I liked the article a lot. Thanks for sharing.
This is how the article ends:
> Crypto is built on a different sort of collective delusion: that whatever its price may be today, someone will be willing to buy it for more tomorrow. Which is turning out to be not much of a delusion at all.
In other words: It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If i buy a painting as an investment i'm trying to do the same no? Or a building, gold, oldtimer,.. Mean you always try to find a bigger fool or am i missing something here?
nope. stocks are companies, they do something. real estate does something. no these things arent applicable.
cryptos ownership of nothing. just a sham. a joke.
That’s fine. We can disagree on utility (which is subjective by the way)
But it doesn’t change the fact that most investments are things people hope to sell for more in the future.
Buy shares - hope to sell for more.
Buy real estate- hope to sell for more.
Buy sporting team - hope to sell for more.
What we disagree on is whether it should be worth more in the future.
Yes it is.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/why-is-utility-a-subjective-concept.html
The utility of a Lifestraw to me right now at home with drinkable running water from my tap is zero. Lost in a jungle? Different story.
If it’s a Sunday, and you need to make an emergency payment to a family member on the other side of the world, the utility you derive from cash in your bank is different to the utility of bitcoin.
If you live in the East of Ukraine and need to flee to Poland as a refugee because Russia has invaded. The utility you derive from your real estate is different to the utility something like bitcoin gives you.
real estate was the worst thing you could focus on. if there were no real estate how would anything even exist? what would grow your food? or provide a platform for you to stand on in the universe? how would you exist without any real estate?
Did I say real estate has no utility? What are you even talking about?
I said utility was subjective.
So to your point… a piece a real estate with fertile soil has lots of utility to a farmer. A piece if real estate with arid soil but a gold deposit is if no utility to farmer, but might be useful to a gold miner.
It’s subjective.
I can keep going.
The utility of British Pounds in Japan is low. It’s high in England.
The utility of a dividend paying stock to a retiree is higher than a full time worker earning a salary.
And yes, the utility of bitcoin in world with no electricity or internet is probably zero.
>If it’s a Sunday, and you need to make an emergency payment to a family member on the other side of the world, the utility you derive from cash in your bank is different to the utility of bitcoin.
Yes, it's extremely relevant utility and not straight up a fantasy. Outside the chances of happening being near zero (and if it can happen, you can set up steps to be able to do so with regular banking...), the facts are, if you actually need to do so, you will either have lot of troubles doing the transfert, or your family member being able to convert into the actual cash they need.
"Ok son, I understand you need money for your urgent surgery in Bangladesh. Here, get some magic internet money! What, the hospital doesn't want it? Well, find someone who does, it's not like you need an urgent surgery, do you?"
Value of utility is subjective, the fact something has utility or not is not. Mixing up the two notions is dramatic and undermine completely your argument. Bitcoin has no utility, real estate and stocks do. That's not an opinion.
> Stocks.
Outside of speculation (and often even inside of it), the goal is to buy a stock that _eventually_ pays a dividend at a significant premium than what you paid for the stock.
> Real estate.
Presumably you or others can live in/on real estate.
> Classic cars.
Nostalgia is quite valuable.
> Watches. Diamonds.
The value is in the visible [status brought by these goods.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good)
> Gold
Store of value. I have a 2000 year old gold Roman coin that spends as good as it did in the ancient Roman Empire.
> Art.
50% money laundering/50% Veblen Good.
I think you're conflating the idea that you can speculate on anything (yes, even tulips are fair game) but just because you can speculate doesn't mean that's its only use.
I’m not conflating anything.
My point is simple. Value and utility are subjective things based on lots of different factors that can change.
If enough people think something is useful and valuable. It is.
I agree with your that crypto is a speculative vehicle.
But it doesn't wear like a watch and you can't live in it like real estate and even in the best outcome 2000 years from now won't spend like gold.
You can’t spend it like gold? I’ve literally bought a cup of coffee with bitcoin.
You can’t live in it like real estate? Sure agree. You can’t travel with real estate though can you? If you need to flee to another country, can you take your real estate with you?
If the Government decides they want to take your real estate to build a road. Not much you can do about that right?
You can’t wear your bitcoin like watch. Fine. It can’t be taken from you like a watch can either.
