Don't get it = not clever.
Want to use it where it has no need = also not clever.
Want to slap "blockchain" on anything that may or may not need it = clever if you dump your bags fast enough. Otherwise, not clever. In both cases, immoral.
1. My government will allow me to transact 2. My bank will allow me to transact
Instead, with Bitcoin your assumptions become:
1. My counterparty will allow me to transact
The difference between the first set of assumptions and the second is basically regulatory arbitrage. There is meaningful value to people to do things that are not permitted by their government or bank but which they think should be. Now, some of those things are serious crimes! Like fraud or money laundering, but some of those things are more like Uber or Airbnb, where some people think they shouldn’t exist but many people like them.
>1. My government will allow me to transact 2. My bank will allow me to transact
Cryptobros keep saying this.
What kind of fantasy world do they live in where the government and banks "normally" approve or disapprove of cash transactions?
The bank from which you have withdrawn the cash does not know or care what you use it for, and the government may care but good luck it finding out.
Remember, bitcoin is DIGITAL CASH as per the first sentence of the bitcoin white paper so like for like should be compared: analog cash to digital cash.
You used the word "normally". I don't think "normally" means what you think it means.
Crypto is insane. Incomprehensible. The perfect merging of paranoiac libertarians and immoral grifters forming a feedback loop of destruction that grinds up and spits out the masses in order to enrich the few at a scale that traditional banking could only dream of. Executives at Goldman Sachs are looking at the people running off with cash at all of the cryptoscams, the margins of miners, with jealousy because "duh jackbooted gubmint" says they have to like, obey the law and stuff.
Crypto is a symptom of something being wrong with society but I don't know what.
I do know that everyone I know personally who has been into crypto has either been an immoral scammer... or an imbecile.
Most affluent people (globally speaking) have many other options (USD cash, venmo/apps, ACH, wire transfers, checks, etc.) to transfer money to others.
I would like the financial elements of blockchain to be set aside and let those knowledgeable explore actual problem domains. A distributed, transparent database of entries might have some uses that can't be seen thru the fog of those that want to get rich. One problem set that seems like a good fit is for actual real estate title/deed information. Having to pay for a "title search" or "title insurance" is bonkers every time a real estate transaction occurs on the same piece of land.
This is a good example of why blockchains aren’t a solution for most problems.
For real estate records, the only thing which matters is what the local government will enforce - digital signatures can be interesting but the anonymity/trustless stuff is an expensive distraction. One big factor here is that you can’t rely on access to keys: someone needs to be able to override records when not uncommon things happen such as an owner dying, a messy divorce, etc.
For title insurance, what you’re paying for is, well, insurance, not a database query. The risk here is that the records don’t match reality - for example, surveying errors happen, a previous seller might not have had clear rights, etc.
It is over-priced for the effort. This is a lender requirement, so if you pay cash or cattle there is no requirement to do this check.
The same thing with 3th world countries: to be able to rescue your money, you need to find someone who wants to take that risky currency and exchange it to crypto for you and back if you need it.
But as soon as Bitcoin/crypto is so established than there is a big chance that the country/dictator steps in and forbids it.yes that is technically possible (see great Chinese firewall)
Blockchain is simply an accounting system. It is naive to assume that "trustless" accounting can/will lead to a functional, trustless monetary system without government.
It is arrogant to assume that understanding blockchain gives one insight on finance and monetary policy and marketplace dynamics.
Scammers and con artists feed on naivety, arrogance and over confidence --- and crypto is the proof.
Until it settles, being most attractive speculative asset overshadows any other functionality it has.
[*] Every other boring asset that people usually invest in for more than 4years.
I don't think this can/will happen without government regulation. Otherwise, it will remain a playground for scammers and market makers/manipulators to enrich themselves at other's expense.
Government may be bad but the lack of it is worse. As evidenced by thousands of years of human experience.
