This is as useless as saying "fuck currency shit ffs".
Crypto isn't a currency, it's a commodity for trading. One that doesn't physically exist. No inherent use and no inherent value.
The vast majority of "real" currencies are fiat currencies and don't have inherent value or use either.
US dollar hasn't been backed by gold since 1971, for example.
The only reason money has any perceived value at all, is because it's collectively agreed to have some value. Just like crypto currencies.
But this is actually why crypto isn’t a real currency: we haven’t collectively agreed to value it, or at least not in any way that makes it useful as a medium for exchange. Ironically it can’t possibly become a proper currency while speculators are making its price so volatile. The very act of investing in it is making it worthless.
Anything can be a currency, if you use it as a currency. A currency is not defined by its ability to be exchanged for gas or used to pay taxes.
If children in some school start to exchange pogs for junk food or video game cartridges, the pogs become a currency. By definition. The fact that the use is clearly limited and the value is a subject to rapid change or speculation is irrelevant.
There isn't a single currency in the world the value of which is set in stone. There isn't a single currency in the world which is universally accepted. Just because there exist currencies linked to some of the strongest economies in the world, which are relatively stable and incredibly hard to affect the value of via speculation, doesn't mean they're immune to speculation, nor does it mean that any smaller currencies, be it currencies or small countries, crypto or pogs, are "not real".
I mean sure. Anything someone is using like currency can be called currency. But we’re talking practical terms here. Things we “collectively agree to value.” My WoW gold might be useful for buying potions, but it’s not generally accepted anywhere outside that narrow context. The fewer people who are willing to accept the currency, the less useful, and arguably less “real” it becomes, in so far as currency is defined by its value to others. I could print “me bucks” that I value at $1B USD, but that doesn’t mean much if nobody will give me a sandwich for it.
If you're in the US, it's not very practical to try to pay for things using Turkish liras either, for example. But it's not any less "real" because of it. There is still a market for that currency, even if you might need to look around for a bit to actually use it or exchange it for a different one. Same for WoW gold or crypto.
Given Turkey's current monetary policies I wouldn't want to use Turkish liras even if I lived in Turkey.
But there's so few uses of actually buying things with crypto. People don't use it as a medium of exchange outside of illicit goods and money laundering. We're more than a decade into this and using crypto to buy a pizza is still a novelty.
A major proof of this is that FTX collapsed and took a chunk of the crypto market out with it. The market at large shrugged this off. If it were actually linked in to the broader economy, then it would have had similar ripple effects to a major US bank failing.
I, personally, use crypto to do art commissions (I'm an artist) and to pay my VPS's rent. Neither is an illicit good or related to money laundering.
And, honesty, it's pretty great, compared to alternatives.
Last time I've used PayPal, it decided to withhold the funds for a month, for whatever reason. Plus, the transaction fee was about a dollar.
Transferring the same amount of money via Monero is guaranteed take only about a minute or two to process, since a transaction in that system would never get withhold, plus the processing fee would be about a hundred times smaller.
In the EU they're getting a digital euro which allows them to avoid bowing down to Paypal, Payoneer, and all the services interlinked with them (e.g. Patreon) - the ancillary services can even offer digital euro payouts instead, too. So as long as what you're doing is legal, you can break the Paypal/Payoneer terms of service as much as you want and avoid their privately enforced authoritarianism that goes beyond the scope of the law for whatever reason. So those problems are being solved as we speak, depending on where you live.
Unless they are going to implement a cryptocurrency with centralized minting (essentially giving themselves both as much and as little control over the digital currency as they have over physically printed money), it doesn't seem that much different from what we have already. Just because it's going to be a new system, doesn't really mean it not going to have issues with false-positives suspending regular transactions or fees that are higher than they need to be.
This is amazing. I was curious if you held an original thought this entire chain as I was reading it and your response ended up being “read this Wikipedia section for my thoughts”. I will concede that you are an astute parrot.
"What are your thoughts about setting your hair on fire?"
"This Wikipedia article about burns covers it pretty well"
"Aha! So you're a parrot!"
There's a finite number of possible conclusions one can come to if they use this little thing called "logic". If multiple people apply it to the same problem, they're likely to come up with similar, if not identical, answers. If your conclusions about some given thing aren't shared by anybody else, it's more likely than not because they're illogical nonsense. It's even worse if your conclusions are outright nonexistent. That's not good. Means you stoopid.
Something like a centralized financial system has some very obvious, glaring issues that should be instantly apparent to anyone. And I'm, obviously, not the first person to think about it. So, why should I write something, if people who thought about it before me already outlined all the logical concerns about this system? And, likely, in a more detailed and in-depth manner than I'd care to write in a comment on a random website.
One failed bank NOT causing an international disaster is a good thing imho.
Tbf, most money nowadays doesn't physically exist nowadays. Only a tiny fraction of the "money" that is out there has a physical instantiation. Most of it is just numbers in bank servers
You literally just defined the attributes of a currency. The only difference is that crypto isn't backed by a government.
Edited. See below. Apparently some crypto is government backed. There is no functional difference between traditional currency and (at least some) crypto.
The big difference is that crypto is "decentralized". Traditional currency is, to some extent, controlled by a central bank. The CB seeks to ensure price stability.
Digital cash schemes are much older than bitcoin/crypto. It's not "crypto" just because it's digital money.
Sure, it's like if you printed ink on paper and pretended it was equivalent in cost to material goods.
Or if you pretended that material goods had an inherent value.
Pretense is not required for inherently valuable material goods.
Two sheets of cloth sewed together into pants provide protection, warmth, legal obedience.
Pants can be what keeps you from freezing to death and going to jail.
Ink stamped onto a piece of paper(or usually plastic)? A bunch of people with shared values have to agree that it means something, even though it inherently does not.
Carrying your stamped paper or plastic doesn't mean you won't freeze to death, starve to death, or anything else.
It's only value is by societal consensus, which while valuable, is not inherent, as with certain material goods.
Pants can be what keeps you from freezing to death and going to jail.
Can be, but pants do not have inherent value in the context of a tropical climate where freezing is not an issue and nudity is allowed. They have contextual value.
Food does not have inherent value, it scales with availability and demand. An excess of apples that will spoil before they can be processed into something that can be consumed do not have inherent value.
This is important because while money's value is far more volatile, the argument that material goods have inherent value as a comparison is flawed.
Pants have value in any climate.
Exposure is a problem in any climate.
Dehydration, sunburns, bug bites, there are plenty of reasons you want clothing.
Clothing has inherent value whatever climate you're in.
Food does have inherent value.
Food is necessary to keep the human body, and the body of many other species, alive.
The excess of food for a given population may have less value, but you can trade that excess, or harvest or store it; the food itself still has inherent value to humans and other organisms that eat food.
You're looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.
The fact that certain material goods have inherent value is not flawed, but you can keep trying.
Pants have value in any climate.
Pants can have value, they do not have inherent value.
You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.
I am pointing out that there are exceptions to the assumption that there is inherent value to show that material goods do not have inherent value. That is the opposite of 'depending on them having inherent value'.
You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise detrimentally affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.
Clothing has inherent value for people.
