Crypto craziness craps out – and about time too With the quick one-two punch of FTX and Binance, crypto is finally losing its luster as the next revolution in money. I was recently in Manhattan at the Linux Foundation and Fintech Open Source Foundation's (FINOS) Open Source in Finance Forum New York (OSFF) 2022 event. There the topic of the day was fintech. It was all about …
I have to say that I've been waiting for this to happen for a long while.
I'm sure there will still be pundits hyping Whatevercoin and blockchain for the foreseeable future ; it's hard to cook the goose when the feathers are so soft - or something like that.
But the fact is that everyone with half a brain can now sit back and run down the checklist of everyone they know who's been singing blockchain praises and wait for the "oh shit" face.
Get the popcorn and start taking notes. This is a time-limited event and you don't want to miss out !
Icon for my "told you so" face -->
Until crypto value starts going up, then the mad crush to buy hardware will begin all over again.
Delusion of the masses is driven by 'get rich quick' schemes. Add your fave influencers backing it up and you have a ticking time bomb. People will get rich, but it won't be you or I. The lawyers on both sides will make a killing.
"as well as the sellers of mining kit."
I found it educational when Julian Illet bought a second hand mining rig and did some mining with some second hand solar panels and the ROI could be rounded off to zero. Check out Julian's YT channel. I shudder to think of the loss for brand new gear all around. You are much better off using the solar panels to heat water or charge batteries than mine crypto.
With tulip bulbs you could at least have a nice flower. A really very expensive flower, but it had at least the potential to grow in the real world and show you a nice flower if you were just a little bit lucky.
With crypto you start with nothing, throw lots of money at it and still end up with absolutely nothing.
I'd rather pay too much for the tulip. I'd still have a flower.
"At least with famous financial scams of the past, such as the Dutch Tulip Bubble and the 2008 real estate crash, you had tulip bulbs and houses for your money"
During the South Sea bubble boom (1720), stock was purchased to the value of £2000 within five hours against the prospectus "a company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is"1. (Equivalent to about £40M today)
The proposer " was philosopher enough to be contented with his venture, and set off same evening for the Continent. He was never heard of again."2.
1 & 2: Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841. Reprinted 1995, Wordsworth Editions, ISBN 1-85326-349-4
"and the 2008 real estate crash"
I know people that were caught up in that one. I tried to show them the risk using some simple arithmetic, but you know how "math" can scare people. I just wish I had some cash lying around to make some purchases in the aftermath.
The intrinsic value of money is unimportant and therefore the same holds for cryptocurrencies.
A paper $100 bill probably costs $0.50 to in materials and labor to make. It's useless for anything but its purpose. Gold can be made into useful products (jewelry, plating for connectors etc.) but it's value is much higher than it's intrinsic value.
I apologize in advance for using you as an example, but you have mentioned just that single facet and discounting the others that are far more important (such as the backing of tender rendered legal by government) - and unfortunately, that has allowed such fads to proliferate. Again, apologies for calling out your example
"...backing of tender rendered legal by government"
The value of that is dependent upon things like the "moron risk premium", as the Citizens of the UK were to discover recently
https://www.ft.com/content/08908266-cc47-4cda-b8d4-97a8ac433a6d
The poster argues that crypto has no intrinsic value and shouldn't therefore be used as currency. I'm merely responding to that claim.
Backing by the government is contradictory to the paradigm of cryptocurrency since it was expressly created to be independent from government.
Indeed, "backed by a shady cabal of Charles Ponzi lookalikes" would be a better description - except at least Charles Ponzi was identifiable.
To be fair, there are identifiable names behind some of the crypto exchanges - the Ponzi resellers. But Bitcoin itself? All you'll find is ghosts.
Well, not quite. Again that’s part of the myth. For example, we don’t know the name on Satoshi’s passport, but there again it’s not important. The only time it becomes important is if some person were to come forward to spend any from that wallet - whether or not it was the original person who put them in. Which immediately becomes known. And then governments can (and will) move in to confiscate the key from that individual should there be criminal activity.
We know exactly who Satoshi is. It’s defined as the person, if any, who now possesses the key to that wallet. There is nothing else of interest about them.
