Privacy and freedom section were laid out well. Though, I think the decentralised section is weaker than it could be. For example, you described how if we ran our own network on Mars, then we'd be forking Bitcoin because it would no longer share the same ledger as Earth. But wouldn't this happen with USD? If we ran our own USD mint/bank/whatever on Mars, we're basically informally forking: as you point out, the US could collapse on Earth and our money would be unaffected. The core issue is the separation of the different systems. If we traveled back and tried to spend our Mars USD on Earth, it would have its Earth post-collapse value, because it would reflect its ability to buy Earth goods. It's worth far more to buy Mars goods, but that would be irrelevant for most people on Earth. But you touched on a good point, which is that, I think the best arguments against CC's decentralisation come from properly comparing it to cash. The government has control over the value of cash, via minting, base interest, fines/tax, etc., but in theory physical cash as a medium is fully decentralised and private. So if CC were to become mainstream, why wouldn't it end up just like cash now? Shouldn't we expect that (a) governments would still adopt it to the extent possible, pinning its value to their taxes/interest rates/etc. (b) people will want to store their money in financial institutions, that can keep it safe and provide them interest? Storing all one's earnings in cash, functionally very similar to CC right now, has numerous disadvantages, like risk of theft/loss, depreciation in value due to inflation, etc. How is CC actually better than cash in this context? How can CC make "the financial system" as a whole, any more decentralised? I'm not sure it does at all.
"But wouldn't this happen with USD?" No or rather more critically, not necessarily. Regardless of whether you fork or not, crypto, just like electric cars, more centrally ties you to electricity generation and information transmission infrastructure. Mars is a pretty handy, and creative, example. In 2003, power was lost to ~55M people between Maryland and Ontario. Bad, but less of a problem with cash than crypto.
@@adamlucas4753 yes, infrastructure is a concern. There might be an eventuality where that's way less an issue globally but now it massively hampers claims of democratisation
@@tme5 The problem is the centralization and global expansion only exacerbates the issue. The record of every last exchange of dollars doesn't have to be reported back to the Fed but the blockchain necessitates it. Even if you make the grid perfect, it's still a cost and risk inherent to blockchain that non-blockchain currencies (not necessarily cash) don't incur.
He doesn't understand if we are colonizing mars we will be transmitting data from earth to mars and vice versa. He also doesn't understand the nature of Bitcoin forks. Bitcoin was meant to be forked. It was never meant to be the only cryptocurrency.
@@RobotronSage "Bitcoin was meant to be forked. It was never meant to be the only cryptocurrency." Then, definitively, bitcoin is not decentralized as it has a single protocol/definition. You could generate 100 different forks of bitcoin all operating on different but analogous protocols and each using their own blockchain, that would be decentralized, but then they wouldn't be bitcoin. They'd be an amalgamation of (pseudo-)cryptocurrencies.
my only issue is with the concentration, just like how banks did with gold, where they offered people a more portable, easier to trade, gold backed paper money in exchange for their savings in gold, and now the governments holds over 90% of all the gold supply on earth they are doing the exact same with crypto through credit card systems and custody services here in south america, we have central bank authorized custody services where you can but straight from them and store your crypto there, but they do not allow you to move these crypto to a private wallet, you must convert it into fiat, so you get the money and they keep your crypto, soon or later you wont be able to withdraw crypto from centralized exchanges either, this way the governments will be able to concentrate most of bitcoin's supply
Point 1: Decentralized. - My answer: Yeah your assessment is not bad. idk why pople jump to calling bitcoin decentralized rather than distributed. Also, isn't the internet itself btc runs on kind of centralized to a certain degree? Like, ISP's seem to control and direct most of the traffic, that sounds centralized enough to me. Point 2: Not private - My answer: Bitcoin isn't private, but it's not the only crypto coin out there, and as I'm sure you know, there are privacy focused blockckains existing today, like Monero, and more being developed, like Midnight. Point 3: Energy efficiency - My answer: btc is likely not very efficient energetically, again, other blockchains are appearing mitigating this, such as Ripple and Cardano (this last one has the upcoming midnight sidechain btw). So yeah in essence I'd say btc isn't perfect, right now it's just digital gold, but there are alternatives coming up, btc is just the first step.