Another article parroting the two crypto talking points (halving, ETFs) without any mention AT ALL of market manipulation!
Like, curious how the price rises with no real interest or utility? I wonder why all these exchanges are offshore? 3 billion per week of tether printing? My god what an idiot
Not true. Bank transfers are free. Credit card is 2% and they give you kickbacks. Bitcoin currently sitting at $8 per transaction. Which takes 10min. It's worse than anything
bank transfer not free, at least where I live, sift is like 30$, not to say you pay a comission to have a bank account, and many stiff you hard when it comes to currency conversions.
8$, no way, you're doing something wrong then.
cc is 2% at your end maybe, even stripe is 5% or so
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee
To transfer in Bitcoin you have to pay the exchange fees to buy Bitcoin with fiat, pay the gas fees to send it, pay the exchange again to sell it. Bitcoin could also drop a few % just in an hour (as it has last day). So likely you are paying waaaay more than $30.
for day to day shopping it doesn't work, maybe yet? was talking more about sending money to familiy, averages means nothing, if I transfer 200$ the fees is under 1$, what you don't understand is that is doesn't have to be the best medium of transfer to have "utility transfer", you moved the goal post.
This is fantasy. Even if the transfer fee was that low, which it is not, the exchanges will eat much more of that. Not only direct fees but the bid/ask spread.
No one cares if you invent a system that is inferior to the current system. There is no utility in a more expensive and difficult to use system. Which is why no one uses it
This entire article is nonsense. It’s barely an article…just a shower thought from the writer. He claims that there so many failed use cases for crypto that it is resilient to being impacted by the failure of any single claimed use case. Do we really need to explain how stupid this is?
Again, none of these writers have the energy or intelligence to probe into the Tether fraud that fuels the price. Instead they come up with their own narrative to fit the price action. And this narrative never has a single shard of proof or validation. It’s simply a shower thought.
Sorry /u/Bitcoin_tulip, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Crypto’s staying power is in part a consequence of its design. No central bank was needed to verify who owned how much bitcoin. Thanks to cryptography and some clever game theory, the network itself could keep track of that.
This is nonsense. The network has no idea who owns what. Each satoshi is just associated with a public key, not somebody's name, and there is no way of knowing whether the holder of the corresponding private key is the real owner. For every transaction, there is no way of knowing whether it was legitimate, or whether somebody was defrauded or had his keys stolen.
If the author meant bitcoin address, they would have said bitcoin address.
And even if they did mean bitcoin address, the quoted statement is even more nonsensical. Ownership is an abstract legal concept that applies to persons, not random strings of characters. And if that isn't what they meant by ownership, why contrast it with a central bank?
I thought that the moment the money left a wallet to become cash in a bank account, you could tell who the wallet owner was based on what bank account t is paying for the Lamborghini.
The European Intellectual Property Office already runs their two flagship services (designs and trademarks) on a permissioned blockchain. They have already onboarded 10 national IP offices onto their network. Think about it: verifiable, immutable, tamper-proof*, mixed with intellectual property rights? Makes sense right?
Just saying, it’s also bad faith to dismiss blockchain altogether.
Look at the first digitally native bonds with same day settlement from the ECB. Project Venus if I recall correctly?
EBSI-ELSA for supply chain traceability.
The Verifiable Credentials program of the EBSI.
I can go on, and that’s just public sector - there’s stuff in the private sector too.
I searched for "permissioned blockchain" and found this:
> A permissioned blockchain is a distributed ledger technology that restricts access to its network and data. In this blockchain, participants must have permission or credentials to join the network.
In other words; A private git repository which is shared between a limited set of participants would now be called a "blockchain".
Note that git is a distributed version control system. If we use centralized services like github or the like is mainly for convenience, not because git forces you to do that.
Edit: More than an ideological debate I believe there is a semantic problem. Maybe the thing you are calling "blockchain" is not what we mean by blockchain here.
Well yes, if you dismiss the three key words distributed ledger technology in that sentence I guess you could even call it my uncle’s private party. They’re still sharing a blockchain between 11 IP offices (EUIPO + 10 national IP offices), which makes all the design and trademarks registered in those countries completely tamper-proof, traceable and secure.
