Can governments not step in and put an end to the cryptocurrency madness?

[silvagti]

Won't be for a long, long time if it happens, BTC has the front-runner and name advantage.

Let's say that a conglomerate of multinational tech companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc) and/or banks get together and create a bitcoin style cryptocurrency competitor. Perhaps even a government somewhere will create their own currency which people across the world are able to use.

We've already seen Facebook/banks attempt to do it with Libra and that's only being blocked due to various governments concerns about it competing with their own national currencies. Sooner or later we're bound to see something like that emerge as a competitor.

Do you not feel that could potentially end bitcoin overnight?

 

[Tephnos]

Let's say that a conglomerate of multinational tech companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc) and/or banks get together and create a bitcoin style cryptocurrency competitor. Perhaps even a government somewhere will create their own currency which people across the world are able to use.

We've already seen Facebook/banks attempt to do it with Libra and that's only being blocked due to various governments concerns about it competing with their own national currencies. Sooner or later we're bound to see something like that emerge as a competitor.

Do you not feel that could potentially end bitcoin overnight?

Absolutely not, because Bitcoin cannot be corporate or government controlled, that's one of the main factors of its relevancy.

And no corporation or government will produce a digital currency in which they can't control or revoke funds at will.

 

[DeliciousStorage]

White Phosphorous, for example, is a better candidate than imaginary money.

The stuff I purchased with Bitcoin sure doesn't look imaginary.

Let's say that a conglomerate of multinational tech companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc) and/or banks get together and create a bitcoin style cryptocurrency competitor. Perhaps even a government somewhere will create their own currency which people across the world are able to use.

We've already seen Facebook/banks attempt to do it with Libra and that's only being blocked due to various governments concerns about it competing with their own national currencies. Sooner or later we're bound to see something like that emerge as a competitor.

Do you not feel that could potentially end bitcoin overnight?

Not at all, nobody would be the slightest bit interested in some s***coin that isn't decentralized, trustless, and censorship resistant.

 

[silvagti]

Not at all, nobody would be the slightest bit interested in some s***coin that isn't decentralized, trustless, and censorship resistant.

It's interesting how some people see the idea of a currency which isn't backed by an asset or company/government as a good thing whereas others ,myself included, view it with suspicion for that very reason!

As far as I can see right now Bitcoin only has value because people can use it a a means of transaction. The moment something superior comes along for that purpose I don't understand how bitcoin can still retain any of its value.

 

[Efour]

Because being Neo from the matrix is cool, fight the power!

 

[DeliciousStorage]

It's interesting how some people see the idea of a currency which isn't backed by an asset or company/government as a good thing whereas others ,myself included, view it with suspicion for that very reason!

As far as I can see right now Bitcoin only has value because people can use it a a means of transaction. The moment something superior comes along for that purpose I don't understand how bitcoin can still retain any of its value.

Bitcoin's main purpose at this point is as a store of wealth rather than a means of transaction. Network fees are generally too high for small transactions. Solutions like the lightning network will come in time. It's hard to imagine a new cryptocurrency coming along that is somehow superior to Bitcoin as a store of wealth, but if so it could be updated (forked) to include whatever technology is in the new superior crypto.

 

[silvagti]

Bitcoin's main purpose at this point is as a store of wealth rather than a means of transaction. Network fees are generally too high for small transactions. Solutions like the lightning network will come in time. It's hard to imagine a new cryptocurrency coming along that is somehow superior to Bitcoin as a store of wealth, but if so it could be updated (forked) to include whatever technology is in the new superior crypto.

Are you not concerned about viewing Bitcoin as a store of wealth when it has no inherent value or institution backing it?

Especially when, as far as I can see, it's entire value relies on its use for carrying out transactions?

 

[DeliciousStorage]

Are you not concerned about viewing Bitcoin as a store of wealth when it has no inherent value or institution backing it?

Especially when, as far as I can see, it's entire value relies on its use for carrying out transactions?

No, Fiat money doesn't have any intrinsic value either unless you want to wipe your arse with it, yet people accept it as a means of exchange. Bitcoin has already long since been established as a means of exchange so there's no concern that everyone will suddenly decide it's worthless.

 

[Angilion]

It's interesting how some people see the idea of a currency which isn't backed by an asset or company/government as a good thing whereas others ,myself included, view it with suspicion for that very reason!

As far as I can see right now Bitcoin only has value because people can use it a a means of transaction. The moment something superior comes along for that purpose I don't understand how bitcoin can still retain any of its value.

Largely because the other means of transaction are controlled by a handful of companies (Visa, etc). Increasingly, a handful of companies control what is allowed to be said, who is allowed to say at, what can be sold and who is allowed to sell it. There is some value in more freedom.

Random example - VISA is currently having a lot of success in shutting down Pornhub due to pressure from religious groups. No need for any court cases or governments or honesty in politics. Just stop the business accepting payments by Visa because that mostly stops customers paying, which stops the business. Purely by decree from a payment control company.

