Yeah. +1 here. I'm a total know-nothing amateur in this space. I grasp the big picture, but the inner workings and bleeding edges are beyond me. So I approach most things at face value, which is dangerous to do on a BBS when the snark levels are high.
1. This goes back to the trilemma and the approaches used to get around it and also where you stand in the crypto landscape. There are anarchists that don't want goverment or "big brother" anywhere near them. There are people who just want to replace paper/coin fiat with something digital and possibly more convenient, there are some that couldn't care less if blockchain is used as a currency but are enamored with possible other uses, etc. For some decentralization and security are paramount in these scenarios, so would be against any type of centralization. This would be at a disadvantage for others that want to "evolve" blockchain into other uses. 2. I don't know, but in the past 5-10 years in software development, in general, I've noticed a trend towards more of the "just get some crap out there and we'll fix it later" approach to software development. It's not just a bitcoin/crypto thing. It's like -- build up some hype and throw some morsels out as you go and hope you gain traction. Then we'll fix it later or as we go along. What ends up happening is a lot of patchwork fixes, inefficiencies, security flaws and lost customer loyalty, but hey... it could just work down the road, you know? I've always thought that the "Minimum viable product" approach to development was some annoying manifestation of this. Maybe it was just at the places I worked, but in the last decade or so, I always thought the end user or customer was getting screwed over by software makers because it was always about new tools, new tech, new this, neato that, and nobody really cared that the real reason to make software was the end user. The ultimate end of this all this is that "it may not be perfect, but wth... we got something up and running, it works... kinda... but most importantly, we made profit!". I tend to keep an open mind about most of these things, but in most any of these crypto cases, whether it's Ethereum, Solana, Bitcoin, etc. there are a bunch of screwy leap-of-faiths you're being asked to take "for the future" because a lot of it hasn't happened and ain't happenin' soon. I first learned about bitcoin back around 2011-2012 or so, I think from anandtech.com and still regret dismissing it as "stupid" because "right... you're just going to run a program and create free money on your pc... lolmoronz". I watched an episode of TWiT (This Week in Tech) that Leo Laporte has hosted forever where Steve Gibson of grc.com/Gibson Research was a guest. I used to use his tools on hard drives and thought the guy was a genius - far smarter than me, for sure. But even after listening to his show back then I still wouldn't accept the possibilities. What's most disappointing is that in that time - around a decade or so - we still haven't advanced much in real-world usage or contributions. We have niche projects here and there along with wooptie doo... NFTs. And in the midst, we have a lot of big rich guys making money and a bunch of broke people probably getting broker with a handful of people in between maybe getting a bit wealthier. That pisses me off more than anything.
True, though I'd argue that if you're not in that libertarian/anarchist group that prefers decentralization, I'm not sure what blockchain gets you. Blockchain seems like a system useful for cases where you have a trustless environment, which makes sense in a decentralized system (even if that environment is one I wouldn't personally like). If you have a centralized system which has built-in trust (via the "trusted" entities involved), I don't see the point of blockchain. I'm totally fine with digital currency (I practically function that way as it is), and I don't think blockchain itself would really be all that important in such a system. I'm definitely happy to explore the thinking of those that still see potential in blockchain (especially outside those libertarian/anarchist groups), but I'll be honest and say I just don't see it. True, and I 100% agree about how this goes beyond BTC/crypto. The whole "Move Fast and Break Things" approach which definitely hasn't had any unforeseen consequences, right Zuck? I don't remember if it was from the Dan Olson video or another one, but it reminds me about how those in the tech world think they can fix all problems with the same approach that made them successful in software. "If I managed to created a successful social media platform/electric car company/online payment system/etc, then surely I can solve the macro and micro economic problems plaguing an entire nation...and perhaps the entire world!" What works in one industry doesn't always work in another industry. At least with other applications, it isn't the end of the world when things break, so I can forgive that type of thinking in certain cases. When we're talking about people's savings or changing a country's entire economical system, then yeah, I'd like things to be better thought out. I'm not even saying we need the actual implementations worked out for some of the criticisms I mentioned. But I'd at least like to see the concepts thought out, potential problems, potential solutions to those problems, etc. I'd like to stay open-minded too, especially since this does involve technology. Give me some discussion about ray tracing, self driving cars, machine learning, battery tech, fusion energy, VR, etc., and I'll eat it up. Hell, I read an article a while back about new techniques to build concrete (reducing costs and reducing CO2 released), and I've kept that in my brain as something really cool that I'd like to be more widely adopted (why can't we have more Concrete2.0 shills?). I've tried to be equally excited about blockchain and related tech, but it is just really difficult to find something that excites me about it. edit: Ironically, I typically defend Star Citizen from a lot of criticisms, and that's probably the biggest scam outside of crypto. (I actually have huge problems with how they do business these days, though I do think the game and tech they're building is pretty cool)
Probably a combination of financial regulation and concern about energy usage in this rising energy environment.