Bitcoin IS decentralized. Analogy to Google is very bad. Whole Google thing is hierarchically dependant of one entity, which decides of everything. Google wanna see how the world burns? They just shut off every service. In Bitcoin, power comes from power (computational), so: - if some organization leaves Bitcoin, it will still work - You can easily gain more power over Bitcoin, by gaining computational power Google cannot be controlled by 3rd party with huge servers. In Bitcoin? This is very rule of operation! Also, when i think about decentralization, i think exactly about this. Is there any governing body? No, Bitcoin hasn't any. Your example with Mars is even worse. You don't talk about decentralization, You talk about ensuring consistency over distributed network. You could make an argument, that Internet isn't decentralized, because there should be single body which gives public IP addresses. You cannot create one whole system with synchronization without 40 mins problem.
There are rules for Bitcoin that every user who wants to take part in the system must follow and if I don't follow them, I cannot be part of the system. But rules don't fall from heaven, someone must make these rules and this alone makes the system centralized, as not everyone can make up their own rules, some central entity must suggest rules, some central entity must discuss rules and some central entity must enforce them. The fact, that this some central entity consist out of the top X Blockchain distributes (the X people or companies that adds the most computational power to the system) doesn't make it less centralized. Money is controlled by governments, but governments consist out of politicians that we have voted, so we decided who is in control and we can change who is in control, which means in fact we all are the people who are in control to some small degree. Google is ran by a managing board, that board is chosen by the board of directors and the board of directors is elected by the shareholders and everyone, including you, can become a shareholder tomorrow. So the fact, that a lot of people have a say in something doesn't make decentralized. A system that requires centralized rules is not decentralized as the rule making and enforcing process is still centralized, thus making the entire system centralized. If Bitcoin was decentralized, thousand of groups would suggest thousand of changes to the Blockchain format and protocol and just start using them, creating thousands of splits a month and the entire system would completely fall apart. It only works as all stick to the same rules, same format, same protocol but all of this was centralized decided upon. And every time there was a change in the past, it was only necessary to convince the top 1000 contributes to follow that change and everyone else simply *had* *to* play along, otherwise they had to split apart and then their Bitcoins would dramatically drop in value, dramatically lose acceptance or even vanish entirely if nobody cares for the new blockchain that resulted from that split. Since those are no options, they followed along, even if they didn't like that change. So 1000 bullies pushed their will onto billions of users. 1000 is way less than Google has shareholders, it's way less than people who vote for governments
Overall I enjoyed this presentation, thank you. It contains interesting insights. Some points are very real and have to be addressed somehow. Implying that thoughput increase in newer cryptocurrencies will be constant (10x, as you said in the video) is weird. I hope improvements will be exponential. I guess, you are right that it's a mistake that people cling so hard to the first cryptocurrencies. You also didn't mention private cryptocurrencies. Was that for the sake of brevity or some other reason? Was it for the reason that it will possible to deanonymize transactions in the future when computation cost will be decreased by many orders of magnitude? I'm not an expert in this area, just guessing
I wanted to try to keep the video as brief as possible, which is why I didn't talk specifically about other crypto currencies. But even ones like monero are easy to deanonymize over time since the whole blockchain is public.
The thought experiment re Mars is completely absurd. Of course you can say anything is centralised (on earth) if you change your point of reference like that. Bitcoin is a decentralised system on the Internet. Satoshi solved the Byzantine general's problem with nakamoto consensus. The ledger is distributed across the Internet/world and every full node without permission can validate transactions and new blocks. Noone can force node operators to change the code they run.
Not true. One can take gold anywhere in the universe and make independent (decentralized) trades without needing to talk to a consensus network. Gold is an example of decentralized currency for trade. The same cannot be done with bitcoin or any other blockchain-based currency. Connection to a central consensus algorithm is required. Therefore blockchain-based currencies are centralized.