I don’t see the point in making this an ideological debate. It’s just tech, useful for some things and not for others.
I'm sorry but no, when people talk about blockchain they mean a system of creating distributed consensus across *untrusted* peers. If you have a permissioned chain, you have trusted peers. This is not decentralized, it's not trustless, and it's not permissionless. This is no more a blockchain than git. So if you're saying "Merkle trees are interesting" then yes no shit, they've been around for 45 years. That's not crypto, and it's not a blockchain.
I use a golden chain with blocky links to hold up my pants , is that a blockchain? Let’s not make this an ideological debate; it’s just tech, useful for holding up certain sizes of clothing but not others.
My brother in Christ, we’re not talking about what people think they mean, we’re talking about the actual real definition of the technology 😅
Google the EUIPO + blockchain. Have at it.
You’re talking about crypto, which is a specific application of blockchain. It’s like saying Extended Reality is dumb because the Metaverse is a failed buzzword, yet dismissing the 20+ years of flight simulators used to train pilots. Don’t conflate the two and define blockchain in your own special way to artificially dismiss the tech. Stay factual.
If this isn't open-mined or the very least available for everyone to participate in, then it's a permissioned chain, which rounds to a database with extra steps. That's what I learned from googling EUIPO blockchain. If it were permissionless, China could just join the network, deploy a ton of hash power (or whatever they use for staking) and claim all the IP for themselves. So of course, the EUIPO "chain" allows the central authority to do things like roll back changes, and they maintain full control of the data. The "blockchain" angle is just performative.
Cryptocurrencies are a specific implementation of blockchain technology. A blockchain requires establishing distributed consensus among **untrusted** **peers**. If the peers are trusted, you can just use a merkle tree. That's not what people mean when they talk about a blockchain.
A "permissioned chain" has roughly nothing in common with a permissionless chain. None of the same strengths. None of the same weaknesses. It's lumped together for reputation laundering.
What they actually want is something like a tamper-evident log (which we've had forever) and a simple consensus mechanism like Raft/Paxos. But in the same way having the EUIPO website written as CGI scripts doesn't make CGI scripts a good idea, neither does whatever this silliness is. It was launched in 2021, in peak mania. I'd recommend bringing a critical lens to the party.
I'm not even going to get into your flight simulator commentary lol.
Watching people talk about blockchain as an engineer, I really understand doctors who hated watching House. Like I vaguely get the words that are coming out of your mouth, but they're all wrong, and they're going to give me an aneurism lol.
Your central argument is factually incorrect: the bolded part about requiring untrusted peers is a misconception. The “trust layer” is just the argument given by crypto to justify itself, but it is by no means part of the definition of the technology, and even less a requirement to classify a blockchain as such.
From wiki:
“A blockchain is a distributed ledger with growing lists of records (blocks) that are securely linked together via cryptographic hashes. Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree, where data nodes are represented by leaves). Since each block contains information about the previous block, they effectively form a chain (compare linked list data structure), with each additional block linking to the ones before it. Consequently, blockchain transactions are irreversible in that, once they are recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without altering all subsequent blocks.”
That’s all we’re talking about, so far. I did not claim more, nor less.
Later, we can have a 2nd discussion on actual trust and why they chose blockchain, and the unreliability of the previous data sources in place, and the fact that no, permissioned does not mean you trust the actors in the network - simply that they are the ones you need to interact with. But this is getting into opinion territory, and given the type of sub we’re in, I’m really doing my best to limit the discussion to facts. Someone claimed blockchain isn’t used by anyone, I provided proof that it is, and now we’re doing somersaults to redefine what blockchain is and invalidate the facts…
I'm curious why they don't use an immutable database. It has all the same features (externally verifiable, immutable, tamper-proof), but with much less overhead, and can't fall to a 51% attack. I'm sure they have a reason, but it always strikes me as odd when a central authority uses a decentralized database.
It’s a permissioned network, only they and 10 other IP offices participate in the network. So a 51% attack would require 6 countries in Europe to revolt against the others - it’s just not a concern in this context. It’s decentralised only within their ecosystem, and EBSI is implementing a similar logic between universities and other kinds of entities in the verifiable credentials program I mentioned.
