I guess using "hack" as a catchall for "bitcoin made an oopsie" was not a great idea given how different the scenarios are.
You guys know he's joking, right? The immutability of the blockchain is one of its most powerful features and also its biggest weakness. The insurance and consumer protection is the reason people choose to put their money in 0% interest bank accounts instead of keeping money under their mattress and the same applies here. If the bank gets robbed or has internal fraud or goes bankrupt or whatever else - your money is protected. Unless people's crypto can be backstopped in the case of fraud, it won't be where most people put their life savings. And the only entities actually capable of the type of backstop needed would be governments, which aren't going to backstop something they have no control over.
Lol. I should've guessed, but with the other half-assed posts he's made in this thread acting like he knows something, I figured I was just ignorant. lol.
If I break something like SHA-256, I'm not going after bitcoin. There are probably a lot more lucrative things I can do for myself that I could do a lot more clandestinely than probably tanking the value of bitcoin. But it's not like cryptographic hashes/algorithms haven't failed in the past. That being said, I was referring more to a wallet or a Crypto.com being hacked and resulting in losses for me.
You're at the mercy of crypto.com and attorney generals if you don't get some kind of swift payment. They'll likely give it back for that case, but all bets are off if you happened to get your email hacked or wallet pilfered. Scams and schemes are starting to outnumber opportunities,,, Let's say you grow antsy want want btc to work for you. It's really hard to trust a DAO or Liquidity Pool with your precious coins, but those are likely vectors in getting hacked without the blockchain itself getting hacked. Even legit centralized brokers have risks of overlending and over extending the rights of each coin (rehypthothecation) in their pool. But that's less a hack and more a feature... Greed and innovation seem to go hand in hand.
You've been around at least since 2017. You know that was a joke. Its a play on the markets believing the Fed has any real control on the markets.
we are still early, but eventually multi-signature will become the standard and easy for everyone to set up if 2 of 3 keys are required to transfer funds, and the keys are in 3 locations, that is extremely secure (or you could do a 2 of 2 setup, or 3 of 5, or any combination) and even a single signature hardware wallet provides a great level of security for most people Crypto.com doesn't hold your bitcoin, it's just an IOU. Which may be fine, but comes with a different risk profile.
I would like to file an appeal with the bitcoin court that I actually bought 100 BTC when it was 3K back in March 2020.
Realistically, if Crypto/Bitcoin were to take off and become mainstream (i.e., billions of users with billions/trillions of transactions a day), it would be the security of a platform like Crypto.com that would likely be the weakest link in the chain (and thus, the most important). I think this is touched on in that video, but I feel like most of the types of attacks that would be protected against by these blockchain-related security technologies aren't really attacks that are all that common (and honestly, they're probably pretty easy to deal with in most systems...probably easier without blockchain). Most "hacks" are just social engineering attacks, and I'm not sure there's really anything being done here to protect against that. I'm not sure any technology can really prevent it entirely. With this much "human factor" involved, you will have "hacks" (not to mention accidents/mistakes). You cannot technology your way out of it, and so you better have some good ways to address it (and preferably not just "Oh well, sucks for you!"). I don't think it is that complicated to come up with solutions to solve some of these issues, but then you start getting a system that isn't too different than what we already have IMO.
Depends on the backstop I guess. If the bank is robbed, I imagine it's some combo of their individual insurance + FDIC. If your account is hacked, it's some combo of their insurance and the resources of the FBI/etc to chase down the bad guy (maybe FDIC as well here?). if the bank goes under, it would be the FDIC/etc, which I believe is funded by banks but backstopped by the government if needed. So worst case, the govt borrows money in the markets, so it would be funded short-term by the entire world buying treasury bonds and long-term by US citizens (paying back the debt). And asset sales from the bank in liquidation, I assume, though I don't know how the whole process works.
Let's say it becomes mainstream enough to be a currency for the entire global population. What type of energy would be needed to support that infrastructure? How big of a nation in energy output would it take that would do nothing to power people's homes or other businesses for that matter? It's already hogging the power of a small nation for again the benefit of a few hundred thousand gambling addicts. Throw 7.7 billion and growing and explain to me how that would sustainable. You would need to actually create an efficient ledger system would you not to compensate for the increased workload, thus wouldn't you need to eliminate the proof of work redundancies built into crypo to operate? Would it not then operate any differently from any other ledger system then should it become mainstream since it would likely be unsustainable 24/7 365 for a growing global population? Also wouldn't a global currency need to actually be spent for say perishable goods like food? Doesn't the current market as it's structured disincentivize using your bitcoin for perishable purchases and instead the general advice is to horde your investment in the hope that your investment will go big right? How does that system as it's structured help with the day to day transactional needs of the whole human population? Some posters here have touted more or less the following expression: "Well, bitcoin is still in it's infancy. They're still hashing all that out." What faith should I have that they actually will? What steps at present are being taken to again address better consumer protection for new investors?
