You are really good at just hammering out empty statements like that but nothing to back any of them up. What promises did not come true? The fact that you don’t even give an example and state it’s “common knowledge” shows plainly that you have none.
That is a pure assumption you fail yet again to back up. You can’t make heads or tails of what is actually going on, so everyone else has to be equally clueless, hence it’s gambling.
You presented ZERO facts so far. You just utter believes and assumptions. Even if I had “emotional baggage”, there is nothing you said it could have “obstructed” in the first place.
So you lacked the capabilities to see the very obvious problem with gambling, but now you feel qualified to judge what constitutes gambling and what doesn’t. Tell me, did you understand WHY gambling with money you don’t want to lose is bad? Or did you just accept that it is bad because you saw the consequences of your actions?
I agree that people addicted have a behavior that prevents them from realizing that addiction.
Does not mean that calling them addicted helps in any way the discussion.
Does not mean that calling them addicted is not an insult. It is one.
Saying that what they say is wrong because they are addicted is a personal attack. They can be addicted and still make a correct argument.
But BTC IS a gambling token. it does not replace money because it is worse than money in most cases. It does not provide anything more, and its existence requires a lot of power to maintain.
The reason it goes high or down is merely speculation. There is no production of value associated with BTC. So its only value is the one driven by speculation.
Actually the last decrease in January happened around the time the hacking of their networks occurred and it went even lower after it was published in media outlets that their price tanked due to the hack. One was an instance of theft and the other was a reaction to fear.
Yes, it’s bad for everyday use because it’s too volatile. In what other ways is it worse?
Wrong, because it’s more than money, it’s a monetary network that has properties no other monetary network had until Bitcoin: instant (with Lightning) global settlement, extremely low fees (with Lightning) permission-less, trust-less (no middleman), open source, censorship resistant, irreversible transactions.
Yes, and if that use of power is justified depends on if you see value in Bitcoin or not. If you think it’s stupid anyway then clearly it’s all a waste.
Yes, like with virtually everything that gets traded on markets.
Yes there is, it’s the biggest decentralized monetary network in the world. It is replicated and validated by tens of thousands of physical nodes and it can transport value instantly across the globe.
For some reason you only see the asset. It’s not about the asset.
We already had that
Oh please elaborate what exactly got hacked. I can’t wait figuring out what the hell you are talking about
Yea, but it’s built off of bitcoin and the prices of bitcoin went down the same month that hack occurred. Bitcoin isn’t really decentralized considering when their prices dropped, so many other coins dropped in value in tandem.
If the largest coin suffers a loss and nearly the rest follow in tandem, including the less than penny ones, it shows they’re all depending on bitcoin.
There are other things ( reliance on internet, delay of transactions, lack of administration so if you are stolen then there is no recourse, etc. ) but this in itself is enough to make it not worth using.
That’s a circular argument.
The marginal value of BTC is the value of the computations required to find the next one. That’s its value on the primary market. On the secondary market, it’s value is above the marginal cost when people believe they should invest, and below when they believe they should not.
So the market value is justified by the marginal cost - not the other way around. If you want to trade BTC, then it must at a price above the marginal cost. But if the price is below the marginal cost, then the miner which are needed to make the chain work, stop mining and therefore the whole thing crumbles. Typically if the price of electricity makes it not worth . or if the price of servers increases.
It typically makes it possible for people to wait such a moment to start attacking the system.
This is not value. This is not a service of any use.
Yes, because the Bitcoin halfing cycle completely dominates the narrative of the crypto space. Most of those coins don’t actually do anything. The ones that do are not that dependent on the Bitcoin price.
The whole market had sell-offs on the two dates you mentioned, not just crypto.
Nothing of this has anything to do with decentralization. Dezentralization is the amount of nodes that make up the network and the fact that no central authority is in charge of it. It has absolutely nothing to do with price.
It sounded very absolute, like you wouldn’t even consider someone actually having a use for it. So I don’t know why I should waste my time presenting a valid use case.
So, besides cutting out the middle man, will there be lots of cancer tissue -originating from “clean coal” pollution- cut out of the Kazakh people that don’t benefit much of the whole mining? Bitcoin (and related scam products) will always be made in large farms in countries with the lowest price of electricity. In Iran they have issues with their power grid thanks to the mining. Why does the poorest population has to suffer so much? And if it’s widely adopted, how much more do Bitcoin (and related scam products) fanatics plan to abuse those populations?
If they say they do, look at what they drive every day to work what is their actual energy footprint. They can do all those things, so they do them. If you would grab their hand on the street and ask “why did you take plane instead of teleconferencing to another continent”, security guy would treat you as agressor.