@@philipbohun740 Also Bitcoin (or a fork of Bitcoin) can most certainly be used as a ledger for goods and services it's just a matter of implementation really. It would be more secure than those ''gold paper slips'' called bonds that are traded around. Ironically the USD is supposed to be one of those ''gold slip bonds'' that are supposed to be oh so valuable. Of course it would take a bit of refactoring to actually tether a cryptocurrency ledger to physical goods but i am sure that it can be done on the coding side at least. And on the other hand we already have legal frameworks for transactions of goods and services. The question in this case is if a public(ly secured) ledger is a necessity or desirable application for such transactions. I would argue that probably yes it seems better than trusting an organisation not to copy some gold slips or USD off the books or whatnot.
@@RobotronSage "Just fork it to another ledger." is the epitome of stupid. If you fork the protocol, then it's no longer Bitcoin. You can whimsically fork it to a less secure protocol or a protocol where the much-touted security is immaterial (like the lightning network). The same would be true if Martians set up their own banking network and started printing their own dollars and, again, that's the point. "we already have legal frameworks for transactions of goods and services" Yup. And to ensure adherence to those you need some manner of fiat. Whether that's social pressure to pay your taxes and remain solvent on your debt or goons with badges to collect, is immaterial. You can disagree with me all you like but I'm fairly certain that, at the end of the day, you want people paying you the debts they owe you and, if not, a means by which to be covered on those debts. I'm not saying this because I do or don't like BTC or government-backed currency, it's inherent to the (deliberately-)fuzzy premise of the term 'fiat currency'. Whether the 'fiat' doing the enforcement is a government composed of your neighbors or by a literal king is immaterial to the use of the term 'fiat currency'. As I've said before elsewhere, I'm not against bitcoin, I'm not even really against Ponzi Schemes (he was conducting legitimate arbitrage initially). I'm against the "It's decentralized because it doesn't answer to The Fed" false advertising. Sure, it doesn't answer to The Fed, but that doesn't make it, in any way, decentralized. I'd argue that it's worse because it's tied more intrinsically than cash or gold to the DOE and FCC but, again the point isn't that BTC is worse, it's that it's being sold as transcendentally different when it's not. We get it. You don't really understand the several-eon history of money or value transfer that's developed independently more than 100 times across the surface of the Earth in human history, it's a lot easier to just accept that everything bitcoin does has never been done before and has no downsides, even if they're obvious. That's fine, just don't try to tell us we're wrong about the facts that refute your belief. However, if you hold the aims and beliefs you claim to hold, you should acknowledge the facts. If your aim is fiscal liberty, giving up your democratically-elected fiat currency to an unelected group of oligarchs managing a cryptocurrency is not a step forward and you should be aware of that.
Google (a corporation) has distributed computational resources, all of which they control. Can anyone buy a server and start serving Google searches from their moms basement? Of course not. Can they acquire hardware and mine Bitcoin, yes of course (mom might kick them out but that’s besides the point 😬) And the Martian money idea is ridiculous you can’t honestly think paper money would be worth it’s own weight as a currency on another planet do you? Bitcoin would be far better, it would just need to operate a side chain that syncs up with the main chain when it can. Lightning channels or other other solutions, it’s a solvable problem. Hauling paper money onto Mars and expecting that to work is just ridiculously childish.
Complete waste of time. I wanted to hear arguments about how blockchains are centralised, instead we are discussing economy on Mars! You really need to work on your analogies. May be another video on how Bitcoin is centralised on Earth will be very useful... when I do go to Mars, I will consult you on which currency to use.
The idea about hour long transactions is not true in reality. If I (somebody else can do this for me, actually) prepare many wallets with small amount of currency in advance, then I can just give out these wallets to somebody; transactions will be instant. However, if that preparation takes hundred of years, instead of an hour, then its problematic. Am I wrong?
You're considering it backwards. Cryptocurrency cannot exist without a digital network, cash can. Something like 15% of the world's population doesn't have running water. Something like 20-30% doesn't have digital infrastructure of any kind. Many of those people still have currency and even if they don't, they still barter. For them to adopt a cryptocurrency, they have to adopt a centralized network infrastructure. If the network goes down or regional leaders exert control over the network, the crypto can't be spent. Cash, precious metals, etc. can be.
How could the dollar be valued the same in a completely isolated community? That's just plain stupid. It shows how little you know about economy. Staying subscribed for the tech content though.
