@pmh1nic said:
Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange. There are fees and there are delays. We're talking about day to day transactions not million dollar transfers.
You're showing your ignorance here. You have to use an exchange to convert your fiat into crypto. Most exchanges are very convenient and easy to use. The transactions are real-time and fees are minimal compared to banking charges and the 3% charged by the credit card companies. My example for a million dollar transfer is the same for a $.05 transfer.
No switch. You tried to justify the existence of crypto hawkers by bringing in coin hawkers. You don't justify one type of hawking by referring another type of hawking.
Yes switch.
You said:
The fact is there are many of them [crypto promoters] who promote themselves as in the know, that have convinced many to put their money in Bitcoin claiming it's a great investment and/or solid long-term store of wealth. Many of those folks have gotten burned and some burned badly.
I said:
And the home shopping network and other TV shopping channels (and newspaper ads) promote terrible overpriced coin investments as well, but most on this board do not dwell on what those hucksters are promoting despite the people who buy that stuff also getting burned. Instead we dismiss what they say and make fun of them, which is what you should do too.
Then you switched the argument away from the promoters to the asset:
You don't justify one terrible asset by bringing up other terrible assets. You don't validate the hawking of one bad investment by talking up how others have hyped bad investments.
I never validated the hawking of investments. I pointed out that there are hucksters for every investment type, and that this forum community laughs at the coin hucksters just like the reasonable crypto community laughs at the crypto hucksters, but you keep reiterating their hype as if it is legitimate or meaningful.
Not silly at all. I don't define PayPal as prevalent. There were 19 billion PayPal transactions in 2021. That is a miniscule proportion of transactions done worldwide. In contrast Visa had
It's tough to continue this conversation since you've proven that you have an alternative definition for everything. Prevalent means 'widespread,' not dominant. Paypal is easily a widespread payment method in my world. Crypto will be within a few years.
13 trillion transactions in 2021. Again, when major corporations and governments start transacting in Bitcoin you'll have something to talk about. But that's not going to happen.
When crypto transactions for commerce reach 1 billion transactions will be something to talk about, and it's going to happen.
@pmh1nic said:
Actually I think someone has backtracked from Crypto being the best thing since sliced bread to it being "prevalent" whatever that means.
Perhaps the problem is that you don't have a dictionary? Is that why you keep redefining terms? Dictionary.com is free to use.
No ignorance. You said if you want to be safe secure your own wallet. I countered that many folks don't want the responsibility of securing their wallet and allow an exchange to hold their crypto.
_**"Cryptocurrency Wallet vs Exchange Storage: Who Really Controls Your Crypto?
There’s one key difference between using a crypto wallet vs exchange account to store and manage your digital assets. When you use a cryptocurrency wallet, you and only you are in complete control over what happens to your Bitcoin. But when you keep your crypto on an exchange account, sometimes referred to as an “exchange wallet,” you share control of your crypto with the exchange itself."**_
Again, you tried and failed in your attempt to minimize the damage done by those that hawked crypto as an investment by mentioning those that hawk coins as an investment. You don't justify one bad actor by talking about other bad actors. No one is justifying HSN and you only bring this into the conversation as a diversion to the real subject, the massive promotion of crypto as a great investment. Stay focused.
When major governments and Fortune 500 companies start paying salaries and benefits in Bitcoin I'll say it has arrived. I won't be holding my breath.
All currencies are based in trust. After 17 years of hyping crypto there is very little trust and that trust took a major hit over the last year and maybe a knockout punch over the last month. Bitcoin as it is currently constructed hasn't got a snowball's chance in the fiery furnace of becoming a major medium of exchange meaning major governments and corporations are not going to be utilizing it. Digital currencies are coming but it won't be Bitcoin as currently constructed.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
As comedian Andy Borowitz sarcastically noted about Sam Bankman-Fried: "The world is shocked that a man running a business based on imaginary money might be a fraud".
I am disgusted/saddened by the whole situation regarding SBF. Tried to listen to some of the posted interviews... but could not do so for very long. Umm, like, ummm.... kinda,.... umm, um..... huckster all the way.... pretending to know nothing....
I have never played with any crypto. For those who are... there are fires sprouting up all around... fire alarms are going off. What does it take before you decide to evacuate? When your own house is finally on fire? (Perhaps your own house will be spared... so maybe no problem)
Don't get me wrong... if you are a believer, no problem. And perhaps you are right... that the cryptos are here to stay and may still be the wave of the future, with fortunes to be made once again. We all place our bets as we see fit, and reap the rewards, both good and bad.
@tincup said:
I am disgusted/saddened by the whole situation regarding SBF. Tried to listen to some of the posted interviews... but could not do so for very long. Umm, like, ummm.... kinda,.... umm, um..... huckster all the way.... pretending to know nothing....
I have never played with any crypto. For those who are... there are fires sprouting up all around... fire alarms are going off. What does it take before you decide to evacuate? When your own house is finally on fire? (Perhaps your own house will be spared... so maybe no problem)
Don't get me wrong... if you are a believer, no problem. And perhaps you are right... that the cryptos are here to stay and may still be the wave of the future, with fortunes to be made once again. We all place our bets as we see fit, and reap the rewards, both good and bad.
As for SBF.... no further comments on my part.
Not all "cryptos" are the same. Talking about them as a single entity is something of a mistake.
And SBF's fraud was the same as Bernie Madoff's. He could have done the same thing with bond funds, stock funds or anything else. His crimes are only tangentially related to crypto.
@pmh1nic said:
Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Not at all. It's evidence that centralized exchanges are not secure places to store money. There are Bitcoin wallets with billions of dollars of bitcoin in them. If it's not secure, why haven't then been ravaged yet? Surely a billion dollars is a big enough reward for someone to go after if it's as insecure as you suggest.
And for the record, 561 US banks have gone bust since 2001. Banks aren't trustworthy either, the only saving grace is the FDIC insurance for cash deposits.
No ignorance. You said if you want to be safe secure your own wallet. I countered that many folks don't want the responsibility of securing their wallet and allow an exchange to hold their crypto.
Yes ignorance. You said, "Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange." There is no choice to use an exchange. The choice is whether to use a decentralized exchange or leave your crypto on a centralized exchange. That's a significant difference than what you were saying.
I agree that many people opt to leave their crypto in the hands of others. That is the risk they decide to take. Just as I decide how much cash to carry around with me when I leave my house, how much cash to leave in my safe, and how much cash to leave in my bank, and how much cash to leave in brokerage accounts.
Again, you tried and failed in your attempt to minimize the damage done by those that hawked crypto as an investment by mentioning those that hawk coins as an investment. You don't justify one bad actor by talking about other bad actors. No one is justifying HSN and you only bring this into the conversation as a diversion to the real subject, the massive promotion of crypto as a great investment. Stay focused.
No you twist the conversation so you don't ever admit you're wrong. We've seen how you operate here.
You think crypto is unique as an investment or asset that loses value vs the US dollar sometimes (ignoring the enormous gains and the fact that the majority of BTC holders are in a profit position at today's price), attracts fraudsters who take advantage of people, and has a fan club promoting it as the best thing ever. The reality is that every asset class is the same in this respect. That doesn't invalidate the merits or future outlook of each asset. It only means that if you're going to invest in something, it's best to do your homework and research because there are always people out there looking to take advantage of those who don't.
When major governments and Fortune 500 companies start paying salaries and benefits in Bitcoin I'll say it has arrived. I won't be holding my breath.
Oh what a bold statement! That's an impossibly high bar that I also concede is unlikely. Major governments are never going to pay in a currency other than what they print, it would be like Coke offering Pepsi in the employee break room. A few major companies might some day but it's added complication to existing payroll systems that most companies won't want want to deal with. It's not like any of these companies would allow their US employees to opt to be paid in Euros in either, for that matter, yet the Euro is a pretty major currency.
All currencies are based in trust. After 17 years of hyping crypto there is very little trust and that trust took a major hit over the last year and maybe a knockout punch over the last month. Bitcoin as it is currently constructed hasn't got a snowball's chance in the fiery furnace of becoming a major medium of exchange meaning major governments and corporations are not going to be utilizing it. Digital currencies are coming but it won't be Bitcoin as currently constructed.
It's only been 13 years and you're right, there is no trust. It's a trust-less system and that's the whole point and beauty of it. You don't have to trust any third parties or intermediaries and the software just does what it's programmed to do. Hundreds of millions around the globe trust Bitcoin and crypto and the failure of a centralized exchange doesn't change that.
Knockout punch? I don't know if that's a joke and you're trying to be funny or if its sad because you still don't understand the utility and value of decentralized financial systems and smart contracts. The FTX failure was yet another failure of centralization. This should be a wake-up call for everyone to consider where their assets are stored and who is in charge of them, and what could happen to your assets that you don't personally control. Where are you pension funds invested and are the funds really there?