Containers have inherent value.
Shoes, any number of material goods have inherent value.
Currencies do not.
I don't think you understand what inherent means.
If something does not always have value in every circumstance, the value is not inherent.
In the context that we're using the phrase and have even explicitly stated, "...to people", these material goods...and food(that's use your craziest argument so far) have inherent value.
Do you think I'm talking about inherent value to dogs and cats?
I'm going to assume you are trolling and kick myself for falling for it.
No, that's my point? Currencies do not have an inherent value to people, only societal, while material goods have inherent value to people while you're pretending they don't while you struggle against a definition.
Struggle!
Pants can be what keeps you from freezing to death and going to jail.
Sounds like without pants, I'll be freezing to death — then going to jail for that!
Probably not. Not many countries prosecute the dead.
But let me know.
Pants can be what keeps you from freezing to death and going to jail.
This is still dependent on societal consensus. Well, the going-to-jail part, anyway. The protection from cold issue is dependent on the climate and time of year of where you happen to be located. There are many parts of the world where you could comfortably go naked.
Clothes have inherent value by protecting you from exposure.
Spoons have inherent value in conveying food.
Containers have inherent value in holding and protecting resources.
Many material goods have inherent value, currency simply does not.
Indeed. All "value" is ultimately something that is collectively decided upon by society. A chunk of rock could be worthless or worth billions depending on how much people want it.
There is no such thing as inherent value.
Not all crypto are the same. Nano has been designed as digital money.
It has no mining, 0 fees (none for transactions, none for opening accounts), finalizes transactions sub-second (typically), has no built-in throughput limits and works across (political) borders.
I'd say these attributes offer some use and value.
Does my grocery store or gas station accept it?
Just because it's useless to you doesn't mean it's useless in general.
Does your grocery store or gas station accept Qatari riyals?
If that were my local currency, then I'm sure they would
At which point your local grocery store or gas station wouldn't be accepting whatever currency is your current local currency. The point would remain the same - a currency doesn't have to be universally accepted everywhere on the entire planet for it to still be a useful currency.
Except it's not really a currency is it? Nobody actually uses this stuff for buying goods and services, they treat it as a stock. Usually short-term trading that's essentially just gambling.
Normal currency also doesn't use more than 2% of the power generation of a massive country.
People speculate on the price of "normal currency" too.
I'm well aware.
But far, far, far, far more people use it as currency. Exchanging it for goods and services is clearly the main use for it.
Crypto is used like a stock.
In addition to using it as a currency, sure. But as I asked rigatti, is that a problem? At worst one might perhaps argue that the name "cryptocurrency" is misleading, but I've never cared much about semantics like that.
You're saying "in addition to using it as a currency" as if that's actually what people do with crypto. They don't.
And yeah, it is a problem. It renders it useless outside of as a bit of gambling on the side.
Alright, so let's call them cryptotokens instead. I've always preferred that myself, it's a much more general description of what they do. It doesn't change what they are but if that term makes you happier we can go with that.
It renders it useless outside of as a bit of gambling on the side.
Hardly, there are lots of things you can do with these things. A ledger is more than just for tracking money, it's a database. You really can't think of useful things that could be done with a completely decentralized and permissionless database?
People don't use bitcoin or other cryptocoins as a general purpose database. They use it as they'd use a stock.
Bitcoin, no, because it's a hopelessly out of date blockchain that actively resists having new capabilities added to it. Ethereum, on the other hand, is designed that way from the ground up. Many of the other smaller but more modern blockchains are also like that.
And yet they're still used like a stock and you can't really use them as a currency.
You can't use them as a currency everywhere. But the same can be said for any other currency too. You can't use US dollars everywhere. You can't use Chinese Yuan everywhere. And so forth. A currency doesn't have to be universally accepted everywhere on the planet for every application before it's useful.
Regardless, I was talking about using Ethereum as a distributed database.
You know fine well that's not what I meant.
If you were to attempt to only use Bitcoin, Ethereim, whatever, you almost certainly literally wouldn't be able to live.
You can't just pay all your bills with it.
And even the people who own it almost never use it as a currency. They treat it like a stock.
I really don't see your point here. I'm agreeing that you can't use it for everything. But what's wrong with that? There are plenty of things in this world that aren't useful in every circumstance and yet that doesn't mean those things are worthless. Use them for the things that they're good for. Elsewhere in this thread I listed off a whole bunch of non-stock, non-currency applications that have been built on blockchains if you really don't like the monetary applications.
As a side note, though, I'm kind of amused and baffled that the Grand Nagus of all people is dismissing any monetary uses for cryptocurrency.
There are people who ride the bike as a means of transport. Then there are people who build their entire identity around riding a bike. That doesn't mean one or the other rides it wrong.
A token of value can have multiple different usecases at the same time.
Bikes are used as a mode of transport. That's what everybody uses them for.
Crypto isn't really used as a currency. It is used like a stock. That's what everybody uses them for, if we're being honest.
But faaaarr fewer than those who use it for transactions. In the crypto world it's reversed.
Is that a problem?
Yes, the price fluctuations created by speculation make it hard to use for payment. How do you agree on a fair price when you don't know what the "money" will be worth in a few weeks.
The deflationary effect caused by hoarding currency, as is done with bitcoin, would bring about a Great Depression scenario in a real economy.
If you need the token's price to be stable then there are stabletokens specifically designed for that.
And how do they manage that?
It varies, there are a bunch of different types of stabletokens. The two main approaches I'm aware of are:
Tokens that are issued and backed by a trusted third party. Tether, for example, issues one USDT token for every USD that is deposited with Tether Inc. and you can redeem USDTs for USD again any time. I'm not particularly fond of this approach, but it's simple and popular and as long as you're not holding USDT long-term I don't see a big problem with it as a day-to-day currency. Just make sure the issuing company is audited and you're prepared for the possibility that they could turn out to be lying.
Tokens that are issued by on-chain smart contracts, backed by other digital assets. DAI and Liquity are examples of these. They are more complicated but IMO the better choice because you don't have to trust anyone - you can see the token's backing right on the blockchain itself and know whether it's actually worth what the stabletoken needs for support.
One of the nice things about the on-chain smart contract stabletokens is that they can be backed by less-stable tokens, such as Ether itself, so you can get the best of both worlds out of them.
Ok, so a stablecoin means, that the holder gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness. It's "stable" because a $1 debt stays a 1$ debt. That's a nice spin on zero interest. It's not what I'd call a currency. Or sane, reasonable, sensible, ...
I note that tether is known for not allowing audits. Are you for real?
The other option is that the loan is collateralized in crypto. And you can't actually redeem the stablecoin for money, you can only get crypto that trades for $1, allegedly. On the liquity site I wasn't able to see how the price is determined. I did see that there is a redemption fee of variable, unknown size. I'm not quite clear how that is supposed to be sane.
Ok, so a stablecoin means, that the holder gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness.
No. Neither of the approaches I described means that. You can check the credit-worthiness of Tether and other such companies (Tether was just an example, there are many others) and decide whether you want to use their token based on what you learn if you wish. As I said, you only need the token to last for as long as you're using it for, so if you're running a storefront for example you can be paid in those tokens and immediately trade them for something you trust more.
