Crypto and HR 3684 - urgent attention needed from all!

[Greenman]

Crypto is one of the few things that allow a person of limited means to create wealth out of nothing. Tiny investment, no labor, little operating cost. It's a digital lottery.
In a world that desires wealth without effort, it's the holy grail.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I'm even more confused. So the point of crypto is to gain/maintain access to some crypto network? What can you use it for? If I have AMD stock, that stock can't buy me anything until I sell it, but once I do I can buy real things like food, cars, or pay for my mortgage.

If I have crypto, that buys me access to a network, but what do I get once I'm in that network? More crypto? And what do I do what that crypto? Can I cash out and buy food?

Nothing is stopping you from selling your Ethereum right now for $3000/ETH to go buy some food. The point I'm making is that on a personal level those Ethereum tokens have more fundamental value than your stocks. Because you have the option to use them for some feature of the Ethereum network. Maybe you have no use for them today, but you may tomorrow. Or you can just go sell them on Coinbase and buy some food with the cash you get from the sale.

Yes, he is arguing out of both sides of his mouth - that crypto both exists to finance the network, which has to be done eventually by an exchange for goods and services like a normal currency, and that it’s not intended to be exchanged for goods and services.

As I and others have mentioned, if this network has value independent of its Ponzi scheme elements then there’s no need to finance it with fake money. You could just use real money.

Ok, explain to me how you can use real money. I've already explained multiple times in this thread why the impossibility of using real fiat money as the native token of the network, or the difficulty that would be wrapping an ever evolving and changing decentralized blockchain network by some fiat-currency payment system, along with the major security vulnerability it would be to have a separate system communicating with the blockchain handling payments.

But I would like to hear it. Even Ripple - the equivalent of blockchain technology developed by institutions - use their own tokens.

 

[IronWing]

Nothing is stopping you from selling your Ethereum right now for $3000/ETH to go buy some food. The point I'm making is that on a personal level those Ethereum tokens have more fundamental value than your stocks. Because you have the option to use them for some feature of the Ethereum network. Maybe you have no use for them today, but you may tomorrow. Or you can just go sell them on Coinbase and buy some food with the cash you get from the sale.




Ok, explain to me how you can use real money. I've already explained multiple times in this thread why the impossibility of using real fiat money as the native token of the network, or the difficulty that would be wrapping an ever evolving and changing decentralized blockchain network by some fiat-currency payment system, along with the major security vulnerability it would be to have a separate system communicating with the blockchain handling payments.

But I would like to hear it. Even Ripple - the equivalent of blockchain technology developed by institutions - use their own tokens.

The point is that fiat money (and it's digital representations) already provides useful function without screwing around with ponzi schemes.

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing is stopping you from selling your Ethereum right now for $3000/ETH to go buy some food. The point I'm making is that on a personal level those Ethereum tokens have more fundamental value than your stocks. Because you have the option to use them for some feature of the Ethereum network. Maybe you don't use for them today, but you may tomorrow. Or you can just go sell them on Coinbase and buy some food with the cash you get from the sale.




Ok, explain to me how you can use real money. I've already explained multiple times in this thread why the impossibility of using real fiat money as the native token of the network, or the extreme difficulty in wrapping an ever evolving and changing decentralized blockchain network by some fiat-currency payment system to node operators.

I wait for the explanation on how to do this. Even Ripple - the equivalent of blockchain technology developed by institutions - use their own tokens. But again, I await for on how to get fiat money in place of Bitcoin or Ethereum.

You could absolutely pay people to maintain the network by other means and they could sell access to it. You don’t need a Ponzi scheme to do this.

 

[fskimospy]

The point is that fiat money (and it's digital representations) already provides useful function without screwing around with ponzi schemes.

Once again for our dear friend @njdevilsfan87 there is nothing cryptocurrency does better than actual currency other than facilitate crime. Nothing.

And let’s not forget the shifting justifications for it over time. A few years back proponents were pitching it as a real currency that would protect you from inflation or the fed or whatever. When that turned out to be an absolute failure they are now saying it’s not intended to be a real currency at all. Why? Because the original justification fell apart and they need people to keep pumping real money into the Ponzi scheme.

 

[cytg111]

Crypto is one of the few things that allow a person of limited means to create wealth out of nothing. Tiny investment, no labor, little operating cost. It's a digital lottery.
In a world that desires wealth without effort, it's the holy grail.

Every so often….

 

[njdevilsfan87]

You could absolutely pay people to maintain the network by other means and they could sell access to it. You don’t need a Ponzi scheme to do this.

Again - what are these other means? You keep saying you can do this without actually providing any context as to how you would actually go about doing it.