@pmh1nic said:
Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Not at all. It's evidence that centralized exchanges are not secure places to store money. There are Bitcoin wallets with billions of dollars of bitcoin in them. If it's not secure, why haven't then been ravaged yet? Surely a billion dollars is a big enough reward for someone to go after if it's as insecure as you suggest.
And for the record, 561 US banks have gone bust since 2001. Banks aren't trustworthy either, the only saving grace is the FDIC insurance for cash deposits.
No ignorance. You said if you want to be safe secure your own wallet. I countered that many folks don't want the responsibility of securing their wallet and allow an exchange to hold their crypto.
Yes ignorance. You said, "Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange." There is no choice to use an exchange. The choice is whether to use a decentralized exchange or leave your crypto on a centralized exchange. That's a significant difference than what you were saying.
I agree that many people opt to leave their crypto in the hands of others. That is the risk they decide to take. Just as I decide how much cash to carry around with me when I leave my house, how much cash to leave in my safe, and how much cash to leave in my bank, and how much cash to leave in brokerage accounts.
Again, you tried and failed in your attempt to minimize the damage done by those that hawked crypto as an investment by mentioning those that hawk coins as an investment. You don't justify one bad actor by talking about other bad actors. No one is justifying HSN and you only bring this into the conversation as a diversion to the real subject, the massive promotion of crypto as a great investment. Stay focused.
No you twist the conversation so you don't ever admit you're wrong. We've seen how you operate here.
You think crypto is unique as an investment or asset that loses value vs the US dollar sometimes (ignoring the enormous gains and the fact that the majority of BTC holders are in a profit position at today's price), attracts fraudsters who take advantage of people, and has a fan club promoting it as the best thing ever. The reality is that every asset class is the same in this respect. That doesn't invalidate the merits or future outlook of each asset. It only means that if you're going to invest in something, it's best to do your homework and research because there are always people out there looking to take advantage of those who don't.
When major governments and Fortune 500 companies start paying salaries and benefits in Bitcoin I'll say it has arrived. I won't be holding my breath.
Oh what a bold statement! That's an impossibly high bar that I also concede is unlikely. Major governments are never going to pay in a currency other than what they print, it would be like Coke offering Pepsi in the employee break room. A few major companies might some day but it's added complication to existing payroll systems that most companies won't want want to deal with. It's not like any of these companies would allow their US employees to opt to be paid in Euros in either, for that matter, yet the Euro is a pretty major currency.
All currencies are based in trust. After 17 years of hyping crypto there is very little trust and that trust took a major hit over the last year and maybe a knockout punch over the last month. Bitcoin as it is currently constructed hasn't got a snowball's chance in the fiery furnace of becoming a major medium of exchange meaning major governments and corporations are not going to be utilizing it. Digital currencies are coming but it won't be Bitcoin as currently constructed.
It's only been 13 years and you're right, there is no trust. It's a trust-less system and that's the whole point and beauty of it. You don't have to trust any third parties or intermediaries and the software just does what it's programmed to do. Hundreds of millions around the globe trust Bitcoin and crypto and the failure of a centralized exchange doesn't change that.
Knockout punch? I don't know if that's a joke and you're trying to be funny or if its sad because you still don't understand the utility and value of decentralized financial systems and smart contracts. The FTX failure was yet another failure of centralization. This should be a wake-up call for everyone to consider where their assets are stored and who is in charge of them, and what could happen to your assets that you don't personally control. Where are you pension funds invested and are the funds really there?
Again you miss the point. The fact is hundreds of billions of dollars in crypto are held by exchanges that are not secure. Why were hundreds of billions held by exchanges? Because millions of people found creating and securing their personal wallet an inconvenience. What you do isn't the issue. You don't set the standard by which millions of holders of crypto followed. The growth in crypto can very much be attributed to the perceived convenience of buying and securing crypto via an exchange. This was the convenience begin promoted that got not only celebrates like Brady and Curry to put their crypto with FTX but supposedly educated investors like O'Leary and Sequoia Capital, SoftBank, and Tiger Global, Blackrock, Lightspeed and many other institutional investors.
Wrong, all currency, crypto included, is based in trust. YOU CLAIM it's impossible to hack or otherwise manipulate it. How do you know that? Do you have a Ph.d in blockchain technology? How do you know a hack hasn't already occurred? Are you personally monitoring every transaction? Maybe you're a pretty smart individual. I can just about guarantee you the vast majority of folks that had their crypto being held by FTX haven't got a clue regarding the details of the technology. So yes, putting you funds in crypto IS a matter of trust and that trust has been severely shattered by what has occurred over the last few weeks.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Bitcoin is neither convenient or secure. The fact that exchanges exist is evidence it's not easy and the fact that those exchanges have lost tens of billions in customer assets is evidence ite not secure.
Not at all. It's evidence that centralized exchanges are not secure places to store money. There are Bitcoin wallets with billions of dollars of bitcoin in them. If it's not secure, why haven't then been ravaged yet? Surely a billion dollars is a big an exchange to hold their crypto.
Yes ignorance. You said, "Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange." There is no choice to use an exchange. The choice is whether to use a decentralized exchange or leave your crypto on a centralized exchange. That's a significant difference than what you were saying.
I agree that many people opt to leave their crypto in the hands of others. That is the risk they decide to take. Just as I decide how much cash to carry around with me when
Knockout punch? I don't know if that's a joke and you're trying to be funny or if its sad because you still don't understand the utility and value of decentralized financial systems and smart contracts. The FTX failure was yet another failure of centralization. This should be a wake-up call for everyone to consider where their assets are stored and who is in charge of them, and what could happen to your assets that you don't personally control. Where are you pension funds invested and are the funds really there?
You make many fine points, but you couldn't convince him it was raining if the water was up to his neck. It's likely organic as he appears to be on the spectrum. You might as well let it go.
@pmh1nic said:
Again you miss the point. The fact is hundreds of billions of dollars in crypto are held by exchanges that are not secure.
Some exchanges are more secure than others. But that kind of security is not blockchain security, it's username and password type security, not crypto wallet private key security. That's a big difference. Again, that's a weakness of centralization, not of crypto.
Why were hundreds of billions held by exchanges? Because millions of people found creating and securing their personal wallet an inconvenience.
Some of it may have been actively being traded, some people might not have known better. Some people fell for SBF's tactics and thought they were safe with him. Hard to say if it all comes down to it being "too hard" to spend 2 minutes and withdraw your assets.
What you do isn't the issue. You don't set the standard by which millions of holders of crypto followed. The growth in crypto can very much be attributed to the perceived convenience of buying and securing crypto via an exchange.
Again, you have to use an exchange of some sort to convert fiat into crypto. There's not a choice here unless you buy in-person from someone on Craigslist or something.
This was the convenience begin promoted that got not only celebrates like Brady and Curry to put their crypto with FTX but supposedly educated investors like O'Leary and Sequoia Capital, SoftBank, and Tiger Global, Blackrock, Lightspeed and many other institutional investors.
Not too long ago you were talking about how difficult crypto was to use, now you are saying it was being promoted for being easy. All exchanges like to promote that they are easy to use and do try to do so as the opposite would be bad for business. I don't believe the ads were promoting people to transfer their crypto to the FTX platform, but probably just general promotion for using the platform itself.
Wrong, all currency, crypto included, is based in trust.
YOU CLAIM it's impossible to hack or otherwise manipulate it. How do you know that? Do you have a Ph.d in blockchain technology? How do you know a hack hasn't already occurred?
I told you I'm in the industry. It's not impossible to hack, just extremely difficult. With modern computing technology trying every possible combination it would take hundreds or thousands of years to succeed (I don't remember the exact figure, you can look it up yourself).
Are you personally monitoring every transaction? Maybe you're a pretty smart individual. I can just about guarantee you the vast majority of folks that had their crypto being held by FTX haven't got a clue regarding the details of the technology.
I don't have to monitor every transaction because I understand greed and the human condition. There's wallets with billions of dollars in them just ripe for the taking. If someone could spend a few million and hire an army of hackers or setup a warehouse of servers trying to get that $1B don't you think someone would be doing that? If there was a successful hack it would not only be front page news, but the people who monitor all of the "whale wallets" would know as soon as it happened.
So yes, putting you funds in crypto IS a matter of trust and that trust has been severely shattered by what has occurred over the last few weeks.
The trust in crypto has not been shattered. The trust in centralized exchanges has.
@jmlanzaf said:
You make many fine points, but you couldn't convince him it was raining if the water was up to his neck. It's likely organic as he appears to be on the spectrum. You might as well let it go.
I know. I don't know why I keep doing this to myself.
Here we go. The journey of 1000 miles starts with 1 step. I guess I was wrong when I agreed that major governments wouldn't use crypto. While not a government, it is a global government entity. The UN is now using crypto. Who is next?
@pmh1nic said:
Again you miss the point. The fact is hundreds of billions of dollars in crypto are held by exchanges that are not secure.