If we don't want a world completely controlled by a handful of massive media control companies (Apple, Google, etc) and payment control companies (Visa, Mastercard, etc) we need means of transaction and communication that aren't controlled by them. Bitcoin et alia probably won't retain their vastly inflated "value" created by a speculation bubble get rich quick frenzy, but hopefully they will retain some value.

 

[silvagti]

No, Fiat money doesn't have any intrinsic value either unless you want to wipe your arse with it, yet people accept it as a means of exchange.

I don't agree. People here use GBP purely because the government backs it and mandates that all goods/services in Britain must be sold and taxed in Pound Sterling. People don't use it because they want to. They use it because the government (backed by the courts, legal system and law enforcement) insists that they have to and not obeying that will land you in prison!

Nobody is forcing anyone to accept Bitcoin as a means of exchange!

 

[Theophany]

No, Fiat money doesn't have any intrinsic value either unless you want to wipe your arse with it, yet people accept it as a means of exchange. Bitcoin has already long since been established as a means of exchange so there's no concern that everyone will suddenly decide it's worthless.

Government backing has no intrinsic value? :/

 

[DeliciousStorage]

Government backing has no intrinsic value? :/

I don't think you understand what intrinsic means. It's something that is valuable on its own, in this case it would be the value of a piece of paper.

 

[FoxEye]

Not at all, nobody would be the slightest bit interested in some s***coin that isn't decentralized, trustless, and censorship resistant.

Which has its own downsides.

I'm sure you're familiar with the term "SFYL"...

The idea that if you lose your *coins through a bad transaction or bad faith actor, there is no authority that can or will give them back to you.

A bank will reverse a suspicious or fraudulent transaction (for the most part) and give you your money back.

Lose your *coin and many times it's "SFYL buddy."

 

[DeliciousStorage]

Which has its own downsides.

I'm sure you're familiar with the term "SFYL"...

The idea that if you lose your *coins through a bad transaction or bad faith actor, there is no authority that can or will give them back to you.

A bank will reverse a suspicious or fraudulent transaction (for the most part) and give you your money back.

Lose your *coin and many times it's "SFYL buddy."

That's mainly because banks are so insecure. I'm not going to get a suspicious transaction with my Bitcoin stored on a hardware wallet, but I agree that it can be a downside for some people.

 

[FoxEye]

That's mainly because banks are so insecure. I'm not going to get a suspicious transaction with my Bitcoin stored on a hardware wallet, but I agree that it can be a downside for some people.

People have lost all their *coins in various hacks or companies just taking their coins and doing a runner...

Mt Gox and all the similar incidents that followed.

*Coins are rife with problems, and "SFYL" is not an uncommon phrase

It's funny to hear people calling banks insecure with the alternative appears even less so.

 

[Theophany]

I don't think you understand what intrinsic means. It's something that is valuable on its own, in this case it would be the value of a piece of paper.

Pulling the 'no ur an idiot' defence against centralised, readily realisable, fungible currency really is a bold strategy in defending cryptocurrency.

 

[DeliciousStorage]

People have lost all their *coins in various hacks or companies just taking their coins and doing a runner...

Mt Gox and all the similar incidents that followed.

*Coins are rife with problems, and "SFYL" is not an uncommon phrase

It's funny to hear people calling banks insecure with the alternative appears even less so.

They didn't lose their coins, they never owned them in the first place. If you store cryptocurrency on an exchange then the exchange owns them, you just have an IOU from the exchange.

 

[FoxEye]

They didn't lose their coins, they never owned them in the first place. If you store cryptocurrency on an exchange then the exchange owns them, you just have an IOU from the exchange.

Imagine if the banks said the same thing, eh? "You can store your money with us but if you do you won't own it, and you could lose it all at any time..."

Unless you know 100% what you're getting into crypto is a massive, massive risk and people can and do lose their coins all the time.

The evidence is all over the internet.

Mass adoption any day now...

 

[DeliciousStorage]

Imagine if the banks said the same thing, eh? "You can store your money with us but if you do you won't own it, and you could lose it all at any time..."

Unless you know 100% what you're getting into crypto is a massive, massive risk and people can and do lose their coins all the time.

The evidence is all over the internet.

Mass adoption any day now...

I agreed with you that it can be a downside for some people. If you know what you're doing then there is virtually zero risk of losing coins. People can and do lose their coins all the time, just as they lose Fiat money from banks with phishing attacks.

 

[Theophany]

I agreed with you that it can be a downside for some people. If you know what you're doing then there is virtually zero risk of losing coins. People can and do lose their coins all the time, just as they lose Fiat money from banks with phishing attacks.

Well they don't because banks are insured up the wazoo against that sort of thing and short of being wilfully ignorant (e.g. transferring your life savings to a Nigerian prince) your bank isn't going to leave you out of pocket.

If it doesn't pass the 'could my grandparents use it' test, how does it function as a realistic alternative to what already exists?

I get that it's a hobby, a fascinating experiment and that people have made a lot of money on it, but the idea that it could ever replace what we already have in it's current state is just drinking far too much of the koolaid.