I've found many similar conclusions, but my recent thinking is in the process of changing so let me work through some of that.
Either you're a bitcoin zealot or not. If you're not a zealot and its just 'free money', there's nothing worth talking about.
If you're a true believer, you're right to make a new kind of 'fake' money because the old one has some bad rules sometimes.
The real believer has to think some part of: a central bank, JP Morgan, and VISA, are 'bad' for society, when we measure the value they contribute, compared to the value they extract.
From a tech perspective I think we can agree that's true for at minimum 1.5 out of 3 of them. ( 2.5% interchange charge, wtf. )
But if the line of thinking to use bitcoin requires a concept of "contribute/extract in a society", then bitcoin is a horrible and terrible thing to happen.
We've got a bunch of guys who've become incredibly wealthy, by doing almost nothing of impact. They could have worked as teachers, bridge engineers, build companies, or become VISA sales representative, and they would have contributed something to everyone they interact with.
bitcoin's ratio of "contribution" (wealth generation) vs wealth redistribution, are far worse than any other system it claims to be in a league with.
I'm not in favor of banning while i write this, but there is nothing worth celebrating its rise or to celebrate the people who rose with it, for the same reason you don't celebrate hereditary nobility.
On the other hand there are people who are productive but kept their savings in USD and lost value.
I agree Bitcoin is not a productive asset. However, is there an obviously better way to bootstrap a new form of decentralized money?
The author of the article classifies Bitcoin as an "early bird game" which is defined as a zero sum game where early players win at the expense of later players (and for every winner there is a loser). I don't really understand it. Is it possible for a deflationary currency to keep going up in purchasing power forever? I feel like it is. The productivity of our species as a whole is not like a zero sum game (at least not until some absurd physical limits).
There are so many interesting questions about how Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies can work in the future! I am definitely more of a zealot at the moment!
Either you're a bitcoin zealot or not. If you're not a zealot and its just 'free money', there's nothing worth talking about.
If you're a true believer, you're right to make a new kind of 'fake' money because the old one has some bad rules sometimes.
The real believer has to think some part of: a central bank, JP Morgan, and VISA, are 'bad' for society, when we measure the value they contribute, compared to the value they extract.
From a tech perspective I think we can agree that's true for at minimum 1.5 out of 3 of them. ( 2.5% interchange charge, wtf. )
But if the line of thinking to use bitcoin requires a concept of "contribute/extract in a society", then bitcoin is a horrible and terrible thing to happen.
We've got a bunch of guys who've become incredibly wealthy, by doing almost nothing of impact. They could have worked as teachers, bridge engineers, build companies, or become VISA sales representative, and they would have contributed something to everyone they interact with.
bitcoin's ratio of "contribution" (wealth generation) vs wealth redistribution, are far worse than any other system it claims to be in a league with.
I'm not in favor of banning while i write this, but there is nothing worth celebrating its rise or to celebrate the people who rose with it, for the same reason you don't celebrate hereditary nobility.