• 1 Post
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle






  • That is not true, for the vast majority of the history of money it was based on a commodity that was valuable in its own sense. It is only in the last century that we have begun experimenting with currencies that are not pegged to the value of a commodity.

    Cryptocurrencies derived their value from being a network of users (metcalfe’s law) so they are more like a commodity money. Thing about something like Meta, which has a valuation in the trillions despite its physical assets not be worth nearly that and its functionality as a website being easily replicated on an alternative platform. The users are what is valuable.





  • Its not the same thing, its just incrementally more decentralized than the current system but potentially less so then a proof of work one (and even then only in theory, in practice a lot of POS chains are more decentralized than BTC).

    But the most important aspect of crypto is actually not decentralization. Decentralization is necessary but only to a point. What is more important is for the cryptocurrency to be permissionless. In that way, you are correct it is replicating a system we already have… cash. It basically taking the properties of cash and bring that into the digital realm. We lost so much when our money and other assets became digital and that it what crypto is trying to give us back. It crazy to me that people don’t want to see that happen and buy into these superficial critiques, which, even if true are just engineering problems that can be overcome.

    But I am no stranger to seeing people completely sleep on radical shifts in technology. Hell the fediverse is just like that too and if you leave it for a moment you will see people trashing it in the same way. So whatever, keep your fiat. I hope the future is one where both systems an co-exist.







  • deadlyduplicate@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlOopsy daisies
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah he volunteered to to be solider, so what? Being a solider is not the same thing as being a war criminal and the burden of proof still applies. War is messy and it is entirely possible that this division committed atrocities that haven't been proven but the mere possibility is not sufficient reason to label him a war criminal. You are de-meaning the term by doing so.

    Either you have specific evidence to support your charge or realize you are participating in sensationalism.