I’m against government surveillance and I absolutely recognize that the military is one of the worst offenders when it comes to the climate crisis (along with heavy industry and companies more generally). You’re assuming I don’t care about these things when I absolutely do. And I argue with supporters of those things in exactly the same way
All of that being said, this feels like you’re sort of diverting away from the main question. When people point out that Bitcoin uses enormous amounts of energy (to do what is certifiably ‘useless’ work, in the sense that nothing of inherent value comes out from it), you just point to other offenders with the hope that we’ll excuse Bitcoin. But we can focus on more than one thing at a time, and we can be against more than one thing at a time. Being against Bitcoin (not crypto in general, as I noted above, though again, even ones that produce useful work still consume enormous amounts of energy and aren’t sustainable) doesn’t mean I can’t also be against endless war and privacy invasions.
Anyway, this is obviously off-topic and could go on forever. I’m not trying to pick a fight or anything (@2disbetter), just felt like I had to respond to @Andrew_Gottemoller’s allegations. In service of civility and keeping stuff on topic, this will be my last comment on this post
I’m against government surveillance and I absolutely recognize that the military is one of the worst offenders
Cheers to that! Something we can agree on
you just point to other offenders with the hope that we’ll excuse Bitcoin.
I don’t. I was quite explicit above - I don’t think the work Bitcoin does is useless. The work performed by miners is directly related to the security of the chain. I was also clear when I said the network needs to spend more energy on mining to help secure the chain from government maliciousness.
We differ in that I don’t think Bitcoin’s energy use is pointless as I see technology which facilitates savings as being an important innovation.
All of that being said, this feels like you’re sort of diverting away from the main question.
I don’t think it does. My original post was about Frameworks refusal to accept Bitcoin. I’m happy to acknowledge Bitcoin is a grassroots movement and without support of people it’ll fail. Discussing the merits of Bitcoin and why it’s preferrable to government fiat currencies directly relates to why Framework should accept it in support of this social movement.
It’s also ironic that Framework was apparently founded in part by someone’s savings in Bitcoin (who has now become a hater). It demonstrates that when people are able to save money they are more able to start businesses such as Framework which do good in the world. This is one of the many reasons why Bitcoin should be accepted - to support the movement and take the power of money printing away from governments.
I don’t really want to write an essay but I suspect by the time I’m done it will be.
The TL:DR is pretty simple: you’re wrong…very, very, wrong. Let’s unpack that shall we?
The only commodity that Russia possesses of any value is Natural Gas and Oil, a commodity that was explicitly NOT sanctioned because of the potential impact on Europe refuting this quote as well
Nobody went into this blind and what Russia provides outside of oil and petro products is fairly small with natural resource exports accounting for 60% of it’s GDP (source)
This is not a new phenomena as both Russia and China have realized that sanctions can really hurt their economy and if not sufficiently protected, they are vulnerable to the kind of pain inflicted on Iran. From a strictly geo-political stance, it makes sense to divest from using USD as reserve currency. Even Europe wants to move away from this so that they are less beholden to the decisions of the Fed. It has nothing to do with Bitcoin and its utility and EVERYTHING to do with geo-political concerns.
This alone proves why gold-backed currencies or frankly any commodity backed currency is a bad idea. If the USD were backed by gold, the value of USD would fall as any newly mined gold would cause the value of USD to drop, forcing the federal government to buy gold to keep value stable. Leaving the value of your currency open to external factors is a poor idea.
Welcome to Economics 101 and the cyclical economy. Periods of Growth/Recovery and Recession/Depression. Blame human psychology.
See above. Turns out long-term value is dependent on turning a profit. Many tech companies have failed to turn a profit for some time. Uber apparently turned a profit for the first time in a decade of existence last year. Again wholly unrelated to Bitcoin and has everything to do with psychology.
I can find value, I just recognize that Bitcoin at least has none. Ironically, you yourself point this out later.
The ability to transmit value is intrinsic to any currency, including the fiat currencies you so despise. Real intrinsic value comes from being able to do something with an item/currency beyond its usefulness as a currency. Gold for instance can be used in various ways and oil can be used as fuel. Even USD can be used as toilet paper or kindling if nothing else. Tell me, what can I do with Bitcoin beyond use it as a tool for speculation or use as a currency? Bitcoin is a fiat currency just like USD, it is belief that Bitcoin has value that drives it value, just like USD.