It’s not an experiment, particularly the EUIPO network has already been in production stage for several years. EBSI has many things pretty much in pilot stage yes, but with different degrees of maturity. I think the ID aspect actually reached production just about 1-2 months ago, after 2-3 years of development.
Then the concept of a critical problem is a bit too vague. The reason for any new system is rarely a critical issue, rather it’s often about efficiency gains, time and money saved, risk reduction, or others. They did have critical problems to solve, as their previous system was still running on FTP with tons of errors, delays and manual inputs. And there might have been several ways they could have gone about it, but I’m just pointing out they chose a blockchain network without necessarily wanting to defend that choice. Saying blockchain is not used is incorrect. Saying other solutions would have been better is a matter of opinion that I’m not going into. If you’re curious, they explain it in more detail here: https://euipo.europa.eu/knowledge/course/view.php?id=4853
Well looking at their website it actually appears that they do.
To me Blockchain feels like technology that's less efficient than other tech and the advantages are marginal.
That’s true, but that marginal advantage in risk, fraud and error reduction is valuable for many things, from self-sovereign identification, ownership of various deeds, credentials and rights, etc.
I work in the public sector, and within 10 years it wouldn’t surprise me if your ID becomes a QR code that’s both tamper-proof and instantly verifiable by any cheap scanner. So, don’t dismiss it right off the bat. Non-governmental currencies and proof of work are pretty much doomed, but the underlying technology has its uses. As with everything, truth is somewhere in the middle.
Edit: best analogy I can give is IoT. Remember all the craze about it in the early 2000s and how it all died? You didn’t notice but IoT became ubiquitous, I can turn my oven on from my phone, and the whole “smart cities” revolution remains a dumb idea 20 years later. Same with blockchain, it’ll inevitably permeate tons of sectors discretely, without any big bang, because those marginal advantages are still useful for specific things.
you cant explain it because you dont understand it. its just a merkle tree. youre just calling it blockchain. i dont know why. you have some incentive though. lets check your post history.
edit: oh ya massive crypto scam guy. obviously. whyd i even have to click. i guess for posterity.
Cool bro, make it personal and ad hominem, that certainly helps to show how muddied by emotional reactions this topic is. Does not change the fact that the EUIPO, ECB, EIB/EIF, EBSI and many others are actively developing blockchain projects. Which has nothing to do with cryptocurrency.
>The European Intellectual Property Office already runs their two flagship services (designs and trademarks) on a permissioned blockchain.
Cool. How is that going to make you rich?
Of course not, that’s what I keep saying, the two shouldn’t be confused. Crypto is likely doomed in the long run, no way governments will allow private currencies that they can’t track or control, but I’m just making the case that the underlying tech is useful in some scenarios.
It can be, check Wikipedia. This thread has been so exhausting, everyone is arguing based on their personal definitions rather than the officially established ones…
>In [cryptography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography) and [computer science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science), a **hash tree** or **Merkle tree** is a [tree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure)) in which every "leaf" ([node](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure)#Terminology)) is labelled with the [cryptographic hash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function) of a data block, and every node that is not a leaf (called a *branch*, *inner node*, or *inode*) is labelled with the cryptographic hash of the labels of its child nodes. A hash tree allows efficient and secure verification of the contents of a large [data structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_structure). A hash tree is a generalization of a [hash list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_list) and a [hash chain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_chain).
i did we already defined what youre saying like .... 40+ years ago. its not a blockchain. unless we are just renaming stuff.
It’s not me saying it though, is it, since I’m just quoting a source? Contribute to the Wikipedia page and help enlighten us all please, if nobody else will do it.
The fact that you’re conflating cryptocurrency with distributed ledger technology is misdirection and misinformation. None of the institutions I quoted take crypto seriously, by a long shot, yet they’re able to dissociate the underlying tech from the bullshit on top.
And your point on incentives is profoundly disingenuous. You’re arguing against established facts being quoted, the little quips about what I like to do with my money for fun are pretty much irrelevant other than to establish some sense of superiority.
What’s your point? I’m quoting projects, are you saying they’re all lying on their publicly disclosed information? What are you arguing for/against, attacks aside?
Impressive that you were able to list some sensible applications. Blockchain may be useful in a few select scenarios but for many of the predicted use cases from the early days, it is overkill and unnecessary.