And you can’t actually redeem the stablecoin for money, you can only get crypto that trades for $1, allegedly.
The stablecoin is worth $1, yes. That's the point of the stablecoin. The "allegedly" part is not actually allegedly, it's part of how the smart contract backing the token operates.
Are you for real?
Yes. I get the impression that you're arguing in bad faith, though. I'm happy to discuss the details of how these things work but you're calling this "insane" and that's not a particularly useful mindset for learning.
No. Neither of the approaches I described means that.
Yes, it does. You can redeem the "stablecoin". That means it's an IOU; a debt. That means you are granting a loan while holding the coin.
There are several reasons why there is interest on loans. One is risk. If you lend $1 to 11 people and one of them can't pay back, you are left with only $10 of $11. No problem among friends, but not a viable business model. You'd have to charge 10% interest to break even.
It's not a problem to use debt as money, cause that's what we do. What you have in your checking account is a debt owed by the bank to you. The difference is that your checking account is insured. You will not lose money if the bank goes bust.
The “allegedly” part is not actually allegedly, it’s part of how the smart contract backing the token operates.
How is the smart contract updated with the current market prices?
Yes. I get the impression that you’re arguing in bad faith, though.
I know how crypto works and I'm being honest with you. I had hoped that my question would make you realize that a debt is not a separate currency. Well, that didn't work but now we know. I am quite willing to learn how these smart-contract-stablecoins work, or if they do.
Regarding the question of "bad faith": I am sure that you have already checked if what you just learned about Tether is true. That means you understand that using it as an example of a viable currency potentially helps a company defraud people. Will you edit your post?
The fact of the matter is that I have warned you about the clear and well-known dangers of USDT. I could have been more polite but I still have done you a great favor, that may save you a lot of money. You're welcome.
I was irritated that someone, who apparently considers themselves knowledgeable on crypto, would not know about tether. I am also irritated that this great favors is met with accusations of bad faith.
Yes, it does.
No. The part I was objecting to was: " gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness." That's the part that's incorrect. Some stabletokens don't involve a company at all, it's entirely on-chain controlled by smart contracts.
How is the smart contract updated with the current market prices?
The one I'm most familiar with is DAI, which is maintained by the MakerDAO smart contract. MakerDAO uses a collection of price oracles to determine prices, which are in turn managed by people who own governance tokens (MKR) for the MakerDAO smart contract itself. They vote on which oracles are used, and on other economic parameters used by MakerDAO to keep its peg table. If MKR holders do a good job then MKR tokens appreciate in value, "rewarding" them. If they do a poor job then MKR tokens lose value.
This is complicated, but it's a necessary complication to ensure that MakerDAO can function in a decentralized and trustworthy fashion. There are a number of pages out there that go into more detail, this one seems pretty good at a glance.
I had hoped that my question would make you realize that a debt is not a separate currency.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean here. Tokens that represent a debt can certainly be used as a currency if everyone involved considers the debt to be sound and trusts that it will be repaid.
Except it's not really a currency is it? Nobody actually uses this stuff for buying goods and services
Except Montero
Yes, cryptocurrencies, aka "currencies", are used for buying goods and services.
Energy consumption is a great point if you ignore the material resource acquisition cost, worker cost, production cost, sundry cost, hardware cost, conventional debit and credit fees, service personnel cost, data centers, servers, and telecommunication network costs of conventional currency infrastructure.
Yeah, if we ignore all of that, then the resource consumption of a single energy intensive cryptocurrency seems high.
Yes, cryptocurrencies, aka "currencies", are used for buying goods and services.
No no no. Cryptocurrencies aren't used for buying goods and services outside of extremely fringe scenarios.
People trade them like they do stocks. You can pretend that's not the case all you want, but you know it to be true.
I can't go to Aldi and pay for my shopping with bitcoin or whatever shitcoin you hold. I can't pay my bills with it. I can't go get a haircut with it.
All I can do is treat it like a stock.
Energy consumption is a great point if you ignore the material resource acquisition cost, worker cost, production cost, sundry cost, hardware cost, conventional debit and credit fees, service personnel cost, data centers, servers, and telecommunication network costs of conventional currency infrastructure
I'm not ignoring any of that. Crypto still uses far more, and to top it all off, can't really be used as a currency.
You cryptobros have been saying crypto will replace real currency any day now for years. It's not happening. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Yes, you can buy groceries or a haircut with cryptocurrency.
Because most of them are less than a decade old, it isn't as widespread as many more established currencies, but you can absolutely buy groceries, buy a haircut, eat at restaurants, buy a house, buy a car, pay utility bills, obviously pay for various forms of entertainment like twitch, hardware at newegg, there's tons of stores that you can use cryptocurrency.
You can also buy gift cards with cryptocurrency that you can use for literally anything.
It's fine if you don't like it, but people are using it as a currency to purchase any type of material good you would purchase with conventional currency.
You keep throwing your tantrum about how cryptocurrency is going nowhere while it grows by 100 million per year and many of the world's governments are developing and purchasing cryptocurrencies.
They're probably developing those cryptocurrencies for fun, right?
It's probably like that dumb digital debit and credit card system they came up within the '70s.
Total bullshit, credit and debit cards.
Good thing that credit rating system never caught on, huh?
Where? Where do you see that? I've literally never been to a grocery store or hairdresser that accepts ANYTHING other than cash or card (maaybe checks)
Haha, checks! Yeah, we live in different areas.
Whole Foods(this little supermarket chain) accepts crypto, coffee shops, bars, hair stylists, there's a bunch of places.
Might want to open those peepers.
Ok, I'll pick a few random cities, and you show me a handful of supermarkets, cafes, bars, and barbers that all apparently happily accept crypto.
San Antonio, US
Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Hamilton, NZ
Deventer, Netherlands
You obviously won't have an issue, because it's so common for crypto to be used as a proper currency
Obviously not.
San Antonio:
Whole foods
Chevron
Tiger mart
Food Mart
Ecobox
Tax services
Pizza places, repair companies, there are literally hundreds.
Do you have something specific in mind?
Newscastle upon Tyne:
5wire
Academy for distance learning
Tech companies
Travel companies
Clothing companies
Watch companies
Do you want something specific?
NZ and the Netherlands - also hundreds.
Why don't you go try using your US currency in New Zealand, the Netherlands and the UK, or try using NZD in Vanuatu?
That'll work out great for you.
It's right in line with you continually proving yourself wrong.
Hahaha you're not even providing examples! You're just saying "uhhh oh yeah mate. Hundreds. Hundreds of them. I'm not going to mention any, but yeah, hundreds. You can't get moved for them."
Why would I use the wrong currency for a country? That makes no sense. Yet another crappy strawman.
The examples you ask for are literally in the previous comment.
Do you need help reading them?
That would explain a lot of your confusion.
Stop using the word strawman incorrectly, since you obviously don't know what it means.
They aren't. You're just baselessly insisting there are hundreds.
I'll stop bringing up strawmanning when you stop doing it.
Strawmanning is when you misrepresent or make up part of someone's argument so you can then dismantle it. Like you did when you brought up other currencies. I never said you can use the Algerian Dinar in a cafe in Copenhagen.