Christmas light bring happiness to people. That is a useful feature and frankly is the only use for Christmas lights, as a source of illumination they are actually pretty terrible. If Bitcoin makes you happy then mazel tov to you. But as a currency is has deficiencies.
How much environmental destruction is caused by cattle farming? There are many things that damage the environment, some of which are tolerable and some which are not. Try asking the American public to give up steak and see how far that gets you.
That has little to do with USD intrinsically and more to do with speculation and a distinct lack of effort building out affordable housing in the US. Inflation in the US has been historically low for quite some time around the target 2% the Fed targets. If wages kept pace with this, it wouldn’t be a big deal. Wages have typically not kept pace so this is a problem.
I very much recognize this, it’s absurd that the only method that will keep the value of my money equal or above inflation is essentially gambling (investing). The loose monetary policy that has driven growth for so long has damaged the ability of the average person to save and actively encourages consumerism. Buying a car a few years ago would have been a better vehicle for storing value by selling it today than sticking that money in a high-yield bank account.
Don’t be so quick to judge the forum members because we don’t blindly agree with you. Many of us are sympathetic to Bitcoin’s goals and aspirations. We just think Bitcoin, not necessarily crypto as a whole, fails in those objectives.
Something I didn’t point out but is significant is that Bitcoin is immune to inflation and this is far from a good thing. The fact that the economy is a Ponzi scheme is an unfortunate problem. It leads to rampant consumerism and the planned obsolescence that Framework is actively resisting. Despite those facts, inflation is necessary for a healthy economy, deflation is not good. When all the Bitcoin has been mined, then what? The large investors/whales are going to want something for what supposedly has vast value, something that without external forces, cannot be devalued. This is Bitcoin’s fatal flaw. It is not democratizing in the slightest.
I can agree with your statement in context of deflation in currencies which are structurally dependent on inflation, such as the dollar.
I don’t see how deflation in a currency that is not based on debt and a continuous exponentially expanding money supply is nearly the same problem. Bitcoin was designed from the outset to run in a continuous deflation mode. If that’s a known to all the players in the game, and Bitcoin isn’t robbing the future to repay the hidden coin-shaving done today, what’s the problem?
If there’s something that I’m missing in my more researched than most but yet for sure incomplete level of economic understanding, please pass it along. But as given your statement doesn’t hold much water to me.
“Bitcoin is infinitely divisible and hence not scarce. All I have to say to people thinking this way is go back to middle school and learn your fractions; dividing a cake infinitely does not mean you can feed a town.”
Is the relevant quote from the article. I alluded to the problem earlier as well.
Those that started early in the game have no external forces to devalue their property and it becomes a buyer’s market. This is fine if it’s cyclical and eventually becomes a seller’s market as it will all balance out at the end. Bitcoin has no external forces to devalue the currency. Only a collective decision that Bitcoin lacks value or the current value doesn’t correspond with reality can shake that. Unlike with a conventional currency where the Fed can print money to devalue the dollar or pull money from the pool to increase value.
How many people today, even with the recent pullback from Bitcoin can actually afford 1BTC? Those that bought in early and those with enormous sums of USD to buy influence such as institutional investors. Essentially the same problem we have now where the majority of wealth in the US is controlled by a privileged few. If I gave you .0002381 BTC, without looking at the current BTC price, what do you think you could purchase with that? Honestly, I’m just repeating the same thing over and over at this point. Stock splitting functions similarly in a way. Split the stock and devalue on a per-stock basis so that more people can participate and buy stock. Keep stock price high and few can participate. Bitcoin locks people out of participating in the market except as wage slaves. How would I grow my share of Bitcoin? Saving it? How would interest be paid? That money was printed to stimulate growth, in other words, inflation. Without inflation, there is no growth.
The Federal Reserve has guaranteed all deposits, uninsured or no, Framework is in no danger. They will be able to access their money tomorrow. The losses will be borne by any bondholders and equity holders. They’ll be the ones getting screwed.
appreciate it.