I will leave the snark at the door and hope to impart some thoughts to you. It is nice to see discussions about the protocol instead of a hyper focus on the asset price. Ethereum is a model that is proactively being built. Its core structure has been under development for years. Its a complete mess. It spends more time trying to keep its wealth stored than finding solutions. The bitcoin protocol was released day 1, fully functional. 'Upgrades' have been implemented through its decentralized voting structure. The truth most Bitcoiners will deny is that w/out these upgrades, bitcoin would die. The reality is the bitcoin protocol is very very secure and sound. Its debated if the bitcoin protocol needs any future updates. You are correct, not all solutions fit all. But the bitcoin protocol is not about solving every problem in the same way, just as TCP/IP does not solve every problem in the same way. For example, if you can invest 15 million into a mining farm to get cheap and eco friendly energy from geothermal energy on a place otherwise inhospitable, and in turn, build a hundred million dollar industry around this farm, this is a massive net gain from the direct result of bitcoin. If you can create a layer 2 peer to peer payment network in an otherwise low market cap economy that allows safe, reliable and quick payments that result in a 100% increase of GDP, that is yet another avenue. Once you can mentally separate the protocol from the asset, you can use your imagination on what you can design with time locked Schnorr signatures. If you dont find monetary systems and economic systems interesting, bitcoin probably wont interest you much.
To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly this has to do with what I said, though I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying (Ethereum does seem like more of a mess, and while I haven't memorized everything about the Bitcoin design/protocol, it seems fine for what it's intended to do). If this was about the "Move fast and Break Things" approach DoD and I discussed, I would argue this is an example of software engineers thinking they know better than everyone else. Sure, the design is great for what its meant to do, but as a complete system, there are huge flaws. A good software engineer is aware of that, and they should attempt to address the whole system with their solution, even if that means combining non-technical solutions with their technical solution. BTC/Crypto folks don't seem super interested in doing that. They love their crypto protocols and how perfect they are, and any issues with the system are either not real issues or stuff someone else can figure out later. At least, that's the impression I get. And sometimes you have a great technical solution that can't actually offer much practical value, especially by itself. That happens, and it sucks because it has some great properties you want to promote, but that's how things go sometimes. At this point, I'm just looking for clear real-world examples where it actually provided something of value (note: it provided, not it *could* provide). There's been enough time and money pumped into this that I'm passed that stage of using my imagination. Enough hypothetical examples of how this magical protocol can bring people out of poverty, take away power from those wealthy companies/people at the top, speed up the adoption of green energy (and end the use of fossil fuels), help the everyday artist, etc. *Edit*: And to be clear, I know of some isolated cases where it did provide a benefit. I think arguments could be made about whether these benefits would be anything but temporary, though I will also accept that it did provide some good value in those cases. I used to promote the amazing potential of the Cell microprocessor and all the cools things it *could* do. In reality, it was just a meh gaming processor with some neat niche applications, and it ultimately was a huge waste of time, effort, and resources for what it actually did. If you want a currency (or store of value) that is not under direct control of government and is highly decentralized, cool. If you want to get involved in a highly speculative marketplace (borderlining on a ponzi scheme, though not unique to crypto), great. This stuff can probably do that. But let's not pretend like it can do things it actually can't. I do find those things interesting, but Bitcoin doesn't interest me. Or rather, it is not something I'd want to personally accept and promote. I am interested the topic of course, or else I wouldn't be here. I also have to say this sounds like a variation of the "you just don't understand" defense many in the crypto world will use whenever their ideas are criticized. As I tried to point out earlier in the thread, IMO you guys need to do better if you *actually* want this stuff to take off. If Bitcoin isn't of interest to people not interested in monetary and economic systems, then that probably wipes out 90% of the global population, no? I pulled that number from my ass, but the point should be clear. Again, I'm a 30-something year old dude who is tech savvy, actually understands the vast majority of the tech involved in all of this, has enough money to invest, sends money overseas, loves a good meme, is interested in local/global politics and economics, etc. And I don't get it. So who will? Now I will say I'm not really bothered with my own personal long-term wealth (to a certain point), fiat currencies, large governments, etc. I could definitely see why those in the groups DoD and I discussed earlier would think highly of something like BTC. It would be something I wouldn't personally agree with, but I could understand the appeal. This just then becomes a debate about world views, which is fine, but I wish that was more transparent in these discussions. Trying to making BTC/crypto into something else is just misleading IMO.