Nor is key transferral a means to transfer large amounts of money outside the law. In Satoshi’s case, the initial purchase value was low, so there is no need to investigate for money-laundering. But if Donald Trump suddenly pops up with a sale of $2bn worth of Bitcoin, last transferred to that wallet at a date stamp when it was worth $1bn? Then first of all, he needs to pay tax on the $1bn capital gain. And secondly, he needs to explain where the first $1bn came from, or the whole lot gets confiscated as the proceeds of crime.
In other words, it was created by folks that were afraid "the government was out to get them", and didn't anticipate that also meaning "the government won't save them".
I seem to remember a few smart contract exploits that drained funds. And since the way they set it up was they were legal contracts... those independent-minded souls had no actual valid recourse.
No, it’s worse than that:
If the government *is* out to get you….being in crypto wouldn’t be of any use at all.
Hands up who thinks that SBF is going to be allowed to get away with “oh no, you can’t confiscate my two billion in crypto assets, I won’t tell you my key so then you’ll just have to let me keep them”? No? You think maybe the government *will* confiscate the proceeds of fraud? Watch how quick Bitcoin value falls when the penny drops with the evangelists that it is confiscatable by government no different from dollars, cars, or Yeezy trainers.
That paper bill is issued by a state. It is an exchange token propped up by the combined economic output of, for some states, hundreds of millions of people.
Gold is not just a useful material, it's a naturally scarce one. Locating, mining and using it, requires investment and labour. All that adds to its intrinsic value.
The scarcity of crypto however, is entirely artificial, and it is not backed by anything. The only "value" is what others are willing to pay for it.
The way those paper bills increase in value is when states productivity goes up, their goods increase in demand, their purchasing power goes up. The way golds value increases is if there is more demand for this naturally scarce resource. These mechanisms mark a net gain in total value.
The only way crypto increases in value, is because others pump that difference in value into the system. For every cent I get out of bitcoin, someone else had to put that cent into the system. It's a zero-sum-game even considering "mining" or "staking" or whatever: All these new tokens are only worth what others are willing to pay for them.
Contrary to pump-and-dump rumour, *there is no scarcity of crypto*, and never can be.
The value of, say, Bitcoin persists only so long as there are people who don’t have Bitcoin who want Bitcoin. As soon as the difficulty rises enough that it becomes uneconomic to mine, all the miners shut up shop. Then all you have is Bitcoin owners. But everyone who *isn’t* an owner has no incentive to pump Bitcoin any more. Why would they want to increase the value of something they don’t have?
Instead, they just start a *new* crypto. For example, Ethereum. Or Doge. Or FTX. Sound familiar? The new adopters award themselves hundreds of millions of NewCoin. Now there are ten currencies. A hundred currencies. Bitcoin is just one among many….and then one among millions….
There is no scarcity, because the object category isnt “Bitcoin” (limited supply) but “the set of all cryptocurrencies, including all future ones with all algorithms conceived or conceivable”.
By the time they come to sell…..99% of sellers will always find that they are selling OldForgottenCoinNobodyWants, never HipTrendyCoin.
As with everything, the value of something is always relative.
Gold is worth as much today as it was 60 years ago. It has never really increased in value by all that much when you compare it to oil.
https://www.longtermtrends.net/oil-gold-ratio/
A $100 bill however, is worth considerably less than it was 60 years ago. It's worth almost nothing.
https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-year-chart
The dollar is down several hundred percent against gold.
The nice thing about gold isn't that it goes up in value over time, the nice thing about gold is that it's value barely changes over time, so if you dive out of dollars and into gold, you're really only maintaining the value of your wealth by ducking out of an inflationary asset into a stable one.
The resulting profit you make is not an increase in value of gold, it's a decrease in the value of the dollar.
When you look at a commodity chart, those peaks and troughs you're seeing are not fluctuations in the value of the commodity, they are fluctuations in the value of your currency.
Check out various commodities priced in gold...and see how they fared against gold, then consider how piss poor the dollar has been...