Some exchanges are more secure than others. But that kind of security is not blockchain security, it's username and password type security, not crypto wallet private key security. That's a big difference. Again, that's a weakness of centralization, not of crypto.
Why were hundreds of billions held by exchanges? Because millions of people found creating and securing their personal wallet an inconvenience.
Some of it may have been actively being traded, some people might not have known better. Some people fell for SBF's tactics and thought they were safe with him. Hard to say if it all comes down to it being "too hard" to spend 2 minutes and withdraw your assets.
What you do isn't the issue. You don't set the standard by which millions of holders of crypto followed. The growth in crypto can very much be attributed to the perceived convenience of buying and securing crypto via an exchange.
Again, you have to use an exchange of some sort to convert fiat into crypto. There's not a choice here unless you buy in-person from someone on Craigslist or something.
This was the convenience begin promoted that got not only celebrates like Brady and Curry to put their crypto with FTX but supposedly educated investors like O'Leary and Sequoia Capital, SoftBank, and Tiger Global, Blackrock, Lightspeed and many other institutional investors.
Not too long ago you were talking about how difficult crypto was to use, now you are saying it was being promoted for being easy. All exchanges like to promote that they are easy to use and do try to do so as the opposite would be bad for business. I don't believe the ads were promoting people to transfer their crypto to the FTX platform, but probably just general promotion for using the platform itself.
Wrong, all currency, crypto included, is based in trust.
YOU CLAIM it's impossible to hack or otherwise manipulate it. How do you know that? Do you have a Ph.d in blockchain technology? How do you know a hack hasn't already occurred?
I told you I'm in the industry. It's not impossible to hack, just extremely difficult. With modern computing technology trying every possible combination it would take hundreds or thousands of years to succeed (I don't remember the exact figure, you can look it up yourself).
Are you personally monitoring every transaction? Maybe you're a pretty smart individual. I can just about guarantee you the vast majority of folks that had their crypto being held by FTX haven't got a clue regarding the details of the technology.
I don't have to monitor every transaction because I understand greed and the human condition. There's wallets with billions of dollars in them just ripe for the taking. If someone could spend a few million and hire an army of hackers or setup a warehouse of servers trying to get that $1B don't you think someone would be doing that? If there was a successful hack it would not only be front page news, but the people who monitor all of the "whale wallets" would know as soon as it happened.
So yes, putting you funds in crypto IS a matter of trust and that trust has been severely shattered by what has occurred over the last few weeks.
The trust in crypto has not been shattered. The trust in centralized exchanges has.
@jmlanzaf said:
You make many fine points, but you couldn't convince him it was raining if the water was up to his neck. It's likely organic as he appears to be on the spectrum. You might as well let it go.
I know. I don't know why I keep doing this to myself.
@pmh1nic said:
Again you miss the point. The fact is hundreds of billions of dollars in crypto are held by exchanges that are not secure.
Some exchanges are more secure than others. But that kind of security is not blockchain security, it's username and password type security, not crypto wallet private key security. That's a big difference. Again, that's a weakness of centralization, not of crypto.
Why were hundreds of billions held by exchanges? Because millions of people found creating and securing their personal wallet an inconvenience.
Some of it may have been actively being traded, some people might not have known better. Some people fell for SBF's tactics and thought they were safe with him. Hard to say if it all comes down to it being "too hard" to spend 2 minutes and withdraw your assets.
What you do isn't the issue. You don't set the standard by which millions of holders of crypto followed. The growth in crypto can very much be attributed to the perceived convenience of buying and securing crypto via an exchange.
Again, you have to use an exchange of some sort to convert fiat into crypto. There's not a choice here unless you buy in-person from someone on Craigslist or something.
This was the convenience begin promoted that got not only celebrates like Brady and Curry to put their crypto with FTX but supposedly educated investors like O'Leary and Sequoia Capital, SoftBank, and Tiger Global, Blackrock, Lightspeed and many other institutional investors.
Not too long ago you were talking about how difficult crypto was to use, now you are saying it was being promoted for being easy. All exchanges like to promote that they are easy to use and do try to do so as the opposite would be bad for business. I don't believe the ads were promoting people to transfer their crypto to the FTX platform, but probably just general promotion for using the platform itself.
Wrong, all currency, crypto included, is based in trust.
YOU CLAIM it's impossible to hack or otherwise manipulate it. How do you know that? Do you have a Ph.d in blockchain technology? How do you know a hack hasn't already occurred?
I told you I'm in the industry. It's not impossible to hack, just extremely difficult. With modern computing technology trying every possible combination it would take hundreds or thousands of years to succeed (I don't remember the exact figure, you can look it up yourself).
Are you personally monitoring every transaction? Maybe you're a pretty smart individual. I can just about guarantee you the vast majority of folks that had their crypto being held by FTX haven't got a clue regarding the details of the technology.
I don't have to monitor every transaction because I understand greed and the human condition. There's wallets with billions of dollars in them just ripe for the taking. If someone could spend a few million and hire an army of hackers or setup a warehouse of servers trying to get that $1B don't you think someone would be doing that? If there was a successful hack it would not only be front page news, but the people who monitor all of the "whale wallets" would know as soon as it happened.
So yes, putting you funds in crypto IS a matter of trust and that trust has been severely shattered by what has occurred over the last few weeks.
The trust in crypto has not been shattered. The trust in centralized exchanges has.
@jmlanzaf said:
You make many fine points, but you couldn't convince him it was raining if the water was up to his neck. It's likely organic as he appears to be on the spectrum. You might as well let it go.
I know. I don't know why I keep doing this to myself.
Bottom line is, as millions have found out, it’s not 100% secure (nothing is), the crypto industry is ripe for fraud and abuse and putting you money in crypto does require trust in the technology, technology which most folks don’t understand. How is this any different than fiat? > @ProofCollection said:
Here we go. The journey of 1000 miles starts with 1 step. I guess I was wrong when I agreed that major governments wouldn't use crypto. While not a government, it is a global government entity. The UN is now using crypto. Who is next?
The argument isn't about blockchain technology or isolated use of crypto. The question is whether any decentralized currency is going to become the dominant means of exchange. My argument is no crypto currency is going to become a major means of exchange absent the ability of major governments to regulate, control, tax and manipulate that currency.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Again you miss the point. The fact is hundreds of billions of dollars in crypto are held by exchanges that are not secure.
Some exchanges are more secure than others. But that kind of security is not blockchain security, it's username and password type security, not crypto wallet private key security. That's a big difference. Again, that's a weakness of centralization, not of crypto.
Why were hundreds of billions held by exchanges? Because millions of people found creating and securing their personal wallet an inconvenience.
Some of it may have been actively being traded, some people might not have known better. Some people fell for SBF's tactics and thought they were safe with him. Hard to say if it all comes down to it being "too hard" to spend 2 minutes and withdraw your assets.
What you do isn't the issue. You don't set the standard by which millions of holders of crypto followed. The growth in crypto can very much be attributed to the perceived convenience of buying and securing crypto via an exchange.
Again, you have to use an exchange of some sort to convert fiat into crypto. There's not a choice here unless you buy in-person from someone on Craigslist or something.
This was the convenience begin promoted that got not only celebrates like Brady and Curry to put their crypto with FTX but supposedly educated investors like O'Leary and Sequoia Capital, SoftBank, and Tiger Global, Blackrock, Lightspeed and many other institutional investors.
Not too long ago you were talking about how difficult crypto was to use, now you are saying it was being promoted for being easy. All exchanges like to promote that they are easy to use and do try to do so as the opposite would be bad for business. I don't believe the ads were promoting people to transfer their crypto to the FTX platform, but probably just general promotion for using the platform itself.
Wrong, all currency, crypto included, is based in trust.
YOU CLAIM it's impossible to hack or otherwise manipulate it. How do you know that? Do you have a Ph.d in blockchain technology? How do you know a hack hasn't already occurred?
I told you I'm in the industry. It's not impossible to hack, just extremely difficult. With modern computing technology trying every possible combination it would take hundreds or thousands of years to succeed (I don't remember the exact figure, you can look it up yourself).
Are you personally monitoring every transaction? Maybe you're a pretty smart individual. I can just about guarantee you the vast majority of folks that had their crypto being held by FTX haven't got a clue regarding the details of the technology.
I don't have to monitor every transaction because I understand greed and the human condition. There's wallets with billions of dollars in them just ripe for the taking. If someone could spend a few million and hire an army of hackers or setup a warehouse of servers trying to get that $1B don't you think someone would be doing that? If there was a successful hack it would not only be front page news, but the people who monitor all of the "whale wallets" would know as soon as it happened.
So yes, putting you funds in crypto IS a matter of trust and that trust has been severely shattered by what has occurred over the last few weeks.
The trust in crypto has not been shattered. The trust in centralized exchanges has.
@jmlanzaf said:
You make many fine points, but you couldn't convince him it was raining if the water was up to his neck. It's likely organic as he appears to be on the spectrum. You might as well let it go.