Since you don't know what the word is, you don't appear to need any impetus.
I've literally listed about 50 in the previous comments.
If you want more than 50, then say that.
So far, with the grocery store chains and others, we're over a thousand outlets.
So we've already proved you wrong like a thousand times, but it is always fun for me, so please keep asking for more.
Cool. I'll explain this to the person at the till next time I'm buying some milk, then I'm sure they'll accept my dickbutt coin.
People are developing crypto as a gamble/investment. Not as a real currency.
And lol at you saying crypto is like debit/credit cards. It isn't.
They probably won't take such a disused currency.
But you can use more popular crypto to buy groceries, yes.
Look at you, confident that digital currency is fundamentally different than...digital currency.
No I can't. I go to a supermarket and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I go to local restaurants and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I go to my barbers and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I go to a pub and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I pay my energy bills and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I pay my ISP bills and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I go to a car wash and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I pay taxes and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
Etc.
Places don't accept crypto. Crypto isn't used as a currency for the vast vast vast majority of people who hold crypto, nevermind society as a whole.
Look, I get you're a massive cryptobro, crypto is your life, you have a little tramp stamp of the bitcoin logo on your lower back, you speak to people about how any day now the real currencies are gonna die and crypto will take over, trust me bro™. But the real world is different to the one that appears to exist in your head.
Look at you, confident that digital currency is fundamentally different than...digital currency.
Look at you, being a smarmy cunt and putting words in my mouth I've never said.
The issue with crypto as a currency isn't that it's digital, it's that it's literally not a currency. That's what makes them different.
So yeah, using a bank card and paying with real money is very different to trying to use a digital "currency" and not be able to live because nowhere will touch it.
You are confidently incorrect.
Being confidently incorrect still leaves you incorrect.
Whole Foods, this little chain you might not have heard about, accepts crypto.
You can choose not to use cryptocurrencies, but that doesn't mean cryptocurrencies aren't widely accepted.
Cryptocurrency is accepted in many places.
I'm being factual, you're throwing a tantrum because you're wrong.
Never heard of whole foods. You shouldn't assume people are from wherever you're from. I'm guessing it's a food shop?
But congratulations, you've named one company 🎉👏
You'll note that I've been saying there's practically nowhere that accepts crypto, not literally nowhere on planet earth. So well done on your strawman, but it doesn't contradict what I've said at all.
People use crypto as a stock. Not a currency.
Widely accepted
Haha hahahahaha
HAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA
HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA
AHAHAHA
HAHA HAHAHAHAHA
hahaha
ha
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'll stick to using real money. If I called up my mortgage provider and said "oh I'm not going to be paying in £ anymore, but I can give you Monero!" I'd be evicted pretty damn quick. As would you if you paid any bills.
By all means, broadcast your ignorance in force.
Your argument is that grocery stores don't accept cryptocurrency.
Now you've learned that at least 500 grocery stores do.
Microsoft accepts crypto. Have you heard of Microsoft? Or is the underside of your rock totally empty?
Have you heard of AT&T? AMC theaters?
How many more examples of your ignorance would you like?
No, my argument is that it's not really used as a currency, but treated like a stock. Which is true.
Even for the few people who intend to pay using it, the vast majority of places don't accept it.
Now you've learned that at least 500 grocery stores do.
I'll take your word for it, cryptobro. As I've stated, I haven't heard of that retailer.
Have you heard of Microsoft?
Yup. But when I go on their site I don't see any option of paying with crypto. I've tried the Windows/Office sites, as well as the Minecraft site that they obviously own.
Have you heard of AT&T? AMC theaters?
No and no.
You're again assuming I'm from wherever you're from. Almost certainly the US, as when people assume everyone knows about some random thing in their country, it's usually an American.
Ok so I looked it up and apparently AT&T is an ISP. So I looked at mine. BT? No crypto. Virgin Media? No crypto. Sky? No crypto. EE? No crypto. Vodafone? No crypto.
For cinemas, Vue, Odeon, Cineworld all also don't have crypto payments.
Widely accepted indeed lmao
Yes, not literally every company globally accepts cryptocurrency yet, same as other currencies, but thousands of them do.
Real currencies use significantly less power despite orders of magnitude higher transaction volumes. They also have physical exchange options that incur no transaction costs and require no digital infrastructure. Crypto is just bad as a currency.
Love to see some proof. Seems unlikely with the amount of necessary infrastructure, especially relative to ultra high efficiency cryptos.
What proof do you want? Real currency can be printed on paper or forged into coins, and then used until the physical medium wears out with zero electrical usage and zero transaction fees. No digital currency of any form can beat literally zero.
Literally zero.
Everybody keeps every dollar they own physically on them at all times.
These dollars do not have to be printed, the cotton does not have to be woven, the plastic does not have to be stamped, the dyes do not have to be mixed, nobody has to account them, nobody has to account for their storage, nobody is maintaining the number and circulating supply of them, nobody is regulating the distribution and influx through centralized institutions.
Sounds like a cakewalk.
LOL wake me up when you're circulating currency instead of just speculating against the bag holders.
Pst. Pssst
Cryptocurrencies have uses beyond just currency.
Found a bag-holder.
You think that there are only two possible uses for these things, and if I'm not interested in one of them I must therefore be using it for the other? Pretty weak logic.
You keep saying there are lots of uses, but you haven't listed a single one
I don't want you to feel bad for being a fan of crypto, but passionately (and incorrectly) defending it just makes you seem like a shill (or worse, a fool)
Heh. I bet if I had been suggesting particular uses you'd be calling me a shill for those particular uses. "Shill" is such a lazy accusation to throw about, you can sling it at anyone who's interested in anything.
How about ENS? It's a decentralized version of the Domain Name System.
LOL does anyone use it? Nope. Not a single person. Web3 is code-word for "I own an NFT Monkey and I am an idiot."
Wow, big surprise. Insult me, demand I provide a use, then immediately claim that use isn't valid and throw more insults. It's almost like it's not worth engaging with you.
Mate, no one outside of you little puddles of morons use web3. This is what I do for a living -- I engineer web systems. No one -- not once --- has EVER -- asked to setup web3 ANYTHING ever.
This gnosis shit is just more dumbass crypto bullshit. I don't even know what it does after reading the entire first page. Is this some smart-contract nonsense? This just feels like another dumb pointless exercise in fleecing bag-holders.
It's as uninteresting as it is ineffective at doing anything useful.
Yup, more insults, and rejection of another example. You even explicitly state you don't know what the example is, you're just convinced it's useless because it involves cryptocurrency. Nicely circular reasoning.
How about Golem? It's a decentralized cloud computing marketplace. And I should note preemptively, just because you don't use it doesn't mean nobody does.
You know how I can tell no one uses Golem? Because there's not a hosting platform on the planet that doesn't brag about what brands use their networks.
Lets see who's being pimped... it must be somewhere....
Ah, so now the absence of shilling is the problem? What a wonderful catch-22 you've got there.
How about Filecoin, a decentralized cloud storage system to go with Golem's cloud computing? I can keep on listing non-currency uses for blockchains for quite a while, you know.