A bushel of wheat right now is worth approx 1g of gold. In the 40's, it was basically the same. At roughly the same time a dollar would have bought you approximately 1 bushel of week or 1g of gold. Today that 1g of gold will still buy you approx 1 bushel of wheat...but it can buy you almost 60x as many dollars. That's a 6000% percent loss in the value of dollars over 60 years.
http://pricedingold.com/wheat/
http://pricedingold.com/silver/
http://pricedingold.com/coffee/
http://pricedingold.com/cotton/
http://pricedingold.com/big-mac-prices/
I'm not going to express an opinion either way on cryptocurrency as a solution to anything, but on paper purely from an investment standpoint, at a 6000% drop in value over 60 years makes the USD look pretty shit to me. Basically, the longer you hold a dollar, the less it's worth. The longer you hold gold, the longer you maintain your wealth. As for Bitcoin...it's difficult to say. If you take into account it's entire life span, it has gone from 0 to a current $16,865 in 10 years. One Bitcoin has gone from 0g of gold to 320g of gold today. In the same time 1 USD has gone from roughly 30mg (milligrams) of gold, to roughly 18mg (yes milligrams)...
It would seem to me that from a purely mathematical standpoint, that Bitcoin has done remarkably well over the last 10+ years (despite the massive peaks and following drops) whereas the dollar has taken an absolute stomping.
If a person 10 years ago had a split portfolio, 50/50 gold and bitcoin...they'd have made a 16,000%+ return on the Bitcoin and around 60% on gold vs the dollar. If that person did nothing and just sat on dollars, they'd be considerably poorer now than they were.
Short term, gold appears to be the better bet. Long term, Bitcoin seems to be the better bet. In absolutely no situation is holding dollars a good bet. Don't buy dollars.
"Gold can be made into useful products "
Silver is my fav. Many of the uses for Gold in electronics has been replaced with less expensive metals. Many uses for Silver are still in place since it's less expensive and there aren't the motivations to find replacement alloys. It's also not often viable to recover so it gets dumped and its concentrations smeared out. I also like that an ounce of Silver is in the realm of $20 making it easier to use as a medium of exchange. 1/10g coupons of Gold are too small to keep track of and larger pieces can be too valuable and people don't want to make change.
I'd be surprised if a $100 bill costs as much as $0.50 to make. It's been some time since I've seen a program on the making of currency so maybe I'm behind the times.
When the graphic at the top of a Financial Times article, What this year in crypto has taught us [paywalled], is a fly-buzzing pile of shit, one has to take notice
But fun to have been proved right when you've said it was worthless nonsense all along.
As it all goes bust, we're now regularly invited to listen to the sob stories of those who gambled vast sums on it, as a way to deflect from what every one of them had in common : the overriding of all sense by their own greed.
Those who deal in real money backed by real assets and national economies knew all along that enabling anyone with a printing press to print their own currency would eventually end up with all those currencies being worth nothing.
With the crypto bubble (slowly) collapsing, many pundits have retreated to blockchain technologies - "We never believed in Crypto, it was always about the underlying technology".
Can we take a moment to ask why an incredibly inefficient, slow to update and questionably secure distributed database might ever be chosen over known, mature and trusted solutions? People jump through hoops to wave blockchain over otherwise dull IT projects in order to hype them up and secure funding. Almost without exception the core concept could be replaced with a standard centralised database with no loss of functionality, significantly easier maintenance, better and more consistent performance guarantees and just as much security.
Or, simply, there is nothing *legal* that a blockchain does that can't be done better without one.
I respectfully disagree. I think the blockchain, or to be more specific, a digital distributed ledger is one of the best things to come out of the crypto bubble. The concept of a distributed and trusted ledger provides security to digital assets. I think it also provides more utility for *legal* transactions because the ledger provides trust and allows transactions to be authenticated, tracked, audited etc.
Going back to one of my favorite museums, the Bank of England exhibits a £1m(?) bank note. Can't remember if that was the face value, but a large and uncirculated note that was used to transfer money to Scotland so they could print an equivalent in Scottish Pounds. Which is one of those oddities and kind of the difference between legal tender and promissory notes. I suspect that's all digitised now, and a digital large 'note' could be backed up by a blockchain. This application's simpler I guess because the transactions are between BoE and the three Scottish banks that are authorised to issue Scottish notes, so their market and trust model is simpler to set up.
Respectfully, if someone won't trust the BoE to execute a transaction, then they're either insane, or there's some kind of apocalypse going on. Banks almost never screw up transactions, and when they do they fix it. By comparison, I would be a lot more worried about how any bug in my blockchain system, or any undetected malicious action, both of which are things that actually do happen, could result in unrecoverable asset loss.
