it's all the barter system, with cash (or credit/ATM as an electronic "cash" substitute) as an agreed upon "lubricant" to facilitate extended barters. For instance, I trade my time as an engineer for the cash, which I take to the store to buy food. That saves me from having to try to directly barter my engineering services to the person growing apples, or selling their cow's milk, as that person may not need an engineer right then. Nobody is disputing that process or idea.
But Bitcoin is just a pyramid scheme. It has no true value or tangible benefit. Cash is backed, regulated, and supported by the government expressly to facilitate the extended barter system world governments depend upon. But Bitcoin is like an NFT - there is no real value to a purely digital contrivance that isn't backed by anything. It only has value because you think it does and you can convince someone else to spend their $$$ to buy it at a higher price than you paid, not because of any actual value or financial backing. And it keeps trying to sucker in more people to spend more and more money on a product that doesn't actually exist. It's a hackable computer file. That's it. Bitcoin could all come crashing down tomorrow and the world wouldn't skip a beat, except for a few ultra-millionaires that would lose some of their extra yacht or cocaine habit money. If the US economy (backer of US $$$) did that instead, there would be real ramifications as the world's largest economy would grind to a halt.
Cars, computers, etc., are all tangible things that serve a distinct purpose and are an improvement over what was used previously. Cash/credit is a useful, agreed-upon, government-backed medium of trade. What actual purpose does Bitcoin serve that cash/credit does not (unless you are trying to get rid of illegally gotten gains in an untraceable manner)? It is a digital trinket you hope would gain value. But that is all it is. A trinket, with no inherent benefit for use for 99% of us other than as a purely speculative investment. Cash/credit are easier to use and do not require constant use of immense amounts of natural resources just to keep a hackable digital file "alive" with the hopes that there is some fool out there wanting to buy your particular "pet rock" just because some other folks have them.
But Bitcoin is just a pyramid scheme. It has no true value or tangible benefit. Cash is backed, regulated, and supported by the government expressly to facilitate the extended barter system world governments depend upon. But Bitcoin is like an NFT - there is no real value to a purely digital contrivance that isn't backed by anything. It only has value because you think it does and you can convince someone else to spend their $$$ to buy it at a higher price than you paid, not because of any actual value or financial backing. And it keeps trying to sucker in more people to spend more and more money on a product that doesn't actually exist. It's a hackable computer file. That's it. Bitcoin could all come crashing down tomorrow and the world wouldn't skip a beat, except for a few ultra-millionaires that would lose some of their extra yacht or cocaine habit money. If the US economy (backer of US $$$) did that instead, there would be real ramifications as the world's largest economy would grind to a halt.
Cars, computers, etc., are all tangible things that serve a distinct purpose and are an improvement over what was used previously. Cash/credit is a useful, agreed-upon, government-backed medium of trade. What actual purpose does Bitcoin serve that cash/credit does not (unless you are trying to get rid of illegally gotten gains in an untraceable manner)? It is a digital trinket you hope would gain value. But that is all it is. A trinket, with no inherent benefit for use for 99% of us other than as a purely speculative investment. Cash/credit are easier to use and do not require constant use of immense amounts of natural resources just to keep a hackable digital file "alive" with the hopes that there is some fool out there wanting to buy your particular "pet rock" just because some other folks have them.
Last edited:
I suspect you mean to say that it is merely speculative, as a pyramid scheme is something very specific that does not describe cryptocurrency. The value that cryptocurrency has is exactly the value that people agree that it has, just like any other fiat currency. The $20 bill in your wallet is not intrinsically worth two meal combos at McDonald's, it's just a marker for barter value that society has a general agreement of how much it is worth. If everybody agreed that dead ladybugs were currency, we could use them as such. There is, despite your reluctance, a widespread agreement among a lot of people (not all people) that cryptocurrency is currency. Heck, to get on topic, the Sacramento Kings at one point in time would accept payment for tickets in Bitcoin (I don't know if they still do).
Is there a risk that people stop agreeing on the value of cryptocurrency and it crashes? Sure. But the longer it is around, and the more accepted it becomes as a "true" currency, the less likely that seems to be.
I would argue that with the demise of the gold standard, the U.S. government does not in fact back its money. Try taking your $20 bill to a Federal Reserve bank and asking them to exchange it for gold, see what happens. $USD have value because people believe that $USD are relatively stable - because there is a widespread agreement on how much they are worth that doesn't change rapidly due to the large number of people that use them, and because there is faith that the U.S. government won't just go around printing these:
People have mentioned the FDIC above, but that doesn't back $USD. The FDIC is insurance against bank collapse, which is a completely different thing. Banks do things with money that are are risky. They don't hold cash reserves equal to their deposits, rather they lend the money out and count on statistics to ensure that they can cover withdrawal demand. If they can't cover withdrawal demand, bad stuff happens, and that's what the FDIC protects against. To my understanding, there is no analogous notion of a "bank" with cryptocurrency. When you own the Bitcoin, you own the Bitcoin, and even if it is "held" at an "exchange", it's immediately available. There can't be a "run on Bitcoin". So in that sense, the FDIC doesn't represent a sort of government backing that is lacking in cryptocurrency, but rather it represents insurance against a catastrophic event that is not relevant for cryptocurrency.