What you seem to be proposing is some external payment system - both which would incredibly inefficient compared to the internal token payment mechanism, and also far less secure being external to the network. So your only other alternative is to have USD be the native token of a blockchain. And only the US government is allowed to do this. But would they want their monetary policy fully exposed? Probably not, so instead they would release a token (USD_) that runs ontop an existing blockchain where you will need that blockchain's native token to drive the transactions. Much like USDC does today on Ethereum. And also since when is government capable of facilitating innovation? Do you have any idea how much red tape there is in the government world? I do - been there done that.

So again, unless I missed something - what are these other means?

 

[fskimospy]

Again - what are these other means? You keep saying you can do this without actually providing any context as to how you would actually go about doing it.

What you seem to be proposing is some external payment system - both which would incredibly inefficient compared to the internal token payment mechanism, and also far less secure being external to the network. So your only other alternative is to have USD be the native token of a blockchain. And only the US government is allowed to do this. But would they want their monetary policy fully exposed? Probably not, so instead they would release a token (USD_) that runs ontop an existing blockchain where you will need that blockchain's native token to drive the transactions. Much like USDC does today on Ethereum.

Do you seriously not understand how people could choose to maintain a distributed network and then sell access to it? Also, if efficiency is your issue well then your Ponzi scheme is already bad because it is way less efficient than normal finance. And let’s be honest, for the average person a crypto network is way less secure than regular finance. This is another reason why it is terrible.

If your product (the blockchain) has real use you don’t need to sell Itchy and Scratchy money to make it used. I strongly suspect the vast majority of people holding these currencies are doing so for speculative reasons precisely because they don’t have anything productive to do with them otherwise.

 

[IronWing]

I want to buy a loaf of bread and I will trade you this token for one.
Why is that token worth a loaf of bread?
I burned a mft of energy creating this token.
Oh, so why would I care that you did that? I'll keep my bread, thank you.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I want to buy a loaf of bread and I will trade you this token for one.
Why is that token worth a loaf of bread?
I burned a mft of energy creating this token.
Oh, so why would I care that you did that? I'll keep my bread, thank you.

I want to buy a loaf of bread and I will trade you this dollar for one.
Why is that dollar worth a loaf of bread?
Because the government spawned it our of thin air and said it is.
... I'll keep my bread, thank you.

 

[IronWing]

I want to buy a loaf of bread and I will trade you this dollar for one.
Why is that dollar a loaf of bread?
Because the government spawned it our of thin air and said it is
Oh, so why would I care if they said that? I think I'll charge you $1.10 today and $1.20 tomorrow. Otherwise I'll keep my bread, thank you.

True, but this system actually works and doesn't require a ponzi scheme. If the dollar bounced around as much as crypto currencies do, you'd have a point, no one would accept the dollar in trade.

 

[fskimospy]

I want to buy a loaf of bread and I will trade you this dollar for one.
Why is that dollar worth a loaf of bread?
Because the government spawned it our of thin air and said it is.
... I'll keep my bread, thank you.

No, because among many reasons that dollar is required to fulfill your legal obligations to the government in the form of taxes and it is the exclusive method through which that obligation can be satisfied.

 

[fskimospy]

True, but this system actually works and doesn't require a ponzi scheme. If the dollar bounced around as much as crypto currencies do, you'd have a point, no one would accept the dollar in trade.

He seems to have surrendered on the currency idea and acknowledges that crypto is useless for its original intended purpose. Now he’s trying to invent new purposes because as I said before, people invested in it need to prop up the Ponzi scheme and keep new money flowing in.

While estimates vary, what is pretty certain is a huge percentage of all bitcoins are owned by just a small number of people, which makes market manipulation very easy. If you look at bitcoin’s price history it looks very much like it is an endless pump and dump scheme, with gullible investors being repeatedly fleeced.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

He seems to have surrendered on the currency idea and acknowledges that crypto is useless for its original intended purpose. Now he’s trying to invent new purposes because as I said before, people invested in it need to prop up the Ponzi scheme and keep new money flowing in.

While estimates vary, what is pretty certain is a huge percentage of all bitcoins are owned by just a small number of people, which makes market manipulation very easy. If you look at bitcoin’s price history it looks very much like it is an endless pump and dump scheme, with gullible investors being repeatedly fleeced.

You think Satoshi planned for Bitcoin to replace fiat when the Bitcoin network is only capable of processing a few transactions per second? Try to stop skimming the internet reading speculator's headlines and start using your... nevermind.

If you look at bitcoin’s price history it looks very much like it is an endless pump and dump scheme, with gullible investors being repeatedly fleeced.

Yes because pump and dump is a Bitcoin only problem. And no investors have been fleeced. Speculators yes. But investors? No.