Respectfully, if someone won't trust the BoE to execute a transaction, then they're either insane, or there's some kind of apocalypse going on. Banks almost never screw up transactions, and when they do they fix it. By comparison, I would be a lot more worried about how any bug in my blockchain system, or any undetected malicious action, both of which are things that actually do happen, could result in unrecoverable asset loss.
Agreed. I just used the BoE-Scotland arrangement as an example where a similar arrangement already takes place. And I agree that it's all about trust, so who gets to be involved in the chain(s), and the security/risk management. Other banks and financial institutions are either using it, or looking at it.
I also agree about the implementation, and the cost/benefit in terms of compute resources neeed, and basic energy. I guess for users of existing financial instruments and ledger services, it'd be the cost of using blockchains vs paying 3rd parties to provide ledger services. But there's also the regulatory implications of moving existing instruments to blockchain, or creating new instruments/services backed by them.
I worked in a bank that screwed-up approx 20% of transactions.
Wide boys on phones on the shop floor would be doing crazy trades all day, some of them with terms agreed on the phone, without known risk and these were written down on bits of paper and entered into a system that had a target of handling 80% automatically the rest were signed by hand or cancelled.
Banks _regularly_ screw up transactions and _usually_ fix them up.
Systems like visa are more reliable.
Of course, Bitcoin and AltCoins are sometimes unable to achieve the hash rate to complete any tx.
What you're looking for is a trusted *notary* service - not a distributed ledger signed by anonymous parties (awarding consensus to those with the most electricity to burn)
I'm no expert on either blockchain, or the finance industry. But from what I understand, they could effectively be the same thing, if the signing authority isn't anonymous. It's kind of the basic security issue of trust, and how much trust there is, or could be in the chain. As the old saying goes, any chain is only as strong as it's weakest link and the trust in some existing blockchain services seems rather weak.
Because the Scottish banks never misbehaved they never lost the ability to issue their own scrip. We currently have three sets of notes plus BoE notes. The three Scots trading banks must hold securities to cover each £ of scrip they produce. Since the supply of notes is pretty much a constant this is quite easy.
In various high security facilities in Southern England those physical securities include such notes, promissory notes and actual precious substances.
After Independence we could part capitalise our Central Bank by letting them continue to issue notes but hold electronic deposits in the Central Bank’s accounts instead of physical securities. Ideally in foreign currencies.
I agree. Take medical records for example. A hash is created every time the record changes and that hash incorportates the previous 'block' as well.. That hash is stored with 3 trusted blockhain providers. This allows a chain of evidence such that if the record is tampered with, it is clear that the chain involved in 'building' that record has been altered. Shipman was caught from altered records.
There will be multiple other use cases where document trails and chains need to be clear. This is a great idea. Is it any more secure than a central database, or worth the extra hassle, that I do not know.
"I think the blockchain, or to be more specific, a digital distributed ledger is one of the best things to come out of the crypto bubble. The concept of a distributed and trusted ledger provides security to digital assets. I think it also provides more utility for *legal* transactions because the ledger provides trust and allows transactions to be authenticated, tracked, audited etc."
And that's not going to all be abused by governments. I like to pay for things with cash that aren't already tracked. I might as well pay my utility bills online and my property tax since those are noted and can be subpoenaed with very little fuss. On the other hand, it's nobody's business what items I buy at the grocery store, where, when and how much petrol I put in my car and to whom I might give money. I'm not regarding this information as secret, but rather, private. "They" don't need to know.
> Can we take a moment to ask why an incredibly inefficient, slow to update and questionably secure distributed database might ever be chosen over known, mature and trusted solutions?
Current solutions are only trusted because it would take more money for a bad actor to corrupt them than they could hope to gain from doing so.
A centralised database can be secure, but only for the person holding the keys. Most of the time that's fine. I rely upon the other party to value my trust - and my further custom - so our interests are aligned. That dynamic isn't always at play. So we have systems institutions, courts, regulators, to dissuade bad actors from taking my money and running. But those systems can be evaded and corrupted too.
Evaded: crypto schemes that by design fell outside of the established financial markets and their codes, rules, compensatory schemes.