Uh, you're the one demonstrating your ignorance. Would you rather have $500K to buy a house in San Francisco or $250K to buy a house in rural Iowa? Want $10 to buy lunch in downtown New York or rural Texas? If all of NYC raises their price for lunch, should Texas raise prices too? In the late 90s, Argentina fixed their peso 1:1 with the US dollar. In the late 00s, they unfixed it. You might have an argument about whether it's a good idea one way or the other, but it's not possible with bitcoin... without decentralizing a, supposedly already decentralized currency.
It wouldn't be valued the same, but as a unit of currency, the bill itself would in theory remain fungible with the Earth bill. A forked ledger would not be fungible with the original. I don't think it's the the strongest argument in this area - elaborated in my top-level comment
its wrong to say blockchain is 600000 times slower than ur laptop there are more coins other than bitcoin that takes fraction of time and have orders of magnitude higher processing power
@@philipbohun740 That's literally impossible millions of times x 100 Watts (per GPU, i guess) = 100millions Watts That would literally incinerate your laptop. Or are you talking about the entire fucking network? Because you're literally taking the energy usage of an entire global ecosystem into account. Which i guess is ok, but then you would also have to compare this to the entire global power usage of another thing, instead of just your laptop, you would have to be comparing this to ''all laptops on earth''. So how about we compare BTC power usage to something more fair, such as global computer power requirements, or, global power charging for your smartphones requirements. Do you know how much energy it takes for the entire world to charge their ''smart'' phones? It's like saying ''pick any phone, it still requires millions of times more energy than my computer''
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Privacy and freedom section were laid out well. Though, I think the decentralised section is weaker than it could be. For example, you described how if we ran our own network on Mars, then we'd be forking Bitcoin because it would no longer share the same ledger as Earth. But wouldn't this happen with USD? If we ran our own USD mint/bank/whatever on Mars, we're basically informally forking: as you point out, the US could collapse on Earth and our money would be unaffected. The core issue is the separation of the different systems. If we traveled back and tried to spend our Mars USD on Earth, it would have its Earth post-collapse value, because it would reflect its ability to buy Earth goods. It's worth far more to buy Mars goods, but that would be irrelevant for most people on Earth.
But you touched on a good point, which is that, I think the best arguments against CC's decentralisation come from properly comparing it to cash. The government has control over the value of cash, via minting, base interest, fines/tax, etc., but in theory physical cash as a medium is fully decentralised and private. So if CC were to become mainstream, why wouldn't it end up just like cash now? Shouldn't we expect that (a) governments would still adopt it to the extent possible, pinning its value to their taxes/interest rates/etc. (b) people will want to store their money in financial institutions, that can keep it safe and provide them interest? Storing all one's earnings in cash, functionally very similar to CC right now, has numerous disadvantages, like risk of theft/loss, depreciation in value due to inflation, etc. How is CC actually better than cash in this context? How can CC make "the financial system" as a whole, any more decentralised? I'm not sure it does at all.
"But wouldn't this happen with USD?" No or rather more critically, not necessarily. Regardless of whether you fork or not, crypto, just like electric cars, more centrally ties you to electricity generation and information transmission infrastructure. Mars is a pretty handy, and creative, example. In 2003, power was lost to ~55M people between Maryland and Ontario. Bad, but less of a problem with cash than crypto.
@@adamlucas4753 yes, infrastructure is a concern. There might be an eventuality where that's way less an issue globally but now it massively hampers claims of democratisation
@@tme5 The problem is the centralization and global expansion only exacerbates the issue. The record of every last exchange of dollars doesn't have to be reported back to the Fed but the blockchain necessitates it. Even if you make the grid perfect, it's still a cost and risk inherent to blockchain that non-blockchain currencies (not necessarily cash) don't incur.
He doesn't understand if we are colonizing mars we will be transmitting data from earth to mars and vice versa.
He also doesn't understand the nature of Bitcoin forks.
Bitcoin was meant to be forked. It was never meant to be the only cryptocurrency.