I know. I don't know why I keep doing this to myself.
You're wrong on the trust issue. If people don't trust the technology it's impossible to get them to invest their assets to the technology. Crypto is NOT trustless. You're "in the industry". What does that mean? I'm a riveter for Boeing, does that mean you should trust my opinion regarding the reliability of a 787? I'm not a riveter by the way. So you're in the industry but 99.999% of the population are not. Does that mean those folks are suppose go "trust" you?
The issue of exchange security is an issue holding individuals and institutions from diving into the crypto space. But the major point I'm make goes beyond security to control. The major selling point of crypto is it being outside the ability of anyone to manipulate it.
I just happened onto a YouTube video of a guy that was hired to hack into a hard wallet with millions of dollars on it. The owner forgot the password. Years ago this hacker (a teenager at the time) was arrested with some of his friends for computer hacking. He is a middle age man working in the electronic technology field. He ended up being hired by the owner of the wallet in a final effort to retrieve the money before finally giving up and calling it a loss. It was a pretty interesting process and the hacker had some specialized electronic equipment and indepth knowledge about hard wallets but after three hours he managed to recover the money. I don't believe anyone that says a system can't be hacked but if a bank gets hacked they are responsible for the money lost and you're probably going to have alk the resources of the bank and the federal government tracking down the hacker and coming up with procedures to prevent a future hack...until it happens again.
You're someone "in the industry" and a devoted disciple of crypto. The task is to convince the major governments that they should give up their ability to manipulate currencies AND convince billions of individuals to trust the technology. Bitcoin is never going to be anything more than a speculative invest with nothing backing it but trust and a novelty as a medium of exchange. It's never going to replace the dollar, yuan, yen, euro, ruble regardless of what happened in El Salador....
El Salvador has lost around $60 million on its bitcoin bet one year into a nationwide crypto experiment. The use of bitcoin in El Salvador appears to be low amid the market volatility.
The country faces plummeting economic growth and a high deficit.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Bottom line is, as millions have found out, it’s not 100% secure (nothing is), the crypto industry is ripe for fraud and abuse and putting you money in crypto does require trust in the technology, technology which most folks don’t understand. How is this any different than fiat?
In that respect there is no difference, which is why it baffles me why you keep harping on these points.
The argument isn't about blockchain technology or isolated use of crypto. The question is whether any decentralized currency is going to become the dominant means of exchange. My argument is no crypto currency is going to become a major means of exchange absent the ability of major governments to regulate, control, tax and manipulate that currency.
It will be in smaller and less stable countries, like Venezuela. But you can't ignore the legitimacy demonstrated by the UN's use of crypto in the article I linked.
You're wrong on the trust issue. If people don't trust the technology it's impossible to get them to invest their assets to the technology. Crypto is NOT trustless. You're "in the industry". What does that mean? I'm a riveter for Boeing, does that mean you should trust my opinion regarding the reliability of a 787? I'm not a riveter by the way. So you're in the industry but 99.999% of the population are not. Does that mean those folks are suppose go "trust" you?
Crypto is trustless, the article I linked explained it quite well. Crypto is the facilitation of the Internet of Trust. That said, it will take time for the skeptics to get over their skepticism and give it a try. This is not unlike every other new technology or application. Online dating used to be a punch line, and now it is common place and accepted.
Being in the industry means that I've attended multiple trade shows, I keep up with all of the industry news and happenings, and that I understand how the technology works, what it is, what it isn't, etc. Still, I would never expect or want anyone to trust me or anyone posting on the Internet. What I do expect and want is people to see what I post and then do their own research to validate my information.
The issue of exchange security is an issue holding individuals and institutions from diving into the crypto space. But the major point I'm make goes beyond security to control. The major selling point of crypto is it being outside the ability of anyone to manipulate it.
As with any new technology there is much consumer education that needs to happen. You either take responsibility for controlling your assets or you delegate it to someone else and assume the 3rd party risks.
I just happened onto a YouTube video of a guy that was hired to hack into a hard wallet with millions of dollars on it. The owner forgot the password. Years ago this hacker (a teenager at the time) was arrested with some of his friends for computer hacking. He is a middle age man working in the electronic technology field. He ended up being hired by the owner of the wallet in a final effort to retrieve the money before finally giving up and calling it a loss. It was a pretty interesting process and the hacker had some specialized electronic equipment and indepth knowledge about hard wallets but after three hours he managed to recover the money. I don't believe anyone that says a system can't be hacked but if a bank gets hacked they are responsible for the money lost and you're probably going to have alk the resources of the bank and the federal government tracking down the hacker and coming up with procedures to prevent a future hack...until it happens again.
I would be interested to watch the video if you would care to link it. I guarantee you he did not brute force hack a 256 bit hexadecimal private key. Chances are he had a wallet application protected by a traditional password that stored his private key that he was able to brute force.
Yes, US banks are insured for losses you described (I'm not sure that's the case in most countries though). The insurance is not free though. There are tradeoffs for decentralized and centralized systems.
You're someone "in the industry" and a devoted disciple of crypto. The task is to convince the major governments that they should give up their ability to manipulate currencies AND convince billions of individuals to trust the technology. Bitcoin is never going to be anything more than a speculative invest with nothing backing it but trust and a novelty as a medium of exchange. It's never going to replace the dollar, yuan, yen, euro, ruble regardless of what happened in El Salador....
I'm not a disciple, I just understand its potential and do what I can to help people see its potential and help correct the misinformation when I see it. I still don't see why the governments have to give up their own fiat currencies. Fiat and crypto can both exist. It's just another trading pair. Just like USD/YEN, USD/GOLD, USD/OIL, USD/HOUSING, USD/Hamburger, USD/Eggs, USD/Wheat.
El Salvador has lost around $60 million on its bitcoin bet one year into a nationwide crypto experiment. The use of bitcoin in El Salvador appears to be low amid the market volatility.
The country faces plummeting economic growth and a high deficit.
As it is a completely new way of doing things, such a rollout requires a proper strategy. It would be quite a feat for the first country to do it to get it right the first time. Other than the initial giveaway to citizens, it's unclear to me how the government used and stored/banked it. However, as I mentioned in prior posts, there are ways to hedge positions to stay neutral and mitigate volatility. It's unclear if they employed those measures or not.
@pmh1nic said:
Bottom line is, as millions have found out, it’s not 100% secure (nothing is), the crypto industry is ripe for fraud and abuse and putting you money in crypto does require trust in the technology, technology which most folks don’t understand. How is this any different than fiat?
In that respect there is no difference, which is why it baffles me why you keep harping on these points.
The argument isn't about blockchain technology or isolated use of crypto. The question is whether any decentralized currency is going to become the dominant means of exchange. My argument is no crypto currency is going to become a major means of exchange absent the ability of major governments to regulate, control, tax and manipulate that currency.
It will be in smaller and less stable countries, like Venezuela. But you can't ignore the legitimacy demonstrated by the UN's use of crypto in the article I linked.
You're wrong on the trust issue. If people don't trust the technology it's impossible to get them to invest their assets to the technology. Crypto is NOT trustless. You're "in the industry". What does that mean? I'm a riveter for Boeing, does that mean you should trust my opinion regarding the reliability of a 787? I'm not a riveter by the way. So you're in the industry but 99.999% of the population are not. Does that mean those folks are suppose go "trust" you?
Crypto is trustless, the article I linked explained it quite well. Crypto is the facilitation of the Internet of Trust. That said, it will take time for the skeptics to get over their skepticism and give it a try. This is not unlike every other new technology or application. Online dating used to be a punch line, and now it is common place and accepted.
Being in the industry means that I've attended multiple trade shows, I keep up with all of the industry news and happenings, and that I understand how the technology works, what it is, what it isn't, etc. Still, I would never expect or want anyone to trust me or anyone posting on the Internet. What I do expect and want is people to see what I post and then do their own research to validate my information.
The issue of exchange security is an issue holding individuals and institutions from diving into the crypto space. But the major point I'm make goes beyond security to control. The major selling point of crypto is it being outside the ability of anyone to manipulate it.
As with any new technology there is much consumer education that needs to happen. You either take responsibility for controlling your assets or you delegate it to someone else and assume the 3rd party risks.
I just happened onto a YouTube video of a guy that was hired to hack into a hard wallet with millions of dollars on it. The owner forgot the password. Years ago this hacker (a teenager at the time) was arrested with some of his friends for computer hacking. He is a middle age man working in the electronic technology field. He ended up being hired by the owner of the wallet in a final effort to retrieve the money before finally giving up and calling it a loss. It was a pretty interesting process and the hacker had some specialized electronic equipment and indepth knowledge about hard wallets but after three hours he managed to recover the money. I don't believe anyone that says a system can't be hacked but if a bank gets hacked they are responsible for the money lost and you're probably going to have alk the resources of the bank and the federal government tracking down the hacker and coming up with procedures to prevent a future hack...until it happens again.