Thanks for the thoughts and input. From my point of view, I can see the disconnect between you and I. From my perspective, I see this as a budding technology. I am looking at it from a long time frame while you view it from a short time frame, specifically mentioning you do not see the perceived value over the 13 year history of Bitcoin. From my perspective, I view Bitcoin similar to the TCP/IP stack which took decades to get to the point of the modern internet. The work in the 60's on what we call the internet has significant impact on industry despite it becoming mainstream post 2000. You are correct. Vast majority of people have zero interest in economics (which is also why too many people are struggling with the basic fundamentals of accounting, specifically accruing mountains of debt). Most people dont care about Bitcoin nor will they ever.... outside of the asset value. I strongly encourage people not to trade bitcoin, not because its volatile, but because it tends to be very unpredictable. Its less of a 'you dont understand' and more of the potential. I certainly can't predict the outcome (and its highly debated with Bitcoiners) but I am impressed with some of the solutions bitcoin has provided, even if they are small wins. Maybe Bitcoin is just not for you.
Yes and no. I don't see the perceived value of it in the 13 years (or something like ~40 years for the core principles) of this stuff being proposed and explained. I also don't see the potential of it long-term either. I feel like TCP/IP is not a good comparison as, even though it took decades before it went mainstream, there were some pretty great application developed fairly early in its life IIRC. Now I wasn't alive back then, so I can't say for sure, but I think the concept and initial applications of something like email would be pretty easy to understand and appreciate. I don't see something like that with any of this crypto stuff. Similarly, there are other things with long-term potential and little short-term applications that I can totally understand and appreciate. CRISPR doesn't really have any direct usages right now that would really affect me, but the long-term potential of the tech is something that really excites me. I don't have to have geneticists tell me that I don't understand or maybe its not for me. They were able to efficiently explain why this tech is so much of a game-changer, and I'm 100% on board with it. That doesn't exist in the crypto sphere. I'd argue because there's actually no real long-term potential benefits. I'd maybe be more forgiving of crypto if there literally weren't so many negative consequences to all this crypto stuff. If this was just an idea in some dude's head, or something that was kicked around during some conferences at universities, I wouldn't be so bothered. More power to all the folks trying to work out potential applications of this stuff with only their own time and resources at stake. But that's not what's happening. Crypto is having a fairly major effect on our society, largely negative IMO. To pay that price just on some potential that may or may not happen is not something I'd argue is a good thing (especially when I don't think that potential actually exists). It doesn't help that, because of its very nature, there is money in promoting the idea that crypto might be able to do something amazing (even if that isn't actually true). Hence all the scams and BS we see with crypto (we see it in other areas, but seems quite a bit worse with crypto IMO). I think we largely agree here, and to be fair, I don't think you generally push some of the same ideas I see elsewhere about how this stuff could go mainstream.
I think you're highlighting my point. Emails were not widely popular early on and even in the 90's it met a lot of resistance as it became mainstream. It is suggested the advent of Digital Banking in the 60's that contributed to the birth of the Eurodollar Market. 14 Trillion value. Its taken well over 50 years to build the Fintech market. There is not a Robinhood office to visit. 100% digital. If all someone sees with bitcoin is 'big number always go up', they are missing the entire network aspect. The reality is those people in the late '70 who had the best vision of the future were likely seen as weirdos dreaming of a fantasy. You bring up a great example. I know very little about genetics and biology. Its very fascinating. My very rudimentary knowledge of the subject only serves of reassurance not to invest in something like CRISPR.
