Off Topic Is cryptocurrency the answer?

[oliver21a]

It's certainly not the first time this discussion has come up, but has once again raised the issue of whether cryptocurrency can solve modern problems of censorship. The notion in this case is, payment processors are putting pressure on adult content...and since Mastercard, Visa, Discover, et al., are basically an oligopoly, and they literally control the flow of the money, it's a pretty significant chokepoint if a company gets on their bad side. In December, Pornhub (and other MindGeek sites) were (and ACH transfer) as forms of payment due to being cut off by those major processors. It's been suggested that at least Mastercard , causing them to ban sexually explicit content. In that thread, it was suggested that crypto isn't the answer, because government will regulate it into obscurity... Of course that's . Statists are gonna statist. But what I think the whole "gubbmint gonna regulate crypto down to zero" argument fails to realize is blockchain technology opens too many doors for too many people, meaning there's way too much money to be made and way too much public interest in the capabilities that come with it for it to be stifled in the way doomsayers allege. You have to remember, at the end of the day, the US (and most Western) governments are largely beholden to corporate interests, and if enough powerful capitalists want something, Washington is largely going to appease. And there's already too much big money with their hands in all sorts of blockchain tech. So they may largely focus on cryptocurrencies specifically, and more specifically, their usage as "money" (i.e. store of value & medium of exchange). Governments and central banks around the world are scurrying to create their own digital currencies, not only because they are starting to realize the superiority of the technology and that they will be completely left behind, but also because they see it as an avenue for even further control: (imagine if there was no such thing as cash or even credit cards, but rather every single transaction in an economy took place on a government-controlled blockchain. is power.) They'll definitely try, but there's a number of problems that will likely cause it to ultimately fail. For one thing, they're too far behind the rest of the industry. By the time they have a CBDC or anything like it remotely close to being usable (let alone at a large scale), it'll be 20+ years from now and the world will already be entrenched in blockchain tech. And using cryptocurrencies will already be mainstream, and there will be no way to take that away from people. Not only because it would be largely equivalent to trying to outlaw/regulate the Internet, and the public just wouldn't have it, but also because it would mean shackling the US in terms of technological advancement and commerce with the rest of the world. Cryptocurrencies are basically the fuel of blockchains, and it will ultimately be impossibly difficult to try and regulate them in terms of their usage as money without shutting down everything else blockchain tech will be doing. Kind of like how trying to preemptively enforce copyright regulations would essentially shut down the Internet, and . It's helpful to step back and remember the evolution of the Internet. No one fully understood what it was or what it would be. And pretty much every time some use case or industry popped up using the technology and the government saw a threat to power or the potential to control/exploit it, it was already too late and things were already too far along, and there was too much vested interest for it to be shut down or regulated away. The best they could do is try to find a way to take a cut of profits. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies are just like that...because that technology basically the next phase of the Internet. Obviously we can't really say for sure until it's already happened and we look back on history and name phases after the fact, but right now it certainly looks like digital ledger technology . I think this article does a pretty good job outlining a likely future:

Link:
https://forums.social*****.com/thr ... er.140812/

[oliver21a]

I’m kind of still `processing the news` (Which explains some attrition I have had with my bank/VISA lately…). Cryptocurrency might be the way, but also, it might also just be the next stop gag (a big one, but). The issues I see with crypto in general 1) volatility (fiat value). It can be an interesting high risk/reward asset, but, not so much for day to day operations. As in the case of mining operations (china…), if you get cheap electricity/bandwidth it can be a profitable operation, for anyone else, caution is advised. 2) computational power / `majority`. Blockchain schemes are all based of `majority consent` and the idea that not a single actor in the system can `overpower` the others as to represent more than 50% of it chains. That’s true for private organizations, governments, USA in particular do have the muscle (if they choose to). 3) legislation. China is cracking down on cryptocurrency, they basically banned it. American congress is introducing legislation to `regulate` it. To be seen the later implications, but, if at the end, it became too costly to use it (convert fiat to crypto and back to fiat), it might lose its practicality altogether. ( ) 1 above might solve itself with time (bigger more stable market), 2 will remain an issue unless crypto really takes off and became too huge to tame. 3 might be the crypto killer, as in china, if the americans (and Europeans will follow suit, for sure) decide to heavily legislate about/around it (for the sake of `protecting our children and cumber illegal activities`), cryptocurrencies might never pass the point of a fringe asset. At the end of the day, unless you are a crypto miner, you will have to use a broker to convert fiat currency into crypto to use it (and the other side, likewise, back to fiat). If the broker has to assure the `card operator/bank` that no illegal/porn/whatever operation is taking place, for instance, boom… Albeit not as handy as a credit card (or crypto) an alternative are `digital bank operators/services` like wise.com (a multi-currency digital bank that allows for some easier fiat to fiat conversion use). At the end, it is a bank. Period. No anonymity, all operations are final and effective immediately. But, at least, those credit card operators would be out of the equation.

Link:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/03/what-cr ... -bill.html

[oliver21a]

1) You're correct, volatility is largely a function of market cap, and as the market grows, volatility continues to shrink. Look at the history of Bitcoin and take note of volatility when market cap was under $1bn, (let alone under $100m, or $1m). . "Each cycle, the extension from the 20 week SMA diminishes each time. What does that mean? It means we're getting less volatility." 2) Here it's evident that your knowledge is lacking. Your statement about "Blockchain schemes are all based of `majority consent`" and the wording you use "represent more than 50% of it [sic] chains" demonstrates you don't really have a full understanding of what you're talking about. The Bitcoin protocol doesn't have multiple chains. And blockchains are not all proof of work like Bitcoin. Not by a long shot. Look into proof of stake and open representative voting for a couple of examples of other ways consensus is achieved. 3) This is largely what I addressed in my post. 4) As for your statement "unless you are a crypto miner, you will have to use a broker to convert fiat currency into crypto to use it" is simply not true. Anyone could pay you for anything using a cryptocurrency, and you in turn could trade it for anything else. Of course a broker makes it easier than finding someone who wants to trade what you want for what you have, but that doesn't mean you can't acquire and start using crypto without a broker. And again, as currencies become more widely adopted, the need to convert to fiat diminishes. Go to any tourist hotspot and they'll likely accept US dollars, regardless of what country you're in. There are many places around the world where you never have to convert to the local currency. This will be similar for popular cryptocurrencies. As they become more widely adopted, you will recieve more and more payments in crypto, meaning you will have crypto to spend. They will just become what you use more and more often.

Link:
https://youtu.be/cc2kyl5ubDY?t=20m22s

[oliver21a]

As you wish, I’m getting too old for some arguments… but, some 8 (5?) years ago, one of the problems bitcoins/blockchain was facing (at the time) was that almost half of all computer nodes were is possession of a single distributed group (hint, south china…), lots have changed since then, but, the fact is, in a blockchain network the validity of any block (proof of work) or transaction (proof of stake) can be manipulated if you have control over half of the nodes. Private groups will have a hard time doing that,,,some governments do have computer power in excess for it. Btw, bitcoin is just one of many possibilities (which only convolutes the problem), Komodo, for instance tries to be more neutral/flexible, allowing diverse/concurrent blockchains (plural). And, regarding the possibility of `no need to use fiat currency anymore` (or using it less and less), look at china and how it goes. It is a catch 22 at best. Do banks accept crypto as an account currency, stock market ? The current American congress legislation proposal might pave the way for it, but also, will cripple it at the same time by strongly regulating it. Edit: and, anyway, cryptocurrencies might be a future solution, it isn’t one right now, PH might `be using it already` But just because they have no other option.