I would be interested to watch the video if you would care to link it. I guarantee you he did not brute force hack a 256 bit hexadecimal private key. Chances are he had a wallet application protected by a traditional password that stored his private key that he was able to brute force.
Yes, US banks are insured for losses you described (I'm not sure that's the case in most countries though). The insurance is not free though. There are tradeoffs for decentralized and centralized systems.
You're someone "in the industry" and a devoted disciple of crypto. The task is to convince the major governments that they should give up their ability to manipulate currencies AND convince billions of individuals to trust the technology. Bitcoin is never going to be anything more than a speculative invest with nothing backing it but trust and a novelty as a medium of exchange. It's never going to replace the dollar, yuan, yen, euro, ruble regardless of what happened in El Salador....
I'm not a disciple, I just understand its potential and do what I can to help people see its potential and help correct the misinformation when I see it. I still don't see why the governments have to give up their own fiat currencies. Fiat and crypto can both exist. It's just another trading pair. Just like USD/YEN, USD/GOLD, USD/OIL, USD/HOUSING, USD/Hamburger, USD/Eggs, USD/Wheat.
El Salvador has lost around $60 million on its bitcoin bet one year into a nationwide crypto experiment. The use of bitcoin in El Salvador appears to be low amid the market volatility.
The country faces plummeting economic growth and a high deficit.
As it is a completely new way of doing things, such a rollout requires a proper strategy. It would be quite a feat for the first country to do it to get it right the first time. Other than the initial giveaway to citizens, it's unclear to me how the government used and stored/banked it. However, as I mentioned in prior posts, there are ways to hedge positions to stay neutral and mitigate volatility. It's unclear if they employed those measures or not.
The big boys... Visa, Mastercard, etc. have been and are making moves in the space. Crypto is not going away.
We're not look for no different.
Again, you're absolutely wrong about the trust issue. You have to convince those putting their funds into crypto that the technology, much of which they don't understand, is trustworthy (your words don't make it so) and the tens of billions stolen over the last few months and the hundreds of billions of value lost over the last year to not engender trust. And while the technology behind the banking system is not well understood it's been around for 100 years, billions of people have their money tied up into and the federal government provides a guarantee.
Governments rely on a monetary policy they can control to fund the "beast". Anything that threatens that control, like another form of currency, may be tolerated on a small scale but that's not what the proponents of crypto are promoting. They are promoting it as a way to escape fiat currency. On one you say its growing in popularity but say it will never grow to the point where it threatens fiat currencies. It was promoted for years as a way to escape government tracking of funds. Now you say the tracking of crypto funds is fine. It was promoted as a currency that can't be controlled by governments. Now everyone is clamoring for government oversight and control. You can't have it both ways.
I never said crypto is going away. There will be some form of digital currency but it's not going to be one that has been promoted over the years (decentralized, no ability of governments to manipulate it, can't be tracked, etc., etc.). Nothing that diminishes the government's ability to control monetary policy and people is going make up a majority section of commerce. That's a utopian fairytale.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Again, you're absolutely wrong about the trust issue. You have to convince those putting their funds into crypto that the technology, much of which they don't understand, is trustworthy (your words don't make it so) and the tens of billions stolen over the last few months and the hundreds of billions of value lost over the last year to not engender trust.
The technology is trustworthy but it's not foolproof. Proper diligence is still required or fools will continue to be separated from their money.
And while the technology behind the banking system is not well understood it's been around for 100 years, billions of people have their money tied up into and the federal government provides a guarantee.
In the US anyway. You keep forgetting that crypto is global and as such, may have much broader need and adoption in other countries without such luxuries or stability.
Governments rely on a monetary policy they can control to fund the "beast". Anything that threatens that control, like another form of currency, may be tolerated on a small scale but that's not what the proponents of crypto are promoting. They are promoting it as a way to escape fiat currency. On one you say its growing in popularity but say it will never grow to the point where it threatens fiat currencies.
It won't ever threaten the US Dollar. Other countries' fiat, maybe. Venezuela's fiat is quite threatened by crypto.
It was promoted for years as a way to escape government tracking of funds. Now you say the tracking of crypto funds is fine. It was promoted as a currency that can't be controlled by governments. Now everyone is clamoring for government oversight and control. You can't have it both ways.
I never promoted it as a way to escape government tracking. Public cryptos are openly trackable via the blockchain, so the idea that it isn't is a foolish notion. In fact, it's one of the reasons it is so trustworthy because anyone can see where the funds go.
It was promoted as a currency that can't be controlled by governments. Now everyone is clamoring for government oversight and control. You can't have it both ways.
They can clamor all they want, it's not possible to control most any crypto without a 50+% ownership stake. Such clamoring only reveals the ignorance of the clamorers.
I never said crypto is going away. There will be some form of digital currency but it's not going to be one that has been promoted over the years (decentralized, no ability of governments to manipulate it, can't be tracked, etc., etc.). Nothing that diminishes the government's ability to control monetary policy and people is going make up a majority section of commerce. That's a utopian fairytale.
Maybe in the US, but it's close to reality in places like Venezuela.
Again, you're absolutely wrong about the trust issue. You have to convince those putting their funds into crypto that the technology, much of which they don't understand, is trustworthy (your words don't make it so) and the tens of billions stolen over the last few months and the hundreds of billions of value lost over the last year to not engender trust.
The technology is trustworthy but it's not foolproof. Proper diligence is still required or fools will continue to be separated from their money.
And while the technology behind the banking system is not well understood it's been around for 100 years, billions of people have their money tied up into and the federal government provides a guarantee.
In the US anyway. You keep forgetting that crypto is global and as such, may have much broader need and adoption in other countries without such luxuries or stability.
Governments rely on a monetary policy they can control to fund the "beast". Anything that threatens that control, like another form of currency, may be tolerated on a small scale but that's not what the proponents of crypto are promoting. They are promoting it as a way to escape fiat currency. On one you say its growing in popularity but say it will never grow to the point where it threatens fiat currencies.
It won't ever threaten the US Dollar. Other countries' fiat, maybe. Venezuela's fiat is quite threatened by crypto.
It was promoted for years as a way to escape government tracking of funds. Now you say the tracking of crypto funds is fine. It was promoted as a currency that can't be controlled by governments. Now everyone is clamoring for government oversight and control. You can't have it both ways.
I never promoted it as a way to escape government tracking. Public cryptos are openly trackable via the blockchain, so the idea that it isn't is a foolish notion. In fact, it's one of the reasons it is so trustworthy because anyone can see where the funds go.
It was promoted as a currency that can't be controlled by governments. Now everyone is clamoring for government oversight and control. You can't have it both ways.
They can clamor all they want, it's not possible to control most any crypto without a 50+% ownership stake. Such clamoring only reveals the ignorance of the clamorers.
I never said crypto is going away. There will be some form of digital currency but it's not going to be one that has been promoted over the years (decentralized, no ability of governments to manipulate it, can't be tracked, etc., etc.). Nothing that diminishes the government's ability to control monetary policy and people is going make up a majority section of commerce. That's a utopian fairytale.
Maybe in the US, but it's close to reality in places like Venezuela.
But everyone should "play it safe" and believe the corporate media outlets and ignore what the Big Boys are doing.
Folks are not looking for something that is no different from what they have. If you’re trading one commodity or currency for another you’re looking for increased value or security or increased functionality.
YOU SAY the technology is trustworthy but recent events have proven it is not. Now you’re going to parse what you mean by the “technology” and claim it’s only the blockchain. MAYBE that’s true but the only way to take advantage of that technology is through a third party that you have to trust. At some point you have to use an exchange that you trust. Even if you keep your crypto on a hard wallet you have to trust the wallet technology (which most people don’t fully understand) and trust whatever system you have in place to secure your password. Every system requires trust. We can debate the level of trust but your claim crypto is trust less is false.
Whether you claimed crypto can’t be tracked isn’t the point. The inability to track it HAS been one of the selling points.
So your confidence in the future of crypto based on what is happening in Venezuela? Really?
The world’s reserve currency is the dollar. While I believe that status faces some serious threats it’s not going to be usurped by Bitcoin. Until my employer (a Fortune 500 company), Social Security, mortgage company, etc. begin transacting business in Bitcoin I and the vast majority of the population are not going to be using Bitcoin as their main mode of transacting business. I don’t see it happening in any of the major industrialized countries regardless of what happens in Venezuela. Will it survive as an asset class for speculative trading? Maybe. But I don’t see it as an alternative to any of the major currencies unless dramatic changes in oversight, regulation and control (meaning ability to manipulate to the advantage of government) occur. But when that happens it loses its luster as a trading asset that realizes a 5x gain a year.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
...and here's the mother!! 🤣 😂 A couple of real sweethearts!!