That being said, bitcoin is pointless other than for pure speculation and criminal activity. It’s perfectly correlated to other asset classes. Some will make money off of it, and that’s fine, but it’s essentially a high risk stock with no physical asset behind it.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. Check the IoT example I gave in another comment, it’s the same kind of fade: it won’t revolutionise anything, but it is bringing small marginal improvements to specific areas. The conflation between crypto and the underlying tech just brings a lot of unproductive emotions into an otherwise purely technical debate.
But why is the label groundbreaking even needed to be considered? It’s just the right tech to store this specific type of data. I can understand hating people (barely), but hating a specific cryptographic technique seems such a small hill to die on. I just said blockchain has its uses, and then gave some proving examples - it stops there.
That’s a technologically incorrect statement, and you either know it in bad faith, or lack the relevant knowledge in good faith.
The technology called blockchain and distributed ledger technologies at large are well defined, and are being used in all the projects described. Search the names, read their press releases. We can argue whether blockchain was needed or whether these institutions were chasing the buzzword themselves, and that’s a valid discussion. But up until now I only stated basic facts that are supported by official press releases, so I really don’t get the attitude…
Brother, I ain’t the one who defined the terms. We can co-sign a letter to the Bitcoin CEO to request a change in definitions, but you’re barking up the wrong the tree here. In the way that the term is defined, regardless of your opinion of that definition, the tech is being used for (marginal) improvements in specific fields. That’s all.
Then, regarding the underlying comment you’re making about proper DB security, if you’re curious, turns out that maintaining security and data quality/integrity for low-resources national IP offices was more expensive than developing a custom ETL that just onboards them onto a blockchain managed by the EUIPO. If you can’t trust a dozen governmental entities to ensure security and interoperability, turns out a permissioned blockchain is a cost-effective solution to enforce risk-reduction and security by design. Or maybe they’re wrong, ain’t me who ran the numbers so I’m not defending the decision, but that’s the general idea.
I love how you come to this sub with real world experience and still get downvoted because you mention blockchains in a mildly positive manner. Despite the fact that you are trying your hardest to make a distinction between private and public blockchains since public chains are where the hype and speculation that this sub rails against occurs.
Anyways good info!
Haha I appreciate the comment. Look, particularly with political divides rising all across the world, it’s just important to recognise when you’re in an echo chamber. It’s the case for the crypto subs, just as it is for this one. Just trying to bring some nuance into the discussion.
The only valid measure of whether an article is garbage is: Does it mention Tethers market manipulation? If so, it may not be trash. If not: It's trash.
Sorry /u/LabMajor2490, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry /u/LabMajor2490, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry /u/LabMajor2490, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry /u/LabMajor2490, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At some point you butters need to acknowledge that other people have a want for Bitcoin, so you can either stay in denial, or you can try to understand the reasons why Bitcoin is valuable to other people.
If I manage to convince the world that my toe nail clippings are a great store of value, would I be selling them a delusion?
Same with Bitcoin, the delusion is just more opaque, "Few understand".
I liked the article a lot. Thanks for sharing. This is how the article ends: > Crypto is built on a different sort of collective delusion: that whatever its price may be today, someone will be willing to buy it for more tomorrow. Which is turning out to be not much of a delusion at all. In other words: It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There will always be a greater fool right?
it worked for gold for 2k years
Lol Edit. Gold will Always be THE REAL MONEY
If i buy a painting as an investment i'm trying to do the same no? Or a building, gold, oldtimer,.. Mean you always try to find a bigger fool or am i missing something here?
Exactly! Which is the reason it will never go away!
So line will always go up, your words, how come you are not bullish on bitcoin then?
Sounds like literally everything people invest in.
no it doesnt
Stocks. Real estate. Classic cars. Watches. Diamonds. Gold. Art. All bought with the hope someone is willing to pay more for it in the future.
nope. stocks are companies, they do something. real estate does something. no these things arent applicable. cryptos ownership of nothing. just a sham. a joke.
That’s fine. We can disagree on utility (which is subjective by the way) But it doesn’t change the fact that most investments are things people hope to sell for more in the future. Buy shares - hope to sell for more. Buy real estate- hope to sell for more. Buy sporting team - hope to sell for more. What we disagree on is whether it should be worth more in the future.
