Name another form of payment in existence or that has ever been in existence that allows individuals to transfer digital assets on a P2P network while solving the problem of double spending. The "technical miracle" that is BTC (and similar) has huge economic ramifications as it gives users absolute control over the transaction process without the need for a third-party to hold the funds and transact on their behalf. Decentralisation is a reality. But not all cryptos are decentralised. So what is the point you're trying to make? DEXs are protocols.
Nice red herring. The innovation in DLT to which I have been referring is obvious, or at least it should be. Though clearly it isn't to some here. Now if you are referring to the FTX saga rather than DLT then the following should be a timely reminder to all: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurr...r_is_worthless_you_cant_do_your_own_research/ Having a dig at "innovation" is completely misleading.
As shiney has mentioned, smart contracts (i.e. Ethereum and others) are as much of a breakthrough innovation as the concept of digital money (which may be too far ahead of its time for now). Do you also believe this function lacks value?
You misunderstood what i meant. I was referring to the fan boys that would consider anything crypto related as "innovation" in order to justify pumping it. Was in reference to the audio clip i linked where people would justify Sam Bankman's shenanigans as innovation. Elizabeth Homes would be another example. Many people hid her scams under innovation.
Definition: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/third-party.asp A computer, electricity and the internet are neither individuals nor entities, therefore they are not third-parties.
I think that what he's saying is that if SHTF, it's gone. What if the power grid is taken out? Energex is a third party, let's not get into semantics. Gold and guns can't just disappear like that. They pretty much need to be pried from cold, dead hands It's a valid argument.
We weren't discussing a SHTF scenario. We were discussing the economic benefit that BTC and similar bring. It may be a valid argument if you wanted to discuss transacting with digital assets after a natural disaster, but we're not, we're talking about third parties which are other humans or entities such as companies involved in the transaction. Satoshi's invention was designed to be a P2P network for sending digital assets without the requirement for a third party. So I'll stick to semantics because that's where truth and meaning are. This shit drawing below is a pictorial representation of what all of that means. It's a pretty fkn basic concept.
Potatoe, Poteito Fugahzi, fugeizi It's waazy it's a woozy. I don't need a childish, condescending drawing, and it's rubbish because it's missing a fucken tablet, phone or PC. With PMs you meet a guy in a public place, you give them PMs, and they give you fiat, just like in the second picture.
That is correct. PMs and fiat (hard currency) are not digital assets though and the discussion was around exchanging digital assets.
Fact is it doesn't matter what you say, people want to believe they will be the hero in a mad-max future where terror guns and gold (and freeze dried + catfood) reign over all. Good luck
I don't believe it lacks value. But a currency needs to be a store of value as well. Crypto is too volatile, hysterical even.
I guess you are referring to my post. There's money to be made investing in a types of crap, but at the end of the day, the profits must go into tangiable/hard assets.
Exactly. There's a long way to go as yet before a crypto project can act as a viable alternative to government issued fiat. In the meantime there's many other crypto projects that aren't trying to model themselves after Satoshi's vision and where volatility is less of a concern.
P2P possibility is a great invention and economically-financially very stimulating for people to use. But even these crypto transactions can be tracked (seen several videos on this subject, can't recall exactly now), so these are not necessarily anonymous. P2P yes, anonymous to some degree. Technically, cryptos are great inventions, but there is no serious economic force or reason behind them: they are being outlawed (that means the market and their reach is reduced), they are a poor means to store value (not good at all), there is no economy or economic system behind them (unlike fiat: at least the petrodollar system is behind the dollar... at least states have adopted their own fiat currency...). Crypto still behaves like "black market" poker chip (token) money. Like coupons, shares or something. This is not money, not crypto currency. The arguments that all "experts" come up with are technical, IT arguments. Which most of us don't understand. IT people understand crypto, economists don't. That says a lot. Bitcoin is the most decentralized, because it is not being run as a business (my naive opinion). Cardano, Ethereum, Solana, Ravencoin, Ripple are businesses. They can be shut down at any time as businesses. But the coins will continue to circulate. I don't know much about cryptos, but to me the simple fact that someone can "meddle" with the system and "change the rules" on the go like with Solana, Ethereum and Cardano. Makes me feel a bit uneasy. Someone can get in and "screw up the system".
I've come across his stuff before. It's a faulty model therefore he reaches a false conclusion. I won't draw pictures. 1. It's all the real economy, they're not separate. The real economy is simply the non-government sector. 2. Money flows from government and the banking sector into the real economy. 3. It is spent on consumer goods/services, taxation and assets. 4. The price level of these goods/services and assets vary in relation to supply and demand. 5. Surges (and declines) in the value of assets are created when sellers and buyers meet agreed price levels that are either higher or lower than previously realised. 6. As market caps rise no new money is created until capital gains are materialised 7. Capital gains are funded from savings, earnings or loans, all of which exist outside of the market for the asset. Yes it's rudimentary. Menger, Bohm-Bawerk et al proved that wrong when they developed the subjective theory of value. The value of a product is not determined by its components but by the needs and purchasing power of the consumer. If the needs and purchasing power of consumers in the housing market increase there is a subsequent increase in the value of houses. It's not because the housing market created more money. So it should read: the total exit value of all crypto tokens as measured in fiat is capped by the purchasing power of the consumer.
Ths internet companies and electric companies are in fact entities and they dont run themselves. There are humans behind it all and its all third party risk.
Yes that's right @JohnnyBravo300, before I send my BTC to @Andrew Crawford I give it to the people at the internet and electric companies who then pass it on to him. Now where is my sarcasm emoji? Here it is!
Third-party risk is any risk brought on to an organization by external parties in its ecosystem or supply chain. Such parties may include vendors, suppliers, partners, contractors, or service providers, who have access to internal company or customer data, systems, processes, or other privileged information. Wake up man. Cryptos whether centralized or not are all third party risk. Its an easy concept to understand.