Mom and dad were both law professors at Stanford. I can't begin to imagine the extent of the connections this family has in the legal and political realm. He is out on a $250 million bond. While the issue maybe more specific to problems with unregulated exchanges it is going to stink up the crypto space in general.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Central Banks are making plans to start carrying crypto currencies. This paper from the BIS provides guidelines for doing so: https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d545.pdf
In June 2022 the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued its second consultation on the prudential
treatment of banks’ exposures to cryptoassets.1 After considering the feedback from stakeholders to the
consultation, the Committee has now finalised its prudential standard, which has been endorsed by the
Committee’s oversight body, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision. This document sets out
the final standard which the Committee has agreed to implement by 1 January 2025. The text will be
incorporated into the consolidated Basel Framework shortly. The Committee wishes to thank respondents
for their feedback to the second consultation.
" prudential treatment of banks’ exposures to cryptoassets. "
Prudential treatment of bank's exposure to cryptoassets.... does not mean they are endorsing them? But rather how to handle them... since they are around? You would have to give me more details... I do not know what this really means.
@tincup said:
" prudential treatment of banks’ exposures to cryptoassets. "
Prudential treatment of bank's exposure to cryptoassets.... does not mean they are endorsing them? But rather how to handle them... since they are around? You would have to give me more details... I do not know what this really means.
Yes, how banks can/should handle them. Which implies that some are planning on it and/or want to. These are the kinds of regulations that will boost crypto adoption and the lack of which has held back some of the industry growth so far. The takeaway that I get is that major players are making plans and moves to get in. The trajectory is up, not down.
even though there tends to be a lot of hyperbole, i do miss those old political tokens with people expressing their views/experiences (umm, lets say creatively) and you figure they're not all right but obviously, not all wrong.
i wonder if people could make that stuff today and hand it out but have "no cash value" on there or the like?
@RegistryCoin said:
Are there, or will there be new crypto currencies that are:
Asset-based, and
Dividend-paying, and
U.S. Government-regulated?
If not, is that a goal?
Asset-based: Yes. Look into Elrond, LODE and a few others that have tokens that (supposedly) represent gold and silver. There was one that was actually redeemable but it is no longer around.
Dividend-paying: Basically yes. There are ways to earn returns by staking or running nodes.
Regulated: What do you mean? Regulated in what way? The answer you're probably looking for is, 'no' or 'not yet.' However, pretty much everything we do and buy is regulated in some way. US-based crypto projects and exchanges must comply with federal regulations for KYC, AML, etc., and securities laws so in that way they are regulated.
Domino effect slowly unravelling?
Silvergate Capital shares sank to a record low after the company said it wouldn’t be able to file its annual report on time and was reviewing whether it can remain viable.
In June 2022 the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued its second consultation on the prudential
treatment of banks’ exposures to cryptoassets.1 After considering the feedback from stakeholders to the
consultation, the Committee has now finalised its prudential standard, which has been endorsed by the
Committee’s oversight body, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision. This document sets out
the final standard which the Committee has agreed to implement by 1 January 2025. The text will be
incorporated into the consolidated Basel Framework shortly. The Committee wishes to thank respondents
for their feedback to the second consultation.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. If a bank decides they will the question remains to what extent and which crypto will meet the desired standard. You're the crypto expert. Which current crypto meets the Group 1 standards?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. If a bank decides they will the question remains to what extent and which crypto will meet the desired standard. You're the crypto expert. Which current crypto meets the Group 1 standards?
I believe the list is:
-XRP
-XLM
-XDC
-MIOTA
-ALGO
And 3 that are probably meet Group1 but still TBD:
-ADA
-HBAR
-QNT
@pmh1nic said:
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. If a bank decides they will the question remains to what extent and which crypto will meet the desired standard. You're the crypto expert. Which current crypto meets the Group 1 standards?
I believe the list is:
-XRP
-XLM
-XDC
-MIOTA
-ALGO
And 3 that are probably meet Group1 but still TBD:
-ADA
-HBAR
-QNT
Where is Bitcoin in all of this?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Comments
No ignorance. You said if you want to be safe secure your own wallet. I countered that many folks don't want the responsibility of securing their wallet and allow an exchange to hold their crypto.
_**"Cryptocurrency Wallet vs Exchange Storage: Who Really Controls Your Crypto?
There’s one key difference between using a crypto wallet vs exchange account to store and manage your digital assets. When you use a cryptocurrency wallet, you and only you are in complete control over what happens to your Bitcoin. But when you keep your crypto on an exchange account, sometimes referred to as an “exchange wallet,” you share control of your crypto with the exchange itself."**_
Again, you tried and failed in your attempt to minimize the damage done by those that hawked crypto as an investment by mentioning those that hawk coins as an investment. You don't justify one bad actor by talking about other bad actors. No one is justifying HSN and you only bring this into the conversation as a diversion to the real subject, the massive promotion of crypto as a great investment. Stay focused.
When major governments and Fortune 500 companies start paying salaries and benefits in Bitcoin I'll say it has arrived. I won't be holding my breath.
All currencies are based in trust. After 17 years of hyping crypto there is very little trust and that trust took a major hit over the last year and maybe a knockout punch over the last month. Bitcoin as it is currently constructed hasn't got a snowball's chance in the fiery furnace of becoming a major medium of exchange meaning major governments and corporations are not going to be utilizing it. Digital currencies are coming but it won't be Bitcoin as currently constructed.
The games have begun and the rabbit hole does indeed runneth deep.
https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/watch-live-new-ftx-ceo-throw-sbf-under-bus-congressional-hearing
It's all smoke and mirrors to entertain the masses for a while.
** Edited to add the YT link
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
i had posted about it last week on the In honor of gold in 1850s thread
But the act of money disappearing from bank savings accounts is a really scary prospect - albeit the following story is from down under.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/western-australian-mans-580k-live-savings-disappear-from-ubank-account/news-story/d4ba3f60cf0ebbdecdd1f2ed88188afd
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
a weird time to post a selfie of yourself in your garden?
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
Millenial. He can't stay off social media.
have any of you been a member in a discord/reddit etc for a project that was about to go up in flames?
here is the type of stuff you can see: (it;s metaphorical doh)
ok, a couple more and i'm done.
Anyone seen Bitcoin at the blackjack or poker tables yet?
Online?
As comedian Andy Borowitz sarcastically noted about Sam Bankman-Fried: "The world is shocked that a man running a business based on imaginary money might be a fraud".
You just can't beat N.Y. Post headlines!! 😂 🤣
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
I am disgusted/saddened by the whole situation regarding SBF. Tried to listen to some of the posted interviews... but could not do so for very long. Umm, like, ummm.... kinda,.... umm, um..... huckster all the way.... pretending to know nothing....
I have never played with any crypto. For those who are... there are fires sprouting up all around... fire alarms are going off. What does it take before you decide to evacuate? When your own house is finally on fire? (Perhaps your own house will be spared... so maybe no problem)
Don't get me wrong... if you are a believer, no problem. And perhaps you are right... that the cryptos are here to stay and may still be the wave of the future, with fortunes to be made once again. We all place our bets as we see fit, and reap the rewards, both good and bad.
As for SBF.... no further comments on my part.
Not all "cryptos" are the same. Talking about them as a single entity is something of a mistake.
And SBF's fraud was the same as Bernie Madoff's. He could have done the same thing with bond funds, stock funds or anything else. His crimes are only tangentially related to crypto.
Not at all. It's evidence that centralized exchanges are not secure places to store money. There are Bitcoin wallets with billions of dollars of bitcoin in them. If it's not secure, why haven't then been ravaged yet? Surely a billion dollars is a big enough reward for someone to go after if it's as insecure as you suggest.
And for the record, 561 US banks have gone bust since 2001. Banks aren't trustworthy either, the only saving grace is the FDIC insurance for cash deposits.
Yes ignorance. You said, "Millions of folks decided it wasn't convenient and chose to go through an exchange." There is no choice to use an exchange. The choice is whether to use a decentralized exchange or leave your crypto on a centralized exchange. That's a significant difference than what you were saying.
I agree that many people opt to leave their crypto in the hands of others. That is the risk they decide to take. Just as I decide how much cash to carry around with me when I leave my house, how much cash to leave in my safe, and how much cash to leave in my bank, and how much cash to leave in brokerage accounts.
No you twist the conversation so you don't ever admit you're wrong. We've seen how you operate here.
You think crypto is unique as an investment or asset that loses value vs the US dollar sometimes (ignoring the enormous gains and the fact that the majority of BTC holders are in a profit position at today's price), attracts fraudsters who take advantage of people, and has a fan club promoting it as the best thing ever. The reality is that every asset class is the same in this respect. That doesn't invalidate the merits or future outlook of each asset. It only means that if you're going to invest in something, it's best to do your homework and research because there are always people out there looking to take advantage of those who don't.