Can't find it. Must be where all those NFTs went.
🤣
Yes, all those dollars that get pulled out of the earth by the blood sweat and tears of miners?
What are you talking about. If there are coins that don’t need mining why are we wasting electricity (or anything really)on the ones that do.
?
I don't get it, you sound combative but are reiterating my point.
Don’t most crypto users use one of a handful of highly centralized exchanges anyways? Like sure you can self host everything, but you can do that with real money too, and most people don’t have the care nor the skill to do it.
This is as useless as saying "fuck currency shit ffs".
Crypto isn't a currency, it's a commodity for trading. One that doesn't physically exist. No inherent use and no inherent value.
The vast majority of "real" currencies are fiat currencies and don't have inherent value or use either.
US dollar hasn't been backed by gold since 1971, for example.
The only reason money has any perceived value at all, is because it's collectively agreed to have some value. Just like crypto currencies.
But this is actually why crypto isn’t a real currency: we haven’t collectively agreed to value it, or at least not in any way that makes it useful as a medium for exchange. Ironically it can’t possibly become a proper currency while speculators are making its price so volatile. The very act of investing in it is making it worthless.
Anything can be a currency, if you use it as a currency. A currency is not defined by its ability to be exchanged for gas or used to pay taxes.
If children in some school start to exchange pogs for junk food or video game cartridges, the pogs become a currency. By definition. The fact that the use is clearly limited and the value is a subject to rapid change or speculation is irrelevant.
There isn't a single currency in the world the value of which is set in stone. There isn't a single currency in the world which is universally accepted. Just because there exist currencies linked to some of the strongest economies in the world, which are relatively stable and incredibly hard to affect the value of via speculation, doesn't mean they're immune to speculation, nor does it mean that any smaller currencies, be it currencies or small countries, crypto or pogs, are "not real".
I mean sure. Anything someone is using like currency can be called currency. But we’re talking practical terms here. Things we “collectively agree to value.” My WoW gold might be useful for buying potions, but it’s not generally accepted anywhere outside that narrow context. The fewer people who are willing to accept the currency, the less useful, and arguably less “real” it becomes, in so far as currency is defined by its value to others. I could print “me bucks” that I value at $1B USD, but that doesn’t mean much if nobody will give me a sandwich for it.
If you're in the US, it's not very practical to try to pay for things using Turkish liras either, for example. But it's not any less "real" because of it. There is still a market for that currency, even if you might need to look around for a bit to actually use it or exchange it for a different one. Same for WoW gold or crypto.
Given Turkey's current monetary policies I wouldn't want to use Turkish liras even if I lived in Turkey.
But there's so few uses of actually buying things with crypto. People don't use it as a medium of exchange outside of illicit goods and money laundering. We're more than a decade into this and using crypto to buy a pizza is still a novelty.
A major proof of this is that FTX collapsed and took a chunk of the crypto market out with it. The market at large shrugged this off. If it were actually linked in to the broader economy, then it would have had similar ripple effects to a major US bank failing.
I, personally, use crypto to do art commissions (I'm an artist) and to pay my VPS's rent. Neither is an illicit good or related to money laundering.
And, honesty, it's pretty great, compared to alternatives.
Last time I've used PayPal, it decided to withhold the funds for a month, for whatever reason. Plus, the transaction fee was about a dollar.
Transferring the same amount of money via Monero is guaranteed take only about a minute or two to process, since a transaction in that system would never get withhold, plus the processing fee would be about a hundred times smaller.
In the EU they're getting a digital euro which allows them to avoid bowing down to Paypal, Payoneer, and all the services interlinked with them (e.g. Patreon) - the ancillary services can even offer digital euro payouts instead, too. So as long as what you're doing is legal, you can break the Paypal/Payoneer terms of service as much as you want and avoid their privately enforced authoritarianism that goes beyond the scope of the law for whatever reason. So those problems are being solved as we speak, depending on where you live.
The "Criticism and risks of the digital euro" section on Wikipedia outlines my concerns about such a system pretty well.
Unless they are going to implement a cryptocurrency with centralized minting (essentially giving themselves both as much and as little control over the digital currency as they have over physically printed money), it doesn't seem that much different from what we have already. Just because it's going to be a new system, doesn't really mean it not going to have issues with false-positives suspending regular transactions or fees that are higher than they need to be.
This is amazing. I was curious if you held an original thought this entire chain as I was reading it and your response ended up being “read this Wikipedia section for my thoughts”. I will concede that you are an astute parrot.
"What are your thoughts about setting your hair on fire?"
"This Wikipedia article about burns covers it pretty well"
"Aha! So you're a parrot!"
There's a finite number of possible conclusions one can come to if they use this little thing called "logic". If multiple people apply it to the same problem, they're likely to come up with similar, if not identical, answers. If your conclusions about some given thing aren't shared by anybody else, it's more likely than not because they're illogical nonsense. It's even worse if your conclusions are outright nonexistent. That's not good. Means you stoopid.
Something like a centralized financial system has some very obvious, glaring issues that should be instantly apparent to anyone. And I'm, obviously, not the first person to think about it. So, why should I write something, if people who thought about it before me already outlined all the logical concerns about this system? And, likely, in a more detailed and in-depth manner than I'd care to write in a comment on a random website.
One failed bank NOT causing an international disaster is a good thing imho.
Tbf, most money nowadays doesn't physically exist nowadays. Only a tiny fraction of the "money" that is out there has a physical instantiation. Most of it is just numbers in bank servers
You literally just defined the attributes of a currency.
The only difference is that crypto isn't backed by a government.Edited. See below. Apparently some crypto is government backed. There is no functional difference between traditional currency and (at least some) crypto.
The big difference is that crypto is "decentralized". Traditional currency is, to some extent, controlled by a central bank. The CB seeks to ensure price stability.
Digital cash schemes are much older than bitcoin/crypto. It's not "crypto" just because it's digital money.
Sure, it's like if you printed ink on paper and pretended it was equivalent in cost to material goods.
Or if you pretended that material goods had an inherent value.
Pretense is not required for inherently valuable material goods.
Two sheets of cloth sewed together into pants provide protection, warmth, legal obedience.
Pants can be what keeps you from freezing to death and going to jail.
Ink stamped onto a piece of paper(or usually plastic)? A bunch of people with shared values have to agree that it means something, even though it inherently does not.
Carrying your stamped paper or plastic doesn't mean you won't freeze to death, starve to death, or anything else.
It's only value is by societal consensus, which while valuable, is not inherent, as with certain material goods.
Can be, but pants do not have inherent value in the context of a tropical climate where freezing is not an issue and nudity is allowed. They have contextual value.
Food does not have inherent value, it scales with availability and demand. An excess of apples that will spoil before they can be processed into something that can be consumed do not have inherent value.
This is important because while money's value is far more volatile, the argument that material goods have inherent value as a comparison is flawed.
Pants have value in any climate.
Exposure is a problem in any climate.
Dehydration, sunburns, bug bites, there are plenty of reasons you want clothing.
Clothing has inherent value whatever climate you're in.
Food does have inherent value.
Food is necessary to keep the human body, and the body of many other species, alive.