Corrupted: lobbying to starve regulators of resources, making your own people regulators, being 'too big to fail' and getting bailed out by the state, all the stuff that the East India Company did and Wall Street epitomised.
The Blockchain is an interesting light by which to look at the concept of trust.
I suspect it's a question that isn't going away in a hurry, in areas of institutions, journalism, elections...
I know of two young teachers in a local CS and Engineering college that were looking for their niche -- a specialized field that they would study and try to get students to join the research team and possibly get grants and publish on. They decided on blockchain and asked me (a grumpy, almost-retired old fart who still has his own punch cards to use as bookmarks) to help them find applications for this great new world-changing technology.
After several meetings, I was still unable to find a compelling case. All the ideas we kicked around were either pointless or would work way worse with blockchain, but generate enough demand for "research" and require the involvement of many, many undergrad students.
At some point, I just excused myself from the "application prospection committee". Those young whippersnappers are still trying to use blockchain to glue telnet to email or whatever they think would be sexy enough to be a good career path.
I hear you.
In footy circles there's 'Sorare' (think a posh digital Panini sticker album) and those punting it keep explaining it's secure unlike other football themed investments schemes (Football Index for one) because it sues blockchain.
Trying to ask how blockchain can ensure the market won't collapse typically gets answered with a sneer along the lines of 'If you don't understand what blockchain is, this probably isn't for you'.
Yeah, I'm the one who doesn't understand how blockchain works...
I'd gladly buy the author a beer (with real fiat money) for pulling no punches and saying it like it is.
I've often pontificated on the lack of financial education and common sense of the cryptozealots / 'cryptobros' - was there an underlying layer of inherent grift all along, or just sheer zealotry born of ignorance? Doesn't matter - stupid is as stupid does, fool and his money soon parted, etc etc.
People need to ask themselves why financial authorities haven't clamped down on NFT's, which are clearly a rip-off scheme. Answer: because NFT's don't undermine the control the politicians (and therefore Big Money) have over the financial system.
People are losing billions of $ with NFT's but the government ignores it.
I disagree - a possible reason that financial authorities haven't clamped down on them is because they haven't become methods of defrauding the public at large, or being used for nefarious purposes.
It was sold as an investment vehicle, but in itself, is it fraud? No. It's a foolish investment, but in an open market - caveat emptor, value of what someone else will pay for it, etc.
There's an inherent contradiction in the arguments across two posts you've made in the same thread. You denigrate the value of fiat currencies while ignoring or discounting the fact that it's the backing of a national government or the international monetary system that gives fiat currencies their value, while at the same time blaming politicians/governments/monetary systems for letting people lose money on this thing that was supposed to be outside the system and better for it.
You can't have it both ways. Regulation means legitimacy, which was why that was argued against in the case of crypto by serious academics (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/11/18/dont-regulate-crypto-allow-it-to-implode-says-brandeis-professor-stephen-cecchetti.html). Crypto was always a valueless proposition because it's nothing but a blockchain ledger entry. NFTs themselves weren't even basing their value on the individual piece of "art" to which they were attached, it was the blockchain entry that was the record of, and token for, the supposed value. Now it's all coming tumbling down and there are people such as yourself blaming governments for lack of oversight towards a product whose very proponents didn't want government anywhere near.
Plus crypto has been a pain in the arse for gamers for a few years now, through two bubbles and the ensuing crash. Good riddance.
"NFT's, which are clearly a rip-off scheme"
Agreed, but unless you're talking about banning them, regulating them would simply legitimise this new Ponzi scheme.
As with Bitcoin, some people jumped in early and made money. Those people cashed in and moved on to the next scam.
"It's hard to admit that you've been a financial fool for years or even a few months."
Legalities aside, the "investor" who got in early and cashed out near the peak of any ponzi, er, crypto scheme walked away wealthier - sometimes substantially so - ergo, is not a fool.
That's all investing is; to a first approximation this is equally true in stocks or houses ("as safe as..."). The goal is never to hold the investment forever, the goal is to buy low and sell high. Buy the house/tulips/cryptocrap while it's cheap, but sell it before it, or the market, burns down.
Full disclosure: I don't crypto. My risk tolerance is too low. I don't own investment homes, either.