@@RobotronSage "Bitcoin was meant to be forked. It was never meant to be the only cryptocurrency." Then, definitively, bitcoin is not decentralized as it has a single protocol/definition. You could generate 100 different forks of bitcoin all operating on different but analogous protocols and each using their own blockchain, that would be decentralized, but then they wouldn't be bitcoin. They'd be an amalgamation of (pseudo-)cryptocurrencies.
my only issue is with the concentration, just like how banks did with gold, where they offered people a more portable, easier to trade, gold backed paper money in exchange for their savings in gold, and now the governments holds over 90% of all the gold supply on earth
they are doing the exact same with crypto through credit card systems and custody services
here in south america, we have central bank authorized custody services where you can but straight from them and store your crypto there, but they do not allow you to move these crypto to a private wallet, you must convert it into fiat, so you get the money and they keep your crypto, soon or later you wont be able to withdraw crypto from centralized exchanges either, this way the governments will be able to concentrate most of bitcoin's supply
There is NO PRIVACY at all on the internet.
Point 1: Decentralized. - My answer: Yeah your assessment is not bad. idk why pople jump to calling bitcoin decentralized rather than distributed. Also, isn't the internet itself btc runs on kind of centralized to a certain degree? Like, ISP's seem to control and direct most of the traffic, that sounds centralized enough to me.
Point 2: Not private - My answer: Bitcoin isn't private, but it's not the only crypto coin out there, and as I'm sure you know, there are privacy focused blockckains existing today, like Monero, and more being developed, like Midnight.
Point 3: Energy efficiency - My answer: btc is likely not very efficient energetically, again, other blockchains are appearing mitigating this, such as Ripple and Cardano (this last one has the upcoming midnight sidechain btw).
So yeah in essence I'd say btc isn't perfect, right now it's just digital gold, but there are alternatives coming up, btc is just the first step.
Bitcoin IS decentralized. Analogy to Google is very bad. Whole Google thing is hierarchically dependant of one entity, which decides of everything. Google wanna see how the world burns? They just shut off every service. In Bitcoin, power comes from power (computational), so:
- if some organization leaves Bitcoin, it will still work
- You can easily gain more power over Bitcoin, by gaining computational power
Google cannot be controlled by 3rd party with huge servers. In Bitcoin? This is very rule of operation!
Also, when i think about decentralization, i think exactly about this. Is there any governing body? No, Bitcoin hasn't any.
Your example with Mars is even worse. You don't talk about decentralization, You talk about ensuring consistency over distributed network. You could make an argument, that Internet isn't decentralized, because there should be single body which gives public IP addresses. You cannot create one whole system with synchronization without 40 mins problem.
Indeed
No, Bitcoin is not decentralized.
no its not descentralized, it can only exist within the blockchain, thats the point
There are rules for Bitcoin that every user who wants to take part in the system must follow and if I don't follow them, I cannot be part of the system. But rules don't fall from heaven, someone must make these rules and this alone makes the system centralized, as not everyone can make up their own rules, some central entity must suggest rules, some central entity must discuss rules and some central entity must enforce them. The fact, that this some central entity consist out of the top X Blockchain distributes (the X people or companies that adds the most computational power to the system) doesn't make it less centralized.
Money is controlled by governments, but governments consist out of politicians that we have voted, so we decided who is in control and we can change who is in control, which means in fact we all are the people who are in control to some small degree. Google is ran by a managing board, that board is chosen by the board of directors and the board of directors is elected by the shareholders and everyone, including you, can become a shareholder tomorrow.
So the fact, that a lot of people have a say in something doesn't make decentralized. A system that requires centralized rules is not decentralized as the rule making and enforcing process is still centralized, thus making the entire system centralized. If Bitcoin was decentralized, thousand of groups would suggest thousand of changes to the Blockchain format and protocol and just start using them, creating thousands of splits a month and the entire system would completely fall apart. It only works as all stick to the same rules, same format, same protocol but all of this was centralized decided upon.
And every time there was a change in the past, it was only necessary to convince the top 1000 contributes to follow that change and everyone else simply *had* *to* play along, otherwise they had to split apart and then their Bitcoins would dramatically drop in value, dramatically lose acceptance or even vanish entirely if nobody cares for the new blockchain that resulted from that split. Since those are no options, they followed along, even if they didn't like that change. So 1000 bullies pushed their will onto billions of users. 1000 is way less than Google has shareholders, it's way less than people who vote for governments
Overall I enjoyed this presentation, thank you. It contains interesting insights. Some points are very real and have to be addressed somehow.