Just like $USD. You seem to be attaching an inherent value to centralized currency that you deny to decentralized currency. I don't agree that that's the case.
Again, hackable computer files are currency if people treat them as currency. And let's not forget that $USD are also susceptible to theft and fraud. Credit card fraud alone comes up to $30B a year. Paper money can be counterfeited. Currency has been subject to fraud since the dawn of currency, and always will be.
This is true. But the reason for this is the vast size of the difference between the prevalence of $USD relative to Bitcoin. If Bitcoin were used for >99% of all transactions in the U.S. and $USD were used for <1%, I can guarantee you that the relative significance of Bitcoin/$USD crashes would be reversed.
I do not dispute that Bitcoin is not a widely prevalent currency, nor do I dispute the ramifications of of a current Bitcoin collapse. But that doesn't mean that cryptocurrency is not currency, and it does not mean that cryptocurrency will not gain in prevalence and importance in the future. As I have said elsewhere, I suspect cryptocurrency will increase its market share in the future, not decrease.
This is also true. But I suspect that this will change in the future. Credit cards used to be difficult to use. You had to put a carbon paper into a little machine and make a copy of the card info, which then had to be subsequently entered by hand into a ledger by a human. A great many places wouldn't even take credit cards. Now you find kids with lemonade stands that have credit card scanners on their iPads. Why would we think that cryptocurrency usage will remain tedious when everything that we know about technological progress says otherwise? The issue of the energy required to mine crypto is also real, but the majority of it is due to the "proof-of-work" paradigm, where large numbers of miners are simultaneously competing to do the work required for each transaction, there is only one "winner", and the energy expended by the losers is wasted. Undoubtedly cryptocurrency will eventually move to a "proof-of-stake" paradigm, where one miner is chosen to do the work for each transaction, which will cut energy expenditure enormously.
And again, I don't even hold any cryptocurrency. I'm not doing this out of some sort of defense of my own assets. I just think - as someone who (I believe like you) reads/watches a good amount of sci-fi and thinks about the future and technological advances - that a substantial move towards decentralized cryptocurrencies is probably inevitable, and the only question is how long it will take to be realized and which cryptocurrencies survive. Will a big shift happen in ten years? Probably not. Two hundred years? Heck yeah. And so the idea that cryptocurrency is "not currency" strikes me as a very outdated, hey-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn way of thinking.
Is there a risk that people stop agreeing on the value of cryptocurrency and it crashes? Sure. But the longer it is around, and the more accepted it becomes as a "true" currency, the less likely that seems to be.
I would argue that with the demise of the gold standard, the U.S. government does not in fact back its money. Try taking your $20 bill to a Federal Reserve bank and asking them to exchange it for gold, see what happens. $USD have value because people believe that $USD are relatively stable - because there is a widespread agreement on how much they are worth that doesn't change rapidly due to the large number of people that use them, and because there is faith that the U.S. government won't just go around printing these:
People have mentioned the FDIC above, but that doesn't back $USD. The FDIC is insurance against bank collapse, which is a completely different thing. Banks do things with money that are are risky. They don't hold cash reserves equal to their deposits, rather they lend the money out and count on statistics to ensure that they can cover withdrawal demand. If they can't cover withdrawal demand, bad stuff happens, and that's what the FDIC protects against. To my understanding, there is no analogous notion of a "bank" with cryptocurrency. When you own the Bitcoin, you own the Bitcoin, and even if it is "held" at an "exchange", it's immediately available. There can't be a "run on Bitcoin". So in that sense, the FDIC doesn't represent a sort of government backing that is lacking in cryptocurrency, but rather it represents insurance against a catastrophic event that is not relevant for cryptocurrency.
Just like $USD. You seem to be attaching an inherent value to centralized currency that you deny to decentralized currency. I don't agree that that's the case.
Again, hackable computer files are currency if people treat them as currency. And let's not forget that $USD are also susceptible to theft and fraud. Credit card fraud alone comes up to $30B a year. Paper money can be counterfeited. Currency has been subject to fraud since the dawn of currency, and always will be.
This is true. But the reason for this is the vast size of the difference between the prevalence of $USD relative to Bitcoin. If Bitcoin were used for >99% of all transactions in the U.S. and $USD were used for <1%, I can guarantee you that the relative significance of Bitcoin/$USD crashes would be reversed.
I do not dispute that Bitcoin is not a widely prevalent currency, nor do I dispute the ramifications of of a current Bitcoin collapse. But that doesn't mean that cryptocurrency is not currency, and it does not mean that cryptocurrency will not gain in prevalence and importance in the future. As I have said elsewhere, I suspect cryptocurrency will increase its market share in the future, not decrease.