 

[fskimospy]

You think Satoshi planned for Bitcoin to replace fiat when the Bitcoin network is only capable of processing a few transactions per second? Try to stop skimming the internet reading speculator's headlines and start using your... nevermind.

I think cryptocurrency proponents and Bitcoin proponents in particular have repeatedly and loudly argued for its use as a currency and have done so for many, many years.

Again, you keep trying to pretend the only reason we don’t agree with you is we don’t understand it. Your real problem is we DO understand it and we know it’s a scam.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes because pump and dump is a Bitcoin only problem. And no investors have been fleeced. Speculators yes. But investors? No.

Pump and dump is not a problem exclusive to Bitcoin, however it is something where the fleeced investors have no recourse and the perpetrators no consequences.

Also, ‘no true Scotsman’-ing away the victims of crypto’s crime enabling by design is pretty terrible. It’s made to be great for crime, so people use it for crime. Doesn’t make the victims any less real.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Again, you keep trying to pretend the only reason we don’t agree with you is we don’t understand it. Your real problem is we DO understand it and we know it’s a scam.

You keep telling me you understand it, yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact that tokens like Bitcoin and Ethereum were the necessity to... bootstrap is maybe the closest word here, and facilitate growth of the networks as people developed trust in the native tokens in not too different of a manner that you trust your dollar. Beyond this most people go wrong (such as yourself), because any comparison to the dollar ends here. And it's not your fault: almost all speculators spew stupid crap like crypto is going to replace fiat. But think of this: their reasons for supporting crypto are about as shallow as your reasons (that you've given thus far) for opposing it.

The most you've done is read some headlines here and there, maybe Google "what is a blockchain" but you never really sat down to think about why Bitcoin is there. Because as I said: Bitcoin was nearly worthless at one point. Both in terms of the value of the token AND security and safety of the network. And then as the security and thus safety of the network grew... so did the utility case of Bitcoin. It started to become safe to hold magic internet tokens on your personal computer. It started to become safe to instantly transfer the "value" of the magic internet tokens to anyone anywhere else in the world without any intermediary. Who would thought any of this had value? Oh wait right... but don't use Bitcoin, use the dollar instead with this technology. Oh wait again, go back and read the 3 or 4 different responses I've already given on why the dollar couldn't be used.

 

[fskimospy]

You keep telling me you understand it, yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact that tokens like Bitcoin and Ethereum were the necessity to... bootstrap is maybe the closest word here, and facilitate growth of the networks as people developed trust in the native tokens in not too different of a manner that you trust your dollar. Beyond this most people go wrong (such as yourself), because any comparison to the dollar ends here.

There was absolutely no need to create an alternate financing system to grow and sustain the network. It was a choice to use Itchy and Scratchy money, and that choice is a giant scam.

The most you've done is read some headlines here and there, maybe Google "what is a blockchain" but you never really sat down to think about why Bitcoin is there. Because as I said: Bitcoin was nearly worthless at one point. Both in terms of the value of the token and security and safety of the network. And then as the security and thus safety of the network grew... so did the utility of Bitcoin. It started to become safe to hold magic internet tokens on your personal computer. It started to become safe to instantly transfer the "value" of the magic internet tokens to anyone anywhere else in the world without any intermediary. Who would thought any of this had many value? Oh wait right... not don't use Bitcoin, use the dollar instead. Oh wait, go back and read why the dollar couldn't be used.

The dollar could be used, it’s just that the utility of the network is so low that nobody would finance it, which is why you need a scam speculative token to do it.

This is a common defense mechanism for crypto evangelists. You have a sneaking suspicion that I’m right and this is one huge scam you’ve bought into but you can’t admit it so you’ve decided you have secret knowledge.

You don’t. You’re being played.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

There was absolutely no need to create an alternate financing system to grow and sustain the network. It was a choice to use Itchy and Scratchy money, and that choice is a giant scam.

I've explained multiple times why/how the dollar could not be used. It's on you now to explain how it could have been.

nobody would finance it, which is why you need a scam speculative token to do it.

So you support innovation only if its for profit? Well look you Mr. Capitalism. Almost anything decentralized is going to be more expensive than a centralized solution. So even if could use the US dollar (which I've explained why you cannot, but you explained you can so I'm still waiting on the how), this is not something the for profit private sector would have pulled off on its own. Ripple is maybe the closest thing to it, and it only came years after it saw Bitcoin as a working technology.