Implying that thoughput increase in newer cryptocurrencies will be constant (10x, as you said in the video) is weird. I hope improvements will be exponential. I guess, you are right that it's a mistake that people cling so hard to the first cryptocurrencies.
You also didn't mention private cryptocurrencies. Was that for the sake of brevity or some other reason? Was it for the reason that it will possible to deanonymize transactions in the future when computation cost will be decreased by many orders of magnitude? I'm not an expert in this area, just guessing
I wanted to try to keep the video as brief as possible, which is why I didn't talk specifically about other crypto currencies. But even ones like monero are easy to deanonymize over time since the whole blockchain is public.
The thought experiment re Mars is completely absurd. Of course you can say anything is centralised (on earth) if you change your point of reference like that. Bitcoin is a decentralised system on the Internet. Satoshi solved the Byzantine general's problem with nakamoto consensus. The ledger is distributed across the Internet/world and every full node without permission can validate transactions and new blocks. Noone can force node operators to change the code they run.
Not true. One can take gold anywhere in the universe and make independent (decentralized) trades without needing to talk to a consensus network. Gold is an example of decentralized currency for trade. The same cannot be done with bitcoin or any other blockchain-based currency. Connection to a central consensus algorithm is required. Therefore blockchain-based currencies are centralized.
@@philipbohun740 let's just get rid of computers and the Internet then. Stick with analogue rocks, makes complete sense
@@philipbohun740 The USD hasn't been tied to gold in over roughly 100 years now already.
@@philipbohun740 Also Bitcoin (or a fork of Bitcoin) can most certainly be used as a ledger for goods and services it's just a matter of implementation really. It would be more secure than those ''gold paper slips'' called bonds that are traded around. Ironically the USD is supposed to be one of those ''gold slip bonds'' that are supposed to be oh so valuable.
Of course it would take a bit of refactoring to actually tether a cryptocurrency ledger to physical goods but i am sure that it can be done on the coding side at least. And on the other hand we already have legal frameworks for transactions of goods and services. The question in this case is if a public(ly secured) ledger is a necessity or desirable application for such transactions. I would argue that probably yes it seems better than trusting an organisation not to copy some gold slips or USD off the books or whatnot.
@@RobotronSage "Just fork it to another ledger." is the epitome of stupid. If you fork the protocol, then it's no longer Bitcoin. You can whimsically fork it to a less secure protocol or a protocol where the much-touted security is immaterial (like the lightning network). The same would be true if Martians set up their own banking network and started printing their own dollars and, again, that's the point.
"we already have legal frameworks for transactions of goods and services" Yup. And to ensure adherence to those you need some manner of fiat. Whether that's social pressure to pay your taxes and remain solvent on your debt or goons with badges to collect, is immaterial. You can disagree with me all you like but I'm fairly certain that, at the end of the day, you want people paying you the debts they owe you and, if not, a means by which to be covered on those debts. I'm not saying this because I do or don't like BTC or government-backed currency, it's inherent to the (deliberately-)fuzzy premise of the term 'fiat currency'. Whether the 'fiat' doing the enforcement is a government composed of your neighbors or by a literal king is immaterial to the use of the term 'fiat currency'. As I've said before elsewhere, I'm not against bitcoin, I'm not even really against Ponzi Schemes (he was conducting legitimate arbitrage initially). I'm against the "It's decentralized because it doesn't answer to The Fed" false advertising. Sure, it doesn't answer to The Fed, but that doesn't make it, in any way, decentralized. I'd argue that it's worse because it's tied more intrinsically than cash or gold to the DOE and FCC but, again the point isn't that BTC is worse, it's that it's being sold as transcendentally different when it's not.