This is also true. But I suspect that this will change in the future. Credit cards used to be difficult to use. You had to put a carbon paper into a little machine and make a copy of the card info, which then had to be subsequently entered by hand into a ledger by a human. A great many places wouldn't even take credit cards. Now you find kids with lemonade stands that have credit card scanners on their iPads. Why would we think that cryptocurrency usage will remain tedious when everything that we know about technological progress says otherwise? The issue of the energy required to mine crypto is also real, but the majority of it is due to the "proof-of-work" paradigm, where large numbers of miners are simultaneously competing to do the work required for each transaction, there is only one "winner", and the energy expended by the losers is wasted. Undoubtedly cryptocurrency will eventually move to a "proof-of-stake" paradigm, where one miner is chosen to do the work for each transaction, which will cut energy expenditure enormously.
And again, I don't even hold any cryptocurrency. I'm not doing this out of some sort of defense of my own assets. I just think - as someone who (I believe like you) reads/watches a good amount of sci-fi and thinks about the future and technological advances - that a substantial move towards decentralized cryptocurrencies is probably inevitable, and the only question is how long it will take to be realized and which cryptocurrencies survive. Will a big shift happen in ten years? Probably not. Two hundred years? Heck yeah. And so the idea that cryptocurrency is "not currency" strikes me as a very outdated, hey-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn way of thinking.
Last edited:
I understand all the above. "Pyramid scheme" was not the exact correct analogy, but it strikes me as at least somewhat similar, as the cryptocurrency pushers keep trying to find new buyers to prop up the value for the limited amount of a non-existent "product" with the promise of wealth at the end. Just like NFTs.
For the record, I've never said cryptocurrency isn't currency, I've said it is merely a speculative digital token that's not based on anything. It's true purpose isn't as currency per se, it is apparently as a holding to accumulate value (again, unless you are dealing in illegal stuff that you can't easily dispose of legitimately). Some companies have indeed chosen to accept it in lieu of traditional currency on similar speculation. It is the same as if you wanted to pay for a used car with a Rolex instead of cash - some companies may take it in trade, but many will not. It's harder to pay for a building lease with a Rolex than funds in your bank account, especially when at any moment a bit of digital trickery (like a pickpocket) can make that Rolex disappear off your wrist.
Everywhere accepts cash/credit. There is a reason for that.
Again, what is the purpose of cryptocurrency, other than price speculation (or for use as tender for illegal activity)? It doesn't fulfill any active need (like cars do vs. horses). Cash and credit already cover all legitimate transaction needs. ATM and credit cards are already facilitating electronic transactions about as easy as you can make them and still have them be pretty secure. While "hackable", they are also largely protected against fraudulent activity (while cryptocurrency is not, as has been well documented).
And I'm not saying it won't gain market share in the future, or become more widely used. I'm trying to figure out why it's used at all, other than just price speculation on a digital trinket.
For the record, I've never said cryptocurrency isn't currency, I've said it is merely a speculative digital token that's not based on anything. It's true purpose isn't as currency per se, it is apparently as a holding to accumulate value (again, unless you are dealing in illegal stuff that you can't easily dispose of legitimately). Some companies have indeed chosen to accept it in lieu of traditional currency on similar speculation. It is the same as if you wanted to pay for a used car with a Rolex instead of cash - some companies may take it in trade, but many will not. It's harder to pay for a building lease with a Rolex than funds in your bank account, especially when at any moment a bit of digital trickery (like a pickpocket) can make that Rolex disappear off your wrist.
Everywhere accepts cash/credit. There is a reason for that.
Again, what is the purpose of cryptocurrency, other than price speculation (or for use as tender for illegal activity)? It doesn't fulfill any active need (like cars do vs. horses). Cash and credit already cover all legitimate transaction needs. ATM and credit cards are already facilitating electronic transactions about as easy as you can make them and still have them be pretty secure. While "hackable", they are also largely protected against fraudulent activity (while cryptocurrency is not, as has been well documented).
And I'm not saying it won't gain market share in the future, or become more widely used. I'm trying to figure out why it's used at all, other than just price speculation on a digital trinket.
Speculation is certainly some of it, and maybe a big portion of it. But with the exception of things that were made as a joke (e.g. Dogecoin) I think the speculation is less on something that is a trinket (most NFTs would probably qualify as trinkets) but rather speculation on something believed to be used as a more prevalent currency in the future.
Obviously some, and perhaps most, of the contemporary currency aspects of cryptocurrency revolve around the untraceability of the transactions. Some people want untraceable transactions for legitimate reasons, many want them to engage in illegal transactions. "Legitimate" untraceability is one of the factors that will likely drive any move towards more prevalent crypto. (But of course, as crypto becomes more common, people will use it just because it gets used - it will gain its own momentum.)
Obviously some, and perhaps most, of the contemporary currency aspects of cryptocurrency revolve around the untraceability of the transactions. Some people want untraceable transactions for legitimate reasons, many want them to engage in illegal transactions. "Legitimate" untraceability is one of the factors that will likely drive any move towards more prevalent crypto. (But of course, as crypto becomes more common, people will use it just because it gets used - it will gain its own momentum.)