Emails weren't popular early on because hardly anybody had an Internet connection or a computer. The only place you could send and receive them were at universities through something like a VAX terminal. Once people started getting pc's at their homes in the 80's, emails started taking off if they could use a BBS (via networks like Fidonet). Then in the early 90's when "the common man" began getting Internet accounts and pc's, "real" email started taking off via Prodigy, AOL, etc. The thought of "instant" communication (if people had access and could be shown how to send and receive it) was amazing to most people at the time. But like I said access to a PC/Internet connection was the prohibiting factor in the 70's, 80's, most of the early 90's for many. In the case of email and chat, there was always a use that was almost instantly recognizable : leisurely communication without days of waiting for snail-mail or long distance fees. As for no Robinhood office to visit, that's not something new. Most people never visit their Fidelity or TD Ameritrade offices, either. Or at least haven't for a few years, unless they want a face-to-face session with an advisor or something. Robinhood's claim to fame was the commissions-free trades (which also existed before Robinhood) and the trading app which allowed people to just up and trade. This allowed younger people with smaller accounts to just up and trade without worrying about paying a $10+ fee for a $100-$1000 trade. Some say this led to a gamification of trading, but that's another subject. The other reason for no Robinhood office may be that all they really do is execute trades like a pure broker (I think). There is no investment advice, banking services, financial planning, etc. like a TD Ameritrade or Fidelity have. I used to work at for broker that only did trade executions. We didn't have an office either, since all we did was execute trades. If DeFi ever really takes off, minus the scams, I think that'll definitely be a huge financial evolution, but I'm too scared to touch most of that crap nowadays. I'd rather grow my money slowly/consistently than jump on the next "grow your money at 5000000% yearly as we scam all the late arrivers -- just make sure you get out before we do!" scheme.
DoD responded to this much better than I could. I just don't see the comparison. At best, I could see the argument that if enough of the world was modernized to support digital transactions, then something like this could provide a bigger impact. But I would say the benefit there is in the modernization effort itself and not crypto/BTC. Again, I generally support the idea of a digital currency with fast transaction times and minimal fees. But that can be done without all of this stuff. I spoke to my wife last night, and I didn't even realize there's a new-ish option (through our preferred agent) to send money to the Philippines, straight to a digital wallet on someone's phone, which is also easily accepted by many retailers. All with minimal fees. If this was something like fusion power, which would be a massive game changer but also incredibly difficult to actually get right with current technology (maybe even impossible with any technology?), I could understand. The concepts of nuclear power were all proposed long ago (arguably as far back as 100 years ago, if not further), and I'm guessing we're still another 20+ years away from nuclear fusion power actually making a significant difference in our world (and I'm super optimistic I think...it might never happen). But I could be on board with something like that because of the unquestioned benefits it could bring. Crypto seems more like cold fusion in comparison. I joke, but there do seem to be a lot of similarities between Crypto and some other scammy concepts, like alternative medicine, ESP, ghosts hunting, anti-GMO rhetoric, etc. "If you don't see the benefits, you just don't understand it." To be fair, I'm not suggesting anyone invest in it either, if it was even possible to do so directly. I'm guessing you can really only invest in companies researching CRISPR related stuff, though I'd assume most of the important programs are getting funding via grants and whatnot. I don't usually invest money in these kind of things anyway, even if I am excited by them. My personal investments tend to be more boring, relatively predictable stuff (at least as predictable as investments can be). Sometimes you can be excited by a thing that won't actually net you any monetary benefit.
BTW, many of you probably already know of this, but I really like referencing web3isgoinggreat when it comes to a lot of Crypto stuff: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ Also has references to Dan's NFT video posted earlier and Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain (the book and blog), which I also recommend. The Twitter profiles for these folks might also be worth following if you're into that kind of thing.
I noticed I had 10k cash sitting in an account. Apparently some dividends weren't set to reinvest after a custodian change and i never noticed. Dumped it into Bitcoin, let's see if I can cash in on the dip.
I don't think its the bottom. Btc is tightly coupled with stocks rn. But you'll have folks here banking on recovery, so what do I know...
Its possible it could sink more, but trying to time it to rock bottom is a fool's errand imho. I made this mistake in early 2020 when the pandemic hit. I was like okay, this is going to absolutely tank the market and i told myself I would buy in huge if the market dropped 25%, which it did quickly. I think the Dow was at 22.5k at the time. I hesitated and thought there's more droppage here and said okay if the Dow hits 15k I will gobble up as much as I can. It only got down to about 19k and then quickly recovered. I probably missed out on about 300k by hesitating. If I am going to play the boom and bust cycles, I need to just develop some rules and just stick with them, none of this feelings **** on each transaction.