And so you needed a speculative token to get it all going. So ****ing what? Is that a problem? People have accepted it as an asset that has value now. Should Bitcoin be at $46,000 for what it can do? Or Ethereum $3,000 for what it can do? I don't know? But after 10 years worth of data you can start to form some trends that relate price of the token to utility and usage of the network among other things. Go watch some of Ben Cowen's YT videos and see how he does it. But this thread is not about price speculation. Bitcoin could be back to $20,000 in December, or $100,000. I don't care. I'm not waking up tomorrow to go into a 9 to 5 either way. What I am waking up tomorrow to do is continue working on my startup that uses this technology to enable a new and better way to do __________ for both the business and consumer. And because it's still legal and fair to do that, and should remain so - that is the purpose here.

 

[fskimospy]

I've explained multiple times why/how the dollar could not be used. It's on you now to explain how it could have been.

You just hand waved it and said it would be too hard. I say no.

So you support innovation only if its for profit? Well look you Mr. Capitalism. Almost anything decentralized is going to be more expensive than a centralized solution. So even if could use the US dollar (which I've explained why you cannot, but you explained you can so I'm still waiting on the how), this is not something the for profit private sector would have pulled off on its own. Ripple is maybe the closest thing to it, and it only came years after it saw Bitcoin as a working technology.

Yes, I am a capitalist. Thank you for admitting its utility is too low to be competitive though. That’s been my entire point all along!

And so you needed a speculative token to get it all going. So ****ing what? Is that a problem? People have accepted it as an asset that has value. Should Bitcoin be at $46,000 for what it can do? Or Ethereum $3,000 for what it can go? I don't know? But after some years worth of data you can kind of start to form some trends that can relate price to utility and network usage among other things. Go watch Ben Cowen's YT videos on how he links actual data and analytics to the price of Bitcoin and Ethereum. But this thread is not about the speculative price of these tokens.

People thought tulips had tremendous value too and look where that got them.

Also, the idea that you think people should watch YouTube videos to understand this issue tells me you are definitely getting scammed. I hope you develop the good sense to get out of the Ponzi scheme before it’s too late.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Also, the idea that you think people should watch YouTube videos to understand this issue tells me you are definitely getting scammed. I hope you develop the good sense to get out of the Ponzi scheme before it’s too late.

Are you a boomer or close to? Because you're generalizing all of YouTube as a bad source of media and information.

But ok, as far as getting scammed goes, the only scam for me would be the government - the one I pay my taxes to - telling me I can no longer work on my product because I'm using a safe technology they (and you) don't fully comprehend.

 

[cytg111]

…the only scam for me would be the government telling me I can no longer work on my product because I'm using a technology they (and you) don't fully understand.

So you’re not really objective here… what are you working on??

 

[njdevilsfan87]

So you’re not really objective here… what are you working on??

I'll let you know in a few months when launch is imminent. I believe I've got a niche corned but cannot give out the purpose or idea as first-mover advantage is really important in this space. If you're among the first to do something, you get all of the clout even when others start to copy.

The only thing I will say is that it is only possible because of Gen 3.0 cryptocurrency/blockchain technology. Now I'm not sure whether or not the market will adopt the idea and run with it, but that's the risk I'm taking by finding out. It's my time and effort for boom or bust. And if I bust - I want a fair bust, and not because the government got in the way. I'd like for the free market decide if what I launch is of any value or not.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you a boomer or close to? Because you're generalizing all of YouTube as a bad source of media and information.

I am nowhere even remotely close to a boomer. I am either a very young GenXer or a very old millennial, depending on the time frame used. Regardless,YouTube is an absolutely terrible source of information about any controversial subject.

One of the most important things you can do to defend against scams is to evaluate sources.

But ok, as far as getting scammed goes, the only scam for me would be the government - the one I pay my taxes to - telling me I can no longer work on my product because I'm using a safe technology they (and you) don't fully comprehend.

That’s not the definition of a scam or anything near it.

Again, the issue here is that I understand crypto is a scam and you don’t. What I know right now is that cryptocurrency used in criminal activity is causing very large economic harm to the country and I think that’s bad. We have the ability to end that and we should.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Again, the issue here is that I understand crypto is a scam and you don’t. What I know right now is that cryptocurrency used in criminal activity is causing very large economic harm to the country and I think that’s bad.

Very large economic harm? Do you have numbers that provide some reference to other harmful activities? Or just some number relative to how large our economy is so I can gauge just how harmful it is?

We have the ability to end that and we should.

I agree. We should start funding a better education system so people are collectively smarter and thus less prone to be hacked. Additionally maybe companies should start hiring better IT instead of half-assing their security. I'd rather do that than promote or rewards continued laziness and stupidity because a new technology came along that really started exposing this laziness and stupidity. Maybe we should ban email too since most ransoms start from that while we are at it. Or hyperlinks in general. No hyperlinks = no possible way to get ransom software installed on a computer - problem solved!