The article argues that, "Through successive booms and busts, the price of Bitcoin has been manipulated by a handful of large players, using fake transactions, imaginary assets and sophisticated timing."
It highlights the role that Tether plays. "[W]henever Bitcoin’s price began to fall, Tether was issued by Bitfinex and sent to two other exchanges, where it was used to buy Bitcoin – which would then rise in price."
“Cryptocurrencies are described by their fans as a people-powered revolution, digital banking unchained from the interests of the wealthy and powerful.“
Not quite correct. The wealthy and powerful can be wealthy and powerful and express their interests. They just have no special powers, as crypto currencies aim to be permissionless and deregulated.
That means price manipulation or other financial games are largely quite ok by crypto standards so long as anyone is invited. It’s anti-bank and anti-government.. not anti-capitalist or anti-finance.
Whether you are on board with this vision or if it’s good for society is another issue, but crypto is largely fulfilling its goals in my opinion.
Yeah. On top of that the article is a bit misleading as the goal of crypto, gold, etc is not to become rich, but not to become poorer due to inflation.
That argument is equivalent with the argument “Ignaz Semmelweis was rejected by his peers and eventually placed in a psychiatric ward, and he was a genius. I’m rejected by my peers and placed in a psychiatric ward, therefore, I must also be a genius.”
Most technology that is rejected is rejected for good reasons, but few remember those technologies. In a few years Bitcoin will only be remembered in footnotes like the tulip bulb craze.
And year after year it sets higher lows, and new highs.
Transactions go up, users go up, dollar value goes up. New technology like lightning gets developed, it gets cheaper/faster (https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning).
But hey, the price is down 50% this year, so we can call it a failure.
Bitcoin has been around for a decade now and no one has imagined much less implemented use cases beyond anonymous payments for illegal cross-border transfers or illicit goods and trading other crypto coins
- an asset that cannot easily be seized (safe, mobile, relatively easy to recover with seed words)
- an asset that cannot easily be debased (good at storing value)
- a network that is permissionless to participate in (no requirement for citizenship or identification, just software)
- a network that is censorship resistant (interact with willing parties, pseudo-anonymously).
What you mean to say is that YOU have no use for it. That's fine, you most likely have elite banking access, access to stable and liquid stock and bond markets, forex markets, etc.
Look up Turkey's double digit yearly inflation rate over the last couple decades. Look up the capital controls imposed by Lebanon.
New platforms often look like toys. They have limited features, are not always faster, and are usually more expensive. This makes them easy to dismiss.
People often analyze Bitcoin's price volatility, the way it is manipulated in unregulated trade. They then assert that this asset must be as valueless and useless as the patterns it trades under. Bitcoin the asset is no longer separable from the hustlers profiting from it. Bitcoin, the network, the platform, the technology, somehow becomes the scam.
As far as I can tell this article isn't making an argument against utility or usefulness merely pointing out that the price of BTC has been artificially manipulated (which seems obvious).
The first iPhone didn't have a front camera nor 3G, which were common features at the time. Not saying it wasn't groundbreaking (it was), but "better in every aspect" is a bit of a stretch.
Readit News
It highlights the role that Tether plays. "[W]henever Bitcoin’s price began to fall, Tether was issued by Bitfinex and sent to two other exchanges, where it was used to buy Bitcoin – which would then rise in price."
Not quite correct. The wealthy and powerful can be wealthy and powerful and express their interests. They just have no special powers, as crypto currencies aim to be permissionless and deregulated.
That means price manipulation or other financial games are largely quite ok by crypto standards so long as anyone is invited. It’s anti-bank and anti-government.. not anti-capitalist or anti-finance.
Whether you are on board with this vision or if it’s good for society is another issue, but crypto is largely fulfilling its goals in my opinion.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
iPhones wont sell well because they don't have keyboards. All you can do is download fart apps? Waste of money.
Etc.
Most technology that is rejected is rejected for good reasons, but few remember those technologies. In a few years Bitcoin will only be remembered in footnotes like the tulip bulb craze.
And year after year it sets higher lows, and new highs.
Transactions go up, users go up, dollar value goes up. New technology like lightning gets developed, it gets cheaper/faster (https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning).
But hey, the price is down 50% this year, so we can call it a failure.
- an asset that cannot easily be seized (safe, mobile, relatively easy to recover with seed words)
- an asset that cannot easily be debased (good at storing value)
- a network that is permissionless to participate in (no requirement for citizenship or identification, just software)
- a network that is censorship resistant (interact with willing parties, pseudo-anonymously).
What you mean to say is that YOU have no use for it. That's fine, you most likely have elite banking access, access to stable and liquid stock and bond markets, forex markets, etc.
Look up Turkey's double digit yearly inflation rate over the last couple decades. Look up the capital controls imposed by Lebanon.
People often analyze Bitcoin's price volatility, the way it is manipulated in unregulated trade. They then assert that this asset must be as valueless and useless as the patterns it trades under. Bitcoin the asset is no longer separable from the hustlers profiting from it. Bitcoin, the network, the platform, the technology, somehow becomes the scam.
iphone was better than conventional phones in every aspect.
what are some of the things that bitcoin does better than conventional banking?
sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911974
Ballmer's thoughts were rational at the time, but wrong.