Oh what a bold statement! That's an impossibly high bar that I also concede is unlikely. Major governments are never going to pay in a currency other than what they print, it would be like Coke offering Pepsi in the employee break room. A few major companies might some day but it's added complication to existing payroll systems that most companies won't want want to deal with. It's not like any of these companies would allow their US employees to opt to be paid in Euros in either, for that matter, yet the Euro is a pretty major currency.
It's only been 13 years and you're right, there is no trust. It's a trust-less system and that's the whole point and beauty of it. You don't have to trust any third parties or intermediaries and the software just does what it's programmed to do. Hundreds of millions around the globe trust Bitcoin and crypto and the failure of a centralized exchange doesn't change that.
Knockout punch? I don't know if that's a joke and you're trying to be funny or if its sad because you still don't understand the utility and value of decentralized financial systems and smart contracts. The FTX failure was yet another failure of centralization. This should be a wake-up call for everyone to consider where their assets are stored and who is in charge of them, and what could happen to your assets that you don't personally control. Where are you pension funds invested and are the funds really there?
Again you miss the point. The fact is hundreds of billions of dollars in crypto are held by exchanges that are not secure. Why were hundreds of billions held by exchanges? Because millions of people found creating and securing their personal wallet an inconvenience. What you do isn't the issue. You don't set the standard by which millions of holders of crypto followed. The growth in crypto can very much be attributed to the perceived convenience of buying and securing crypto via an exchange. This was the convenience begin promoted that got not only celebrates like Brady and Curry to put their crypto with FTX but supposedly educated investors like O'Leary and Sequoia Capital, SoftBank, and Tiger Global, Blackrock, Lightspeed and many other institutional investors.
Wrong, all currency, crypto included, is based in trust. YOU CLAIM it's impossible to hack or otherwise manipulate it. How do you know that? Do you have a Ph.d in blockchain technology? How do you know a hack hasn't already occurred? Are you personally monitoring every transaction? Maybe you're a pretty smart individual. I can just about guarantee you the vast majority of folks that had their crypto being held by FTX haven't got a clue regarding the details of the technology. So yes, putting you funds in crypto IS a matter of trust and that trust has been severely shattered by what has occurred over the last few weeks.
You make many fine points, but you couldn't convince him it was raining if the water was up to his neck. It's likely organic as he appears to be on the spectrum. You might as well let it go.
Some exchanges are more secure than others. But that kind of security is not blockchain security, it's username and password type security, not crypto wallet private key security. That's a big difference. Again, that's a weakness of centralization, not of crypto.
Some of it may have been actively being traded, some people might not have known better. Some people fell for SBF's tactics and thought they were safe with him. Hard to say if it all comes down to it being "too hard" to spend 2 minutes and withdraw your assets.
Again, you have to use an exchange of some sort to convert fiat into crypto. There's not a choice here unless you buy in-person from someone on Craigslist or something.
Not too long ago you were talking about how difficult crypto was to use, now you are saying it was being promoted for being easy. All exchanges like to promote that they are easy to use and do try to do so as the opposite would be bad for business. I don't believe the ads were promoting people to transfer their crypto to the FTX platform, but probably just general promotion for using the platform itself.
No, only crypto is trust less. Read up:
https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/trustless-meaning-blockchain-non-custodial-smart-contracts
What Does Trustless Mean?
Trustlessness in the blockchain industry simply means you do not need to place your sole trust in any one stranger, institution, or other third party in order for a network or payment system to function.
I told you I'm in the industry. It's not impossible to hack, just extremely difficult. With modern computing technology trying every possible combination it would take hundreds or thousands of years to succeed (I don't remember the exact figure, you can look it up yourself).
I don't have to monitor every transaction because I understand greed and the human condition. There's wallets with billions of dollars in them just ripe for the taking. If someone could spend a few million and hire an army of hackers or setup a warehouse of servers trying to get that $1B don't you think someone would be doing that? If there was a successful hack it would not only be front page news, but the people who monitor all of the "whale wallets" would know as soon as it happened.
The trust in crypto has not been shattered. The trust in centralized exchanges has.
I know. I don't know why I keep doing this to myself.
This thread will continue as long as there is no transparency with key stakeholders and how they are evasive with standard financial accountability.
CZ was asked this am why none of the big accounting firms have audited his firm and all he could come up with was they are uncomfortable with crypto.
That is not reassuring.
Here we go. The journey of 1000 miles starts with 1 step. I guess I was wrong when I agreed that major governments wouldn't use crypto. While not a government, it is a global government entity. The UN is now using crypto. Who is next?
https://decrypt.co/117312/un-taps-stellar-blockchain-send-war-impacted-ukrainians-usdc-stablecoins
UN Taps Stellar Blockchain to Send War-Impacted Ukrainians USDC Stablecoins
The UN Refugee Agency is turning to crypto to aid internally displaced persons and other war-affected people in Ukraine
It just doesn't seem like crypto is dying.
Bottom line is, as millions have found out, it’s not 100% secure (nothing is), the crypto industry is ripe for fraud and abuse and putting you money in crypto does require trust in the technology, technology which most folks don’t understand. How is this any different than fiat? > @ProofCollection said:
The argument isn't about blockchain technology or isolated use of crypto. The question is whether any decentralized currency is going to become the dominant means of exchange. My argument is no crypto currency is going to become a major means of exchange absent the ability of major governments to regulate, control, tax and manipulate that currency.
You're wrong on the trust issue. If people don't trust the technology it's impossible to get them to invest their assets to the technology. Crypto is NOT trustless. You're "in the industry". What does that mean? I'm a riveter for Boeing, does that mean you should trust my opinion regarding the reliability of a 787? I'm not a riveter by the way. So you're in the industry but 99.999% of the population are not. Does that mean those folks are suppose go "trust" you?
The issue of exchange security is an issue holding individuals and institutions from diving into the crypto space. But the major point I'm make goes beyond security to control. The major selling point of crypto is it being outside the ability of anyone to manipulate it.
I just happened onto a YouTube video of a guy that was hired to hack into a hard wallet with millions of dollars on it. The owner forgot the password. Years ago this hacker (a teenager at the time) was arrested with some of his friends for computer hacking. He is a middle age man working in the electronic technology field. He ended up being hired by the owner of the wallet in a final effort to retrieve the money before finally giving up and calling it a loss. It was a pretty interesting process and the hacker had some specialized electronic equipment and indepth knowledge about hard wallets but after three hours he managed to recover the money. I don't believe anyone that says a system can't be hacked but if a bank gets hacked they are responsible for the money lost and you're probably going to have alk the resources of the bank and the federal government tracking down the hacker and coming up with procedures to prevent a future hack...until it happens again.
You're someone "in the industry" and a devoted disciple of crypto. The task is to convince the major governments that they should give up their ability to manipulate currencies AND convince billions of individuals to trust the technology. Bitcoin is never going to be anything more than a speculative invest with nothing backing it but trust and a novelty as a medium of exchange. It's never going to replace the dollar, yuan, yen, euro, ruble regardless of what happened in El Salador....
El Salvador has lost around $60 million on its bitcoin bet one year into a nationwide crypto experiment. The use of bitcoin in El Salvador appears to be low amid the market volatility.
The country faces plummeting economic growth and a high deficit.
In that respect there is no difference, which is why it baffles me why you keep harping on these points.
It will be in smaller and less stable countries, like Venezuela. But you can't ignore the legitimacy demonstrated by the UN's use of crypto in the article I linked.
Crypto is trustless, the article I linked explained it quite well. Crypto is the facilitation of the Internet of Trust. That said, it will take time for the skeptics to get over their skepticism and give it a try. This is not unlike every other new technology or application. Online dating used to be a punch line, and now it is common place and accepted.
Being in the industry means that I've attended multiple trade shows, I keep up with all of the industry news and happenings, and that I understand how the technology works, what it is, what it isn't, etc. Still, I would never expect or want anyone to trust me or anyone posting on the Internet. What I do expect and want is people to see what I post and then do their own research to validate my information.
As with any new technology there is much consumer education that needs to happen. You either take responsibility for controlling your assets or you delegate it to someone else and assume the 3rd party risks.
I would be interested to watch the video if you would care to link it. I guarantee you he did not brute force hack a 256 bit hexadecimal private key. Chances are he had a wallet application protected by a traditional password that stored his private key that he was able to brute force.
Yes, US banks are insured for losses you described (I'm not sure that's the case in most countries though). The insurance is not free though. There are tradeoffs for decentralized and centralized systems.
I'm not a disciple, I just understand its potential and do what I can to help people see its potential and help correct the misinformation when I see it. I still don't see why the governments have to give up their own fiat currencies. Fiat and crypto can both exist. It's just another trading pair. Just like USD/YEN, USD/GOLD, USD/OIL, USD/HOUSING, USD/Hamburger, USD/Eggs, USD/Wheat.
As it is a completely new way of doing things, such a rollout requires a proper strategy. It would be quite a feat for the first country to do it to get it right the first time. Other than the initial giveaway to citizens, it's unclear to me how the government used and stored/banked it. However, as I mentioned in prior posts, there are ways to hedge positions to stay neutral and mitigate volatility. It's unclear if they employed those measures or not.