Not sure about the "never hold it forever" part. If I had bought Berkshire-Hathaway stock in the 70s and kept it "forever" - as in still owned it today - I don't think I'd have any complaints.
The crypto bros aren't worthy of the comparison, but the difference is Warren accumulates real assets with long-term value. Crypto bros? Get rich quick baby, and leave the suckers by the side of the road.
Just because some people made money by getting out at the right moment, doesn't mean they're not fools. Just lucky.
Occasionally people win big at the casino too. Doesn't mean they're not fools. There's a reason why the saying "The house always wins!" exists. Because the only people who win regularly at the casino is the casino.
Same applies in crypto. Although with worse odds than even the most crooked casino...
“But we have also,” continued the management consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut."
AH Douglas Adams, prescient always
...but the rest of us are left with incalculable environmental damage.
Debateable. But I'm kinda curious. There had been a slew of reports about the 'environmental' impact of cryptocarp. Mostly based on the amount of energy consumed. So given many crypto mining operations are busily going titsup.com, is there any noticeable impact on the energy market? If the reports were correct and crypto was consuming X% of electricity generation, then there's a corresponding X% reduction in demand, which should translate to lower energy costs.
Yes, I'm an optimist in assuming those cost reductions will be passed through to consumers. See the UK's annual gas price data for more info.
It's also curious to watch the rise & fall of SBF. From multi-billionaire cryptobro with a luxury penthouse in the Bahamas to being 'broke' and having to move back in with the parents. Also curious how the security on his bail works, and who his 'friends' are that have put up most of the collateral. His parent's house in Cali's value won't come close to covering that, and their holiday home might get seized if it was bought with dirty money.
The elites loathe crypto, because as an alternative to cash (that is being systematically marginalised) it gives the pleb a mean to bypass inevitable social credit score and other means of oppression like coming CBDC.
Imagine being a nurse going to protest and then having your accounts frozen on a whim (pilot happened in Canada) and then having your friends being treated as potential terrorists by helping you with a little bit of digital Pound (if it even routed to the destination account).
Seems like behavioural scientists (nudge and all) figured out that associating crypto with drugs and weapons didn't work, so they are now pushing the environmental damage agenda.
And people like turkeys happily cheer for incoming Christmas.
Your social credit score has been credited with extra 10 points. If you praise the party within the next 2 hours on your social media, you will get a 10 points extra bonus that will allow you to go outside your zone for a week. Expiration date of your next pay has been extended by a week.
"then there's a corresponding X% reduction in demand, which should translate to lower energy costs."
That's a good one.
Once prices go up, they don't go down. The increase in available funds means more places to waste said money. The electric company will go out and buy the rights to name a sport field/stadium. Why? The company is a monopoly and has no reason to advertise at all. I'm in two minds over how utilities are run. The 'government' taking them over will lead to much worse problems, but utilities are mainly a natural monopoly and do need tight regulation. I'm talking about the company that delivers the water, gas or electricity to your home or business even if you contract with some other firm for that resource. Those utilities are fundamental resources and when they aren't available or the pricing increases rapidly, everything else is negatively affected.
Yes, there were quite a few reg commentards who would come on crypto related threads and defend it to the hilt and forecast its rosy future in displacing all the 'real' currencies which were controlled and regulated by the corrupt politicians and big business.
They all seem to have fallen a little quiet recently.
Odd....
....or perhaps not?
"They all seem to have fallen a little quiet recently."
Maybe, but make no mistake: the Universe will invent more and more of those, and we'll be reading stories of crypto for still many years.
Every downturn will see yet another Great (tm) new crypto tech that will invariably have the following properties:
- be crazy clever (distributed etc ...), even more than the last one
- offer temporary value only by way of a better idiot, aka, someone willing to pay more than the previous idiot purchased
El Reg has a whole world of articles to write about in the following decade. What about a "crypto' section, eh ?
"They turned off the power at my place so I couldn’t access my crypto-wonder-wallet."