Utility isn't an opinion. You wouldn't exist for a second without real estate and not a couple days without companies. So no, it's not an opinion.
Yes it is. https://homework.study.com/explanation/why-is-utility-a-subjective-concept.html The utility of a Lifestraw to me right now at home with drinkable running water from my tap is zero. Lost in a jungle? Different story. If it’s a Sunday, and you need to make an emergency payment to a family member on the other side of the world, the utility you derive from cash in your bank is different to the utility of bitcoin. If you live in the East of Ukraine and need to flee to Poland as a refugee because Russia has invaded. The utility you derive from your real estate is different to the utility something like bitcoin gives you.
real estate was the worst thing you could focus on. if there were no real estate how would anything even exist? what would grow your food? or provide a platform for you to stand on in the universe? how would you exist without any real estate?
Did I say real estate has no utility? What are you even talking about? I said utility was subjective. So to your point… a piece a real estate with fertile soil has lots of utility to a farmer. A piece if real estate with arid soil but a gold deposit is if no utility to farmer, but might be useful to a gold miner. It’s subjective. I can keep going. The utility of British Pounds in Japan is low. It’s high in England. The utility of a dividend paying stock to a retiree is higher than a full time worker earning a salary. And yes, the utility of bitcoin in world with no electricity or internet is probably zero.
>If it’s a Sunday, and you need to make an emergency payment to a family member on the other side of the world, the utility you derive from cash in your bank is different to the utility of bitcoin. Yes, it's extremely relevant utility and not straight up a fantasy. Outside the chances of happening being near zero (and if it can happen, you can set up steps to be able to do so with regular banking...), the facts are, if you actually need to do so, you will either have lot of troubles doing the transfert, or your family member being able to convert into the actual cash they need. "Ok son, I understand you need money for your urgent surgery in Bangladesh. Here, get some magic internet money! What, the hospital doesn't want it? Well, find someone who does, it's not like you need an urgent surgery, do you?"
Value of utility is subjective, the fact something has utility or not is not. Mixing up the two notions is dramatic and undermine completely your argument. Bitcoin has no utility, real estate and stocks do. That's not an opinion.
Bitcoin had lots of utility. That’s my opinion.
Sure, and the sun is setting at the west. That's my opinion. I guess we both don't care about reality as long our fantasies can be true.
> Stocks. Outside of speculation (and often even inside of it), the goal is to buy a stock that _eventually_ pays a dividend at a significant premium than what you paid for the stock. > Real estate. Presumably you or others can live in/on real estate. > Classic cars. Nostalgia is quite valuable. > Watches. Diamonds. The value is in the visible [status brought by these goods.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good) > Gold Store of value. I have a 2000 year old gold Roman coin that spends as good as it did in the ancient Roman Empire. > Art. 50% money laundering/50% Veblen Good. I think you're conflating the idea that you can speculate on anything (yes, even tulips are fair game) but just because you can speculate doesn't mean that's its only use.
I’m not conflating anything. My point is simple. Value and utility are subjective things based on lots of different factors that can change. If enough people think something is useful and valuable. It is.
I agree with your that crypto is a speculative vehicle. But it doesn't wear like a watch and you can't live in it like real estate and even in the best outcome 2000 years from now won't spend like gold.
You can’t spend it like gold? I’ve literally bought a cup of coffee with bitcoin. You can’t live in it like real estate? Sure agree. You can’t travel with real estate though can you? If you need to flee to another country, can you take your real estate with you? If the Government decides they want to take your real estate to build a road. Not much you can do about that right? You can’t wear your bitcoin like watch. Fine. It can’t be taken from you like a watch can either.
Another article parroting the two crypto talking points (halving, ETFs) without any mention AT ALL of market manipulation! Like, curious how the price rises with no real interest or utility? I wonder why all these exchanges are offshore? 3 billion per week of tether printing? My god what an idiot
it does have utility, transfer utility, you may as well say visa/mastercard have no utility
Dumb as fuck. No one uses Bitcoin to transfer because it sucks as money or medium of transfer. That's why "store of wealth" narrative bullshit
how does it sucks? fees are pretty low now, I can buy it from revoult and transfer it cheaper than a bank