On another note, more evidence that crypto is not dying but rather on an upward trajectory:
https://www.financialexpress.com/blockchain/visa-aims-to-permit-auto-pay-option-through-ethereum-backed-crypto-wallets/2920607/
Through a December 20, 2022, blog post, Visa’s crypto thought leadership unit suggested a way for providers to automatically “pull” funds from users’ Ethereum-backed crypto wallets.
The big boys... Visa, Mastercard, etc. have been and are making moves in the space. Crypto is not going away.
peacockcoins
We're not look for no different.
Again, you're absolutely wrong about the trust issue. You have to convince those putting their funds into crypto that the technology, much of which they don't understand, is trustworthy (your words don't make it so) and the tens of billions stolen over the last few months and the hundreds of billions of value lost over the last year to not engender trust. And while the technology behind the banking system is not well understood it's been around for 100 years, billions of people have their money tied up into and the federal government provides a guarantee.
Governments rely on a monetary policy they can control to fund the "beast". Anything that threatens that control, like another form of currency, may be tolerated on a small scale but that's not what the proponents of crypto are promoting. They are promoting it as a way to escape fiat currency. On one you say its growing in popularity but say it will never grow to the point where it threatens fiat currencies. It was promoted for years as a way to escape government tracking of funds. Now you say the tracking of crypto funds is fine. It was promoted as a currency that can't be controlled by governments. Now everyone is clamoring for government oversight and control. You can't have it both ways.
I never said crypto is going away. There will be some form of digital currency but it's not going to be one that has been promoted over the years (decentralized, no ability of governments to manipulate it, can't be tracked, etc., etc.). Nothing that diminishes the government's ability to control monetary policy and people is going make up a majority section of commerce. That's a utopian fairytale.
Bitcoin Miner Core Scientific Files for Bankruptcy, Expects Support From Some Debt Holders
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/12/21/core-scientific-one-of-the-largest-bitcoin-miners-files-for-bankruptcy-protection/
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
SBF released on $250,000,000 bail.
And ordered to move in with parents.
https://gizmodo.com/sbf-crypto-extradition-bail-sam-bankman-fried-1849924471
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
Huh?
The technology is trustworthy but it's not foolproof. Proper diligence is still required or fools will continue to be separated from their money.
In the US anyway. You keep forgetting that crypto is global and as such, may have much broader need and adoption in other countries without such luxuries or stability.
It won't ever threaten the US Dollar. Other countries' fiat, maybe. Venezuela's fiat is quite threatened by crypto.
It was promoted for years as a way to escape government tracking of funds. Now you say the tracking of crypto funds is fine. It was promoted as a currency that can't be controlled by governments. Now everyone is clamoring for government oversight and control. You can't have it both ways.
I never promoted it as a way to escape government tracking. Public cryptos are openly trackable via the blockchain, so the idea that it isn't is a foolish notion. In fact, it's one of the reasons it is so trustworthy because anyone can see where the funds go.
They can clamor all they want, it's not possible to control most any crypto without a 50+% ownership stake. Such clamoring only reveals the ignorance of the clamorers.
Maybe in the US, but it's close to reality in places like Venezuela.
Oh look, more news about the "big boys" getting into soon-to-be defunct crypto:
Goldman Sachs to Spend 'Tens of Millions' on Discounted Crypto Investments After FTX Implosion: Report
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/12/06/goldman-sachs-to-spend-tens-of-millions-on-discounted-crypto-investments-after-ftx-implosion-report/
But everyone should "play it safe" and believe the corporate media outlets and ignore what the Big Boys are doing.
There may be hope if Russia legalizes for international trade.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/legal/russia-international-trade-bitcoin-january
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
I can't get my head around cryptocurrency, so I'll pass. Gimme more tangible assets, please.
Folks are not looking for something that is no different from what they have. If you’re trading one commodity or currency for another you’re looking for increased value or security or increased functionality.
YOU SAY the technology is trustworthy but recent events have proven it is not. Now you’re going to parse what you mean by the “technology” and claim it’s only the blockchain. MAYBE that’s true but the only way to take advantage of that technology is through a third party that you have to trust. At some point you have to use an exchange that you trust. Even if you keep your crypto on a hard wallet you have to trust the wallet technology (which most people don’t fully understand) and trust whatever system you have in place to secure your password. Every system requires trust. We can debate the level of trust but your claim crypto is trust less is false.
Whether you claimed crypto can’t be tracked isn’t the point. The inability to track it HAS been one of the selling points.
So your confidence in the future of crypto based on what is happening in Venezuela? Really?
The world’s reserve currency is the dollar. While I believe that status faces some serious threats it’s not going to be usurped by Bitcoin. Until my employer (a Fortune 500 company), Social Security, mortgage company, etc. begin transacting business in Bitcoin I and the vast majority of the population are not going to be using Bitcoin as their main mode of transacting business. I don’t see it happening in any of the major industrialized countries regardless of what happens in Venezuela. Will it survive as an asset class for speculative trading? Maybe. But I don’t see it as an alternative to any of the major currencies unless dramatic changes in oversight, regulation and control (meaning ability to manipulate to the advantage of government) occur. But when that happens it loses its luster as a trading asset that realizes a 5x gain a year.
A face only a mother could love!
...and here's the mother!! 🤣 😂 A couple of real sweethearts!!
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
Mom and dad were both law professors at Stanford. I can't begin to imagine the extent of the connections this family has in the legal and political realm. He is out on a $250 million bond. While the issue maybe more specific to problems with unregulated exchanges it is going to stink up the crypto space in general.
To the very core my friend, to the very core!! She looks like something out of Hitler's third Reich!
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
So many of the comments on here sound like this headline from 22 years ago.
Central Banks are making plans to start carrying crypto currencies. This paper from the BIS provides guidelines for doing so:
https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d545.pdf
In June 2022 the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued its second consultation on the prudential
treatment of banks’ exposures to cryptoassets.1 After considering the feedback from stakeholders to the
consultation, the Committee has now finalised its prudential standard, which has been endorsed by the
Committee’s oversight body, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision. This document sets out
the final standard which the Committee has agreed to implement by 1 January 2025. The text will be
incorporated into the consolidated Basel Framework shortly. The Committee wishes to thank respondents
for their feedback to the second consultation.
" prudential treatment of banks’ exposures to cryptoassets. "
Prudential treatment of bank's exposure to cryptoassets.... does not mean they are endorsing them? But rather how to handle them... since they are around? You would have to give me more details... I do not know what this really means.
Yes, how banks can/should handle them. Which implies that some are planning on it and/or want to. These are the kinds of regulations that will boost crypto adoption and the lack of which has held back some of the industry growth so far. The takeaway that I get is that major players are making plans and moves to get in. The trajectory is up, not down.
@dcarr Nice, I like it!
even though there tends to be a lot of hyperbole, i do miss those old political tokens with people expressing their views/experiences (umm, lets say creatively) and you figure they're not all right but obviously, not all wrong.
i wonder if people could make that stuff today and hand it out but have "no cash value" on there or the like?
Are there, or will there be new crypto currencies that are:
Asset-based, and
Dividend-paying, and
U.S. Government-regulated?
If not, is that a goal?
Asset-based: Yes. Look into Elrond, LODE and a few others that have tokens that (supposedly) represent gold and silver. There was one that was actually redeemable but it is no longer around.
Dividend-paying: Basically yes. There are ways to earn returns by staking or running nodes.
Regulated: What do you mean? Regulated in what way? The answer you're probably looking for is, 'no' or 'not yet.' However, pretty much everything we do and buy is regulated in some way. US-based crypto projects and exchanges must comply with federal regulations for KYC, AML, etc., and securities laws so in that way they are regulated.
Crypto.com reduces workforce by 20%.
https://crypto.com/company-news/company-update
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
This presentation, slides 55-74 make the case for crypto better than most and makes a great case for why the technology is young and only just getting started.
https://research.ark-invest.com/hubfs/1_Download_Files_ARK-Invest/Big_Ideas/ARK Invest_013123_Presentation_Big Ideas 2023_Final.pdf
This is probably the best chart since some people like to only focus on the recent price drop.
Domino effect slowly unravelling?
Silvergate Capital shares sank to a record low after the company said it wouldn’t be able to file its annual report on time and was reviewing whether it can remain viable.
@kgreifeld has more on “Bloomberg Markets: European Close” https://trib.al/jOhFrEK
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
An almost four year old video where Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett were totlly candid on the issue
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. If a bank decides they will the question remains to what extent and which crypto will meet the desired standard. You're the crypto expert. Which current crypto meets the Group 1 standards?
I believe the list is:
-XRP
-XLM
-XDC
-MIOTA
-ALGO
And 3 that are probably meet Group1 but still TBD:
-ADA
-HBAR
-QNT
Where is Bitcoin in all of this?