We get it. You don't really understand the several-eon history of money or value transfer that's developed independently more than 100 times across the surface of the Earth in human history, it's a lot easier to just accept that everything bitcoin does has never been done before and has no downsides, even if they're obvious. That's fine, just don't try to tell us we're wrong about the facts that refute your belief. However, if you hold the aims and beliefs you claim to hold, you should acknowledge the facts. If your aim is fiscal liberty, giving up your democratically-elected fiat currency to an unelected group of oligarchs managing a cryptocurrency is not a step forward and you should be aware of that.
But monero is untraceable and untrackable
very well said man, any further readings you can recommend me?
Google (a corporation) has distributed computational resources, all of which they control. Can anyone buy a server and start serving Google searches from their moms basement? Of course not. Can they acquire hardware and mine Bitcoin, yes of course (mom might kick them out but that’s besides the point 😬)
And the Martian money idea is ridiculous you can’t honestly think paper money would be worth it’s own weight as a currency on another planet do you? Bitcoin would be far better, it would just need to operate a side chain that syncs up with the main chain when it can. Lightning channels or other other solutions, it’s a solvable problem. Hauling paper money onto Mars and expecting that to work is just ridiculously childish.
Complete waste of time. I wanted to hear arguments about how blockchains are centralised, instead we are discussing economy on Mars! You really need to work on your analogies.
May be another video on how Bitcoin is centralised on Earth will be very useful... when I do go to Mars, I will consult you on which currency to use.
The idea about hour long transactions is not true in reality. If I (somebody else can do this for me, actually) prepare many wallets with small amount of currency in advance, then I can just give out these wallets to somebody; transactions will be instant. However, if that preparation takes hundred of years, instead of an hour, then its problematic. Am I wrong?
You're considering it backwards. Cryptocurrency cannot exist without a digital network, cash can. Something like 15% of the world's population doesn't have running water. Something like 20-30% doesn't have digital infrastructure of any kind. Many of those people still have currency and even if they don't, they still barter. For them to adopt a cryptocurrency, they have to adopt a centralized network infrastructure. If the network goes down or regional leaders exert control over the network, the crypto can't be spent. Cash, precious metals, etc. can be.
Holy shit that's unironically big brain
@@adamlucas4753 bro 80% of fiat ''cash'' is on a digital (bank) ledger.
@@adamlucas4753 And those are neither public nor particularly secure
Your video is absolutely misleading.
He covered the claims....did you listen?
This is the most unpractical video about Bitcoin I have ever seen. Gave no value. Zero.
How could the dollar be valued the same in a completely isolated community? That's just plain stupid. It shows how little you know about economy. Staying subscribed for the tech content though.
Uh, you're the one demonstrating your ignorance. Would you rather have $500K to buy a house in San Francisco or $250K to buy a house in rural Iowa? Want $10 to buy lunch in downtown New York or rural Texas? If all of NYC raises their price for lunch, should Texas raise prices too?
In the late 90s, Argentina fixed their peso 1:1 with the US dollar. In the late 00s, they unfixed it. You might have an argument about whether it's a good idea one way or the other, but it's not possible with bitcoin... without decentralizing a, supposedly already decentralized currency.
It wouldn't be valued the same, but as a unit of currency, the bill itself would in theory remain fungible with the Earth bill. A forked ledger would not be fungible with the original. I don't think it's the the strongest argument in this area - elaborated in my top-level comment
Wettin you wan carry you go Mars. Shut uppp
its wrong to say blockchain is 600000 times slower than ur laptop there are more coins other than bitcoin that takes fraction of time and have orders of magnitude higher processing power
Pick any cryptocurrency and it still requires millions of times more energy than my laptop.
@@philipbohun740 That's literally impossible
millions of times x 100 Watts (per GPU, i guess) = 100millions Watts
That would literally incinerate your laptop.
Or are you talking about the entire fucking network?
Because you're literally taking the energy usage of an entire global ecosystem into account.
Which i guess is ok, but then you would also have to compare this to the entire global power usage of another thing, instead of just your laptop, you would have to be comparing this to ''all laptops on earth''.
So how about we compare BTC power usage to something more fair, such as global computer power requirements, or, global power charging for your smartphones requirements. Do you know how much energy it takes for the entire world to charge their ''smart'' phones?
It's like saying ''pick any phone, it still requires millions of times more energy than my computer''