The excess of food for a given population may have less value, but you can trade that excess, or harvest or store it; the food itself still has inherent value to humans and other organisms that eat food.
You're looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.
The fact that certain material goods have inherent value is not flawed, but you can keep trying.
Pants can have value, they do not have inherent value.
I am pointing out that there are exceptions to the assumption that there is inherent value to show that material goods do not have inherent value. That is the opposite of 'depending on them having inherent value'.
You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise detrimentally affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.
Clothing has inherent value for people.
Containers have inherent value.
Shoes, any number of material goods have inherent value.
Currencies do not.
I don't think you understand what inherent means.
If something does not always have value in every circumstance, the value is not inherent.
In the context that we're using the phrase and have even explicitly stated, "...to people", these material goods...and food(that's use your craziest argument so far) have inherent value.
Do you think I'm talking about inherent value to dogs and cats?
I'm going to assume you are trolling and kick myself for falling for it.
No, that's my point? Currencies do not have an inherent value to people, only societal, while material goods have inherent value to people while you're pretending they don't while you struggle against a definition.
Struggle!
Sounds like without pants, I'll be freezing to death — then going to jail for that!
Probably not. Not many countries prosecute the dead.
But let me know.
This is still dependent on societal consensus. Well, the going-to-jail part, anyway. The protection from cold issue is dependent on the climate and time of year of where you happen to be located. There are many parts of the world where you could comfortably go naked.
Clothes have inherent value by protecting you from exposure.
Spoons have inherent value in conveying food.
Containers have inherent value in holding and protecting resources.
Many material goods have inherent value, currency simply does not.
Indeed. All "value" is ultimately something that is collectively decided upon by society. A chunk of rock could be worthless or worth billions depending on how much people want it.
There is no such thing as inherent value.
Not all crypto are the same.
Nano has been designed as digital money.
It has no mining, 0 fees (none for transactions, none for opening accounts), finalizes transactions sub-second (typically), has no built-in throughput limits and works across (political) borders.
I'd say these attributes offer some use and value.
Does my grocery store or gas station accept it?
Just because it's useless to you doesn't mean it's useless in general.
Does your grocery store or gas station accept Qatari riyals?
If that were my local currency, then I'm sure they would
At which point your local grocery store or gas station wouldn't be accepting whatever currency is your current local currency. The point would remain the same - a currency doesn't have to be universally accepted everywhere on the entire planet for it to still be a useful currency.
Except it's not really a currency is it? Nobody actually uses this stuff for buying goods and services, they treat it as a stock. Usually short-term trading that's essentially just gambling.
Normal currency also doesn't use more than 2% of the power generation of a massive country.
People speculate on the price of "normal currency" too.
I'm well aware.
But far, far, far, far more people use it as currency. Exchanging it for goods and services is clearly the main use for it.
Crypto is used like a stock.
In addition to using it as a currency, sure. But as I asked rigatti, is that a problem? At worst one might perhaps argue that the name "cryptocurrency" is misleading, but I've never cared much about semantics like that.
You're saying "in addition to using it as a currency" as if that's actually what people do with crypto. They don't.
And yeah, it is a problem. It renders it useless outside of as a bit of gambling on the side.
Alright, so let's call them cryptotokens instead. I've always preferred that myself, it's a much more general description of what they do. It doesn't change what they are but if that term makes you happier we can go with that.
Hardly, there are lots of things you can do with these things. A ledger is more than just for tracking money, it's a database. You really can't think of useful things that could be done with a completely decentralized and permissionless database?
People don't use bitcoin or other cryptocoins as a general purpose database. They use it as they'd use a stock.
Bitcoin, no, because it's a hopelessly out of date blockchain that actively resists having new capabilities added to it. Ethereum, on the other hand, is designed that way from the ground up. Many of the other smaller but more modern blockchains are also like that.
And yet they're still used like a stock and you can't really use them as a currency.
You can't use them as a currency everywhere. But the same can be said for any other currency too. You can't use US dollars everywhere. You can't use Chinese Yuan everywhere. And so forth. A currency doesn't have to be universally accepted everywhere on the planet for every application before it's useful.
Regardless, I was talking about using Ethereum as a distributed database.
You know fine well that's not what I meant.
If you were to attempt to only use Bitcoin, Ethereim, whatever, you almost certainly literally wouldn't be able to live.
You can't just pay all your bills with it.
And even the people who own it almost never use it as a currency. They treat it like a stock.
I really don't see your point here. I'm agreeing that you can't use it for everything. But what's wrong with that? There are plenty of things in this world that aren't useful in every circumstance and yet that doesn't mean those things are worthless. Use them for the things that they're good for. Elsewhere in this thread I listed off a whole bunch of non-stock, non-currency applications that have been built on blockchains if you really don't like the monetary applications.
As a side note, though, I'm kind of amused and baffled that the Grand Nagus of all people is dismissing any monetary uses for cryptocurrency.
There are people who ride the bike as a means of transport. Then there are people who build their entire identity around riding a bike. That doesn't mean one or the other rides it wrong.
A token of value can have multiple different usecases at the same time.
Bikes are used as a mode of transport. That's what everybody uses them for.
Crypto isn't really used as a currency. It is used like a stock. That's what everybody uses them for, if we're being honest.
But faaaarr fewer than those who use it for transactions. In the crypto world it's reversed.
Is that a problem?
Yes, the price fluctuations created by speculation make it hard to use for payment. How do you agree on a fair price when you don't know what the "money" will be worth in a few weeks.
The deflationary effect caused by hoarding currency, as is done with bitcoin, would bring about a Great Depression scenario in a real economy.
If you need the token's price to be stable then there are stabletokens specifically designed for that.
And how do they manage that?
It varies, there are a bunch of different types of stabletokens. The two main approaches I'm aware of are:
Tokens that are issued and backed by a trusted third party. Tether, for example, issues one USDT token for every USD that is deposited with Tether Inc. and you can redeem USDTs for USD again any time. I'm not particularly fond of this approach, but it's simple and popular and as long as you're not holding USDT long-term I don't see a big problem with it as a day-to-day currency. Just make sure the issuing company is audited and you're prepared for the possibility that they could turn out to be lying.
Tokens that are issued by on-chain smart contracts, backed by other digital assets. DAI and Liquity are examples of these. They are more complicated but IMO the better choice because you don't have to trust anyone - you can see the token's backing right on the blockchain itself and know whether it's actually worth what the stabletoken needs for support.
One of the nice things about the on-chain smart contract stabletokens is that they can be backed by less-stable tokens, such as Ether itself, so you can get the best of both worlds out of them.
Ok, so a stablecoin means, that the holder gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness. It's "stable" because a $1 debt stays a 1$ debt. That's a nice spin on zero interest. It's not what I'd call a currency. Or sane, reasonable, sensible, ...
I note that tether is known for not allowing audits. Are you for real?
The other option is that the loan is collateralized in crypto. And you can't actually redeem the stablecoin for money, you can only get crypto that trades for $1, allegedly. On the liquity site I wasn't able to see how the price is determined. I did see that there is a redemption fee of variable, unknown size. I'm not quite clear how that is supposed to be sane.