I'm in the US and on a long road trip it can be many miles between islands of civilization. If I arrive someplace to refuel my car and their card terminal is down for some reason, physical cash means I'm not stuck at that location. If the power is out, the pumps aren't working, so cash won't fix that. If the station has a generator to run the store during an outage, the way their payment terminal is connected may not have a working power backup. I learned this lesson the hard way and now keep cash on hand for petrol, lodging and food. Paying cash also put limits on what's being tracked. Yes, I know phones are the ultimate tracking device, but I'm not that worried about the government as their resources go far deeper than it's worth for me to try and block. It's the commercial tracking and info sharing. I don't think it's legal for phone companies to sell travel maps based on tower pings. I hope I'm not wrong, but I can do fine turning the phone off on long trips.
Most other shitcoins are merely tokens. This means they can be created at will and someone therefore holds the keys for creating them. Governments or criminals could steal these keys, making them worthless.
The creators of Bitcoin thought this through and have limited the number of BTC in the algorithm.
When the dust settles, Bitcoin will be the only cryptocoin left standing.
Won't help discussing this here - The Reg and most of it's readers are full anti. Bitcoin uses the grassroots approach, like the Internet in the early nineties. I'm still a "normal" poor regular citizen even after being with bitcoin for about 11 years now (did not believe it would really catch up to its promise...) and 1 thing I learned: you cannot start explaining, it has to be asked to let others see.
I think bitcoin is a good idea, the way that it creates scarcity, gradually increasing the difficulty of mining, the blockchain record, the anonymity. All clever ideas. If it were a few thousand nerds using their spare computing capacity to exchange value anonymously over the intarwebz, it would be just fine. It is when speculators got involved that it all went to shit.
Yes bitcoin is a surprisingly good analog for money.
Only it's an analog of a medieval monetary system where lumps of copper silver and gold could be exchanged for bread, horses or pieces of a saints corpse.
This was fine when most people grew what they ate and rents were paid in produce and or military service, but, useless for a manufacturing/trading economy so the 17th century saw a gradual move to paper for large transactions and coins became mere tokens with no intrinsic value.
I was stupid enough to try popping 30 quid into Ethereum just for the hell of it. Really easy to get your money in, try getting it back out again! Which told me all I needed to know. I eventually managed to just transfer what I had left to a charity that accepts cryptocurrency donations. I'm sure they were most pleased with the £2.20 I ended up with.
It's a scam. Simple.
I don't care how dead it might be, the emissions from it are still real and we all need to have a serious conversation about how much freedom to waste energy is permitted going forward. The era of everyone using as much energy as they can buy for purposes with no social benefit needs to end yesterday.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Look at all the social ills in the world caused by too much personal freedom and not enough personal responsibility. Crypto is just one expression of a wider problem. We shouldn't fear emulating China when it helps the greater good.
You misunderstand. For now, it's important to just focus on energy consumption so, for example, you might still be permitted to watch a film or TV show but there should be an efficiency requirement for all associated equipment. Later, we can talk about generally focusing people on pursuits that enrich society as a whole.
CCP agent much ?
The communist Chinese party hates their slaves having a modicum of freedom or control, bitcoin presented an existential threat to the Party. That’s why they banned it.
Just remember Tiananmen Square; the death camps the unspeakable cruelty and horror these psychopaths have wrought on the world.
The Taiwanese government is the true government of China.
Not sure how that firm is still in business, considering the one two punch of Binance and over the last couple years becoming known as Trump's accounting firm and having to "fire" him as a client due to the potential past and future liability of them signing off on his all dodgy valuations used to fraudulently obtain bank loans.
What's next, are they are going to revealed as the Mob's preferred accounting firm? Because that wouldn't surprise me at all, as given the association with Trump and crypto they clearly are willing to work with anyone.
I have to admit to making some money out of Bitcoin primarily because I was curious and mined a decent number closer to the beginning of the splurge - on of all things a MacPro with a graphics accelerator. It all went to the kids - and I explained it was our fluke, but hey, if people are throwing money at you perfectly lawfully (and HMRC knows all) then I didn't look a gift horse in the mouth. I do hope they recognise a fluke and do not invest in one.
PS: they cashed in at some silly premium based on the cost of generation (power - the machine was unused when I was not home). Well below peak but well above the current 'value'. 25% of it went to UK charities. If people wish to throw their money at something silly then they need a lesson. Unfortunately many seem not to learn the lesson.