I don't feel qualified to hazard a guess. However, bitcoin mining is not indefinite and will end eventually (current estimates are 2140), so that power use will stop. I'm sure there is information/resources out there that talk about the energy required for the ledger/transactions in a post-fiat world. Like @Dr of Dunk said, there's 3 key problems to address, transparency, security, and scalability. It's hard to imagine that there aren't or won't be solutions to problem #3 being developed as things progress. I'm trying to have this discussion in good faith, but when you throw out inflammatory, loaded stuff like "hogging the power of a small nation" and "for the benefit of a few gambling addicts" it makes @Space Ghost 's statement about you having your mind made up appear accurate. You seem to have brought your own list of pre-determinations to the discussion and aren't really interested in being persuaded. If you don't think the long-term goal of the project (moving off fiat to a world-wide non-inflationary currency/financial system that is secure and efficient) is worth the costs it is incurring in the short-term, that's fine, you're allowed to feel about it however you want, but there's no reason to continue the discussion otherwise. You basically answered your own question. Bitcoin is a speculative asset with minimal practical use at the moment. Blaming bitcoin for the fact you can't go to most stores and spend it right now is kind of like blaming the car for not having any roads to drive on in 1900. Also, criticizing bitcoin for being a speculative asset is kind of silly. Almost every innovation or novelty carries with it risk and unknowns which will cause its perceived value to fluctuate wildly early on, that's the way the life works, not just BTC. Blaming bitcoin for the gamblers and scammers who flocked to the crypto space is like blaming the automobile for bad drivers. In a new landscape with limited public understanding and little to no regulation this is inevitable. What "system" are you even talking about? The present circumstance? There is no "system" that is set up to specifically incentivize speculation and de-emphasize practical application. Quite the contrary, the theorized practical application is actually what is fueling the speculative behavior. As far as helping regular people, currency instability is a big problem in the developing world and a cause of untold amounts of human suffering. Bitcoin, applied at scale, solves for that. Further, being able to complete transactions faster and more securely across the planet is a big win for greasing the wheels of commerce and lifting folks out of poverty. There's a lot of time and resources spent and lost moving money around the world, and part of the goal of bitcoin is to improve that process (as sluggish as things may be at present). Like I said, no risk means no reward. You clearly have no tolerance for risk at the moment, so stay away. Also, as I said earlier, consumer protections and the QOL we enjoy in our present finance system will be ported to BTC once things reach a critical mass of adoption. So, my advice is for you to sit things out until your threshold is met.
Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future, but BTC has made pretty enormous strides in just, what, a little north of 10 years? I'm ambivalent about the timeline, all I know is things are pointed in the right direction. I have no regrets about buying in and only wish I had done so sooner and had never paper-handed my way out after the first big crash I saw.
If there is a demand for custodians that insure bitcoin deposits, that can be fulfilled. Again, it's simply a different risk profile (trusting a custodian vs. self-custody). And people can distribute their wealth across different custodial options, to balance risk/convenience.
Wasn't the purpose of NFTs to create a practical use with bitcoin as a currency as it serves no functional real world purposes and ideas like trying to use it to track medical records, and all transactions like for say union gathering would be a bad thing but is built in by default and unavoidable? If used as a global currency what protections could be implemented in the future to protect say union gatherers? The reply back will be it's being hashed, but again I have to ask, is it, or is that wishful thinking? Wouldn't web3 be multiple step backwards from our existing web for instance? It seems like investors are trying to come up with a practical use with bitcoin but thus far the ideas proposed seemed to be worse versions of already existing systems, while being told that bitcoin is in it's infancy and better systems will come in the future; Just you wait and see. You mention other currencies being unstable but isn't bitcoin extremely volatile as well? Wouldn't bitcoin actually need to be a stable currency in it's own right in order to confidently tout itself as the better option of other already existing currencies? Reading Commodore's posts, it's like the volatility of the market when it drops 50% or goes up enormously would be a bad thing in a real world application if it were affecting 7 billion people. But in a market isolated by a few hundred thousand investors, these ebbs and flows are a good thing. I don't believe that would be a good thing in the real world though.
I don't know. Maybe for/by some? Like I said, the current iterations of NFT tech are largely garbage and a total scam. NFT has some merit and practical applications once we leave this stupid beanie baby phase (someone else said Tulip market, which is a perfect analogy). Criticism of NFT is not criticism of BTC, so, a little off topic. I don't know. If it's a bad use of the technology then don't use it for that application. I don't really know what this has to do with BTC the currency/financial system. Yes. I've said over, and over, and over in this thread that BTC is currently a speculative asset and it is perfectly reasonable that its value would fluctuate so wildly given the circumstance. How long will it take for that to stabilize? Impossible to tell. But what is entirely understood is that its value would be extremely stable at scale. If you don't see anything wrong with fiat, then there's probably not much I can do to persuade you otherwise. You either approve of the way governments handle their currency or you don't.
So in 118 years long after I'm dead, assuming bitcoin will still be around that long, the volatility of bitcoin at present will be a stable and secure currency from which the entire human population will benefit from? In 2140, humanity will be changed forever. For the better. Is that correct?