No. Neither of the approaches I described means that. You can check the credit-worthiness of Tether and other such companies (Tether was just an example, there are many others) and decide whether you want to use their token based on what you learn if you wish. As I said, you only need the token to last for as long as you're using it for, so if you're running a storefront for example you can be paid in those tokens and immediately trade them for something you trust more.
The stablecoin is worth $1, yes. That's the point of the stablecoin. The "allegedly" part is not actually allegedly, it's part of how the smart contract backing the token operates.
Yes. I get the impression that you're arguing in bad faith, though. I'm happy to discuss the details of how these things work but you're calling this "insane" and that's not a particularly useful mindset for learning.
Yes, it does. You can redeem the "stablecoin". That means it's an IOU; a debt. That means you are granting a loan while holding the coin.
There are several reasons why there is interest on loans. One is risk. If you lend $1 to 11 people and one of them can't pay back, you are left with only $10 of $11. No problem among friends, but not a viable business model. You'd have to charge 10% interest to break even.
It's not a problem to use debt as money, cause that's what we do. What you have in your checking account is a debt owed by the bank to you. The difference is that your checking account is insured. You will not lose money if the bank goes bust.
How is the smart contract updated with the current market prices?
I know how crypto works and I'm being honest with you. I had hoped that my question would make you realize that a debt is not a separate currency. Well, that didn't work but now we know. I am quite willing to learn how these smart-contract-stablecoins work, or if they do.
Regarding the question of "bad faith": I am sure that you have already checked if what you just learned about Tether is true. That means you understand that using it as an example of a viable currency potentially helps a company defraud people. Will you edit your post?
The fact of the matter is that I have warned you about the clear and well-known dangers of USDT. I could have been more polite but I still have done you a great favor, that may save you a lot of money. You're welcome.
I was irritated that someone, who apparently considers themselves knowledgeable on crypto, would not know about tether. I am also irritated that this great favors is met with accusations of bad faith.
No. The part I was objecting to was: " gives an unsecured, zero-interest loan to a company with unknown credit worthiness." That's the part that's incorrect. Some stabletokens don't involve a company at all, it's entirely on-chain controlled by smart contracts.
The one I'm most familiar with is DAI, which is maintained by the MakerDAO smart contract. MakerDAO uses a collection of price oracles to determine prices, which are in turn managed by people who own governance tokens (MKR) for the MakerDAO smart contract itself. They vote on which oracles are used, and on other economic parameters used by MakerDAO to keep its peg table. If MKR holders do a good job then MKR tokens appreciate in value, "rewarding" them. If they do a poor job then MKR tokens lose value.
This is complicated, but it's a necessary complication to ensure that MakerDAO can function in a decentralized and trustworthy fashion. There are a number of pages out there that go into more detail, this one seems pretty good at a glance.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean here. Tokens that represent a debt can certainly be used as a currency if everyone involved considers the debt to be sound and trusts that it will be repaid.
Except Montero
Yes, cryptocurrencies, aka "currencies", are used for buying goods and services.
Energy consumption is a great point if you ignore the material resource acquisition cost, worker cost, production cost, sundry cost, hardware cost, conventional debit and credit fees, service personnel cost, data centers, servers, and telecommunication network costs of conventional currency infrastructure.
Yeah, if we ignore all of that, then the resource consumption of a single energy intensive cryptocurrency seems high.
No no no. Cryptocurrencies aren't used for buying goods and services outside of extremely fringe scenarios.
People trade them like they do stocks. You can pretend that's not the case all you want, but you know it to be true.
I can't go to Aldi and pay for my shopping with bitcoin or whatever shitcoin you hold. I can't pay my bills with it. I can't go get a haircut with it.
All I can do is treat it like a stock.
I'm not ignoring any of that. Crypto still uses far more, and to top it all off, can't really be used as a currency.
You cryptobros have been saying crypto will replace real currency any day now for years. It's not happening. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Yes, you can buy groceries or a haircut with cryptocurrency.
Because most of them are less than a decade old, it isn't as widespread as many more established currencies, but you can absolutely buy groceries, buy a haircut, eat at restaurants, buy a house, buy a car, pay utility bills, obviously pay for various forms of entertainment like twitch, hardware at newegg, there's tons of stores that you can use cryptocurrency.
You can also buy gift cards with cryptocurrency that you can use for literally anything.
It's fine if you don't like it, but people are using it as a currency to purchase any type of material good you would purchase with conventional currency.
You keep throwing your tantrum about how cryptocurrency is going nowhere while it grows by 100 million per year and many of the world's governments are developing and purchasing cryptocurrencies.
They're probably developing those cryptocurrencies for fun, right?
It's probably like that dumb digital debit and credit card system they came up within the '70s.
Total bullshit, credit and debit cards.
Good thing that credit rating system never caught on, huh?
Where? Where do you see that? I've literally never been to a grocery store or hairdresser that accepts ANYTHING other than cash or card (maaybe checks)
Haha, checks! Yeah, we live in different areas.
Whole Foods(this little supermarket chain) accepts crypto, coffee shops, bars, hair stylists, there's a bunch of places.
Might want to open those peepers.
Ok, I'll pick a few random cities, and you show me a handful of supermarkets, cafes, bars, and barbers that all apparently happily accept crypto.
San Antonio, US
Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Hamilton, NZ
Deventer, Netherlands
You obviously won't have an issue, because it's so common for crypto to be used as a proper currency
Obviously not.
San Antonio:
Whole foods
Chevron
Tiger mart
Food Mart
Ecobox
Tax services
Pizza places, repair companies, there are literally hundreds.
Do you have something specific in mind?
Newscastle upon Tyne:
5wire
Academy for distance learning
Tech companies
Travel companies
Clothing companies
Watch companies
Do you want something specific?
NZ and the Netherlands - also hundreds.
Why don't you go try using your US currency in New Zealand, the Netherlands and the UK, or try using NZD in Vanuatu?
That'll work out great for you.
It's right in line with you continually proving yourself wrong.
Hahaha you're not even providing examples! You're just saying "uhhh oh yeah mate. Hundreds. Hundreds of them. I'm not going to mention any, but yeah, hundreds. You can't get moved for them."
Why would I use the wrong currency for a country? That makes no sense. Yet another crappy strawman.
The examples you ask for are literally in the previous comment.
Do you need help reading them?
That would explain a lot of your confusion.
Stop using the word strawman incorrectly, since you obviously don't know what it means.
They aren't. You're just baselessly insisting there are hundreds.
I'll stop bringing up strawmanning when you stop doing it.
Strawmanning is when you misrepresent or make up part of someone's argument so you can then dismantle it. Like you did when you brought up other currencies. I never said you can use the Algerian Dinar in a cafe in Copenhagen.
Since you don't know what the word is, you don't appear to need any impetus.
I've literally listed about 50 in the previous comments.
If you want more than 50, then say that.
So far, with the grocery store chains and others, we're over a thousand outlets.
So we've already proved you wrong like a thousand times, but it is always fun for me, so please keep asking for more.
Cool. I'll explain this to the person at the till next time I'm buying some milk, then I'm sure they'll accept my dickbutt coin.