This guy thinks that Binance.US is just a front for Binance, to get around the fact that the latter isn't allowed to operate in the US.
https://dirtybubblemedia.substack.com/p/is-binanceus-a-fake-exchange
It's pretty clear that the only application for crypto is money laundering. And that's not going to age well as the DOJ comes after the crypto exchanges.
Really pleased to see this finally happening, but equally very concerned for all the people who bought into it so hard (both financially and mentally).
Many will find it very hard to admit to themselves that the whole thing has always been a fantasy pushed by greed and self interest, and they’ll reach for conspiracies to explain it away. You already see it in the language that’s been used for years, it’s built in. Non believers are sheep, the establishment want to destroy it etc etc
"It would be great if those useless hot houses could be turned to SETI / Folding @ Home powerhouses that could really make a positive impact to mankind."
Or tomatoes and peppers. It's near dinner time and I'm a bit peckish.
I do agree that society as a whole would be better off using any spare energy and computing time on some of the distributed computing projects.
"Fiat money is backed by a state with a tax base, which gives it value"
I see it as more of a myth that the vast majority of people subscribe to. While it has no intrinsic value, it does have rules surrounding it and that's a good thing. It means I can be productive through having engineering degrees and not also needing vast stores of knowledge about economics and banking. The negative about crypto is its lack of regulation, rules and formally agreed principles. One look at SBF and I have no confidence in his credibility. Call me judgmental, but my ideal financial mentor isn't somebody that has adopted a full gamer look. I'm not a huge coat and tie person, but.......
Now explain why every major and plenty of minor governments on the planet are in the process of implementing their own form of CBDC? I guess theirs will be legitimate in your eyes while the decentralized versions, e.g. bitcoin, are somehow not?
The concept of an individual having secure control over their own assets will always have merit and a future, regardless of some stupid speculation that happens along the way.
CBDCs are the exact opposite of PoS and PoW cryptocurrencies. Instead of distributed control, there is one authority; instead of unrestricted transfers, restrictions can be imposed; instead of perpetual ownership, they can be expired.
They will allow fraud to be fought more easily (just report criminal transactions to one authority) and more precise control over the economy. For example, someone could be paid in currency that only allows them to save a certain amount and prevents them spending money which should be spent on energy or accommodation on frivolous luxuries. At the press of a button, every transaction on a taxable item could be evaluated and retrospective tax rises could even pull the additional amount straight out of individual wallets (and refunds made, if desired). There could also be automatic checks where if an individual receives more than their employer states their salary is (possibly indicating crime or fraud), the additional funds would be automatically frozen until an investigation.
It will absolutely transform the economy and society.
Sigh.
Crypto occurred because quite a few people have realised that the FIAT money system and fractional reserve banking are a gigantic long con. They are actually several times worse than crypto because the sheer destruction of value and the transfer of value from the majority to the minority has been occurring for decades.
But crypto bros circumvented the annoying minted limits of bitcoin by simply creating yet more pointless and wasteful alt coins. That people fell and continue to fall for this shell game is truly baffling to myself.
So; I’d love to be able to tell you the future but I can’t. All I know is that eventually the music will stop and the most valued items will be guns, ammo, water and food.
There's a potential bias here.
The author of the article is employed by ZDNET which is owned by Shawn Glines, who has MASSIVE bitcoin holdings and wants more when the price drops.
Suddenly his employees are pushing out "bitcoin is dead" FUD. Should have checked Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols employer etc and put disclaimers at the top of the article, as this
is in effect an attempt at market manipulation.
Currently has been declared dead 467 times, and counting: Bitcoin Obituaries
Gosh, should I take a loss and sell my Bitcoin now at ~$16,000? I bought it during the last crash in 2018 at $4,000. That would really suck to lose all that money though.
Or is my math wrong?
well, that's part of the problem with cryptocurrency, block chain, and really, cryptography in general:
It's complicated.
People were wondering why they learned long division when they have a calculator. Or how to set the clock on their VCR.
They don't WANT to understand stuff.
What, maybe 10% of the population has a passible understanding of the difference between the lock icon on the browser address bar vs. a graphic of a lock at the top of the web page? From what I've seen, that number is probably many times the people with a basic understanding of economics (ok, maybe I'm being cynical, but seen too many "smart" people believing in what boils down to "something for nothing" and the basic rules of supply and demand have been suspended).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