People are developing crypto as a gamble/investment. Not as a real currency.
And lol at you saying crypto is like debit/credit cards. It isn't.
They probably won't take such a disused currency.
But you can use more popular crypto to buy groceries, yes.
Look at you, confident that digital currency is fundamentally different than...digital currency.
No I can't. I go to a supermarket and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I go to local restaurants and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I go to my barbers and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I go to a pub and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I pay my energy bills and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I pay my ISP bills and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I go to a car wash and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
I pay taxes and I can pay with my local currency and that's it.
Etc.
Places don't accept crypto. Crypto isn't used as a currency for the vast vast vast majority of people who hold crypto, nevermind society as a whole.
Look, I get you're a massive cryptobro, crypto is your life, you have a little tramp stamp of the bitcoin logo on your lower back, you speak to people about how any day now the real currencies are gonna die and crypto will take over, trust me bro™. But the real world is different to the one that appears to exist in your head.
Look at you, being a smarmy cunt and putting words in my mouth I've never said.
The issue with crypto as a currency isn't that it's digital, it's that it's literally not a currency. That's what makes them different.
So yeah, using a bank card and paying with real money is very different to trying to use a digital "currency" and not be able to live because nowhere will touch it.
You are confidently incorrect.
Being confidently incorrect still leaves you incorrect.
Whole Foods, this little chain you might not have heard about, accepts crypto.
You can choose not to use cryptocurrencies, but that doesn't mean cryptocurrencies aren't widely accepted.
Cryptocurrency is accepted in many places.
I'm being factual, you're throwing a tantrum because you're wrong.
Never heard of whole foods. You shouldn't assume people are from wherever you're from. I'm guessing it's a food shop?
But congratulations, you've named one company 🎉👏
You'll note that I've been saying there's practically nowhere that accepts crypto, not literally nowhere on planet earth. So well done on your strawman, but it doesn't contradict what I've said at all.
People use crypto as a stock. Not a currency.
Haha hahahahaha
HAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA
HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA
AHAHAHA
HAHA HAHAHAHAHA
hahaha
ha
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'll stick to using real money. If I called up my mortgage provider and said "oh I'm not going to be paying in £ anymore, but I can give you Monero!" I'd be evicted pretty damn quick. As would you if you paid any bills.
By all means, broadcast your ignorance in force.
Your argument is that grocery stores don't accept cryptocurrency.
Now you've learned that at least 500 grocery stores do.
Microsoft accepts crypto. Have you heard of Microsoft? Or is the underside of your rock totally empty?
Have you heard of AT&T? AMC theaters?
How many more examples of your ignorance would you like?
No, my argument is that it's not really used as a currency, but treated like a stock. Which is true.
Even for the few people who intend to pay using it, the vast majority of places don't accept it.
I'll take your word for it, cryptobro. As I've stated, I haven't heard of that retailer.
Yup. But when I go on their site I don't see any option of paying with crypto. I've tried the Windows/Office sites, as well as the Minecraft site that they obviously own.
No and no.
You're again assuming I'm from wherever you're from. Almost certainly the US, as when people assume everyone knows about some random thing in their country, it's usually an American.
Ok so I looked it up and apparently AT&T is an ISP. So I looked at mine. BT? No crypto. Virgin Media? No crypto. Sky? No crypto. EE? No crypto. Vodafone? No crypto.
For cinemas, Vue, Odeon, Cineworld all also don't have crypto payments.
Widely accepted indeed lmao
Yes, not literally every company globally accepts cryptocurrency yet, same as other currencies, but thousands of them do.
You're learning!
That's what's important.
Real currencies use significantly less power despite orders of magnitude higher transaction volumes. They also have physical exchange options that incur no transaction costs and require no digital infrastructure. Crypto is just bad as a currency.
Love to see some proof. Seems unlikely with the amount of necessary infrastructure, especially relative to ultra high efficiency cryptos.
What proof do you want? Real currency can be printed on paper or forged into coins, and then used until the physical medium wears out with zero electrical usage and zero transaction fees. No digital currency of any form can beat literally zero.
Literally zero.
Everybody keeps every dollar they own physically on them at all times.
These dollars do not have to be printed, the cotton does not have to be woven, the plastic does not have to be stamped, the dyes do not have to be mixed, nobody has to account them, nobody has to account for their storage, nobody is maintaining the number and circulating supply of them, nobody is regulating the distribution and influx through centralized institutions.
Sounds like a cakewalk.
LOL wake me up when you're circulating currency instead of just speculating against the bag holders.
Pst. Pssst
Cryptocurrencies have uses beyond just currency.
Found a bag-holder.
You think that there are only two possible uses for these things, and if I'm not interested in one of them I must therefore be using it for the other? Pretty weak logic.
You keep saying there are lots of uses, but you haven't listed a single one
I don't want you to feel bad for being a fan of crypto, but passionately (and incorrectly) defending it just makes you seem like a shill (or worse, a fool)
Heh. I bet if I had been suggesting particular uses you'd be calling me a shill for those particular uses. "Shill" is such a lazy accusation to throw about, you can sling it at anyone who's interested in anything.
How about ENS? It's a decentralized version of the Domain Name System.
LOL does anyone use it? Nope. Not a single person. Web3 is code-word for "I own an NFT Monkey and I am an idiot."
Wow, big surprise. Insult me, demand I provide a use, then immediately claim that use isn't valid and throw more insults. It's almost like it's not worth engaging with you.
How about Gnosis? It's a prediction market.
Mate, no one outside of you little puddles of morons use web3. This is what I do for a living -- I engineer web systems. No one -- not once --- has EVER -- asked to setup web3 ANYTHING ever.
This gnosis shit is just more dumbass crypto bullshit. I don't even know what it does after reading the entire first page. Is this some smart-contract nonsense? This just feels like another dumb pointless exercise in fleecing bag-holders.
It's as uninteresting as it is ineffective at doing anything useful.
Go sell your monkey before that collapses next.
https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/
Yup, more insults, and rejection of another example. You even explicitly state you don't know what the example is, you're just convinced it's useless because it involves cryptocurrency. Nicely circular reasoning.
How about Golem? It's a decentralized cloud computing marketplace. And I should note preemptively, just because you don't use it doesn't mean nobody does.
You know how I can tell no one uses Golem? Because there's not a hosting platform on the planet that doesn't brag about what brands use their networks.
Lets see who's being pimped... it must be somewhere....
Ah, so now the absence of shilling is the problem? What a wonderful catch-22 you've got there.
How about Filecoin, a decentralized cloud storage system to go with Golem's cloud computing? I can keep on listing non-currency uses for blockchains for quite a while, you know.
Can't find it. Must be where all those NFTs went.
🤣
Yes, all those dollars that get pulled out of the earth by the blood sweat and tears of miners?
What are you talking about. If there are coins that don’t need mining why are we wasting electricity (or anything really)on the ones that do.
?
I don't get it, you sound combative but are reiterating my point.
Centralised banking Stockholm syndrome is real.
Don’t most crypto users use one of a handful of highly centralized exchanges anyways? Like sure you can self host everything, but you can do that with real money too, and most people don’t have the care nor the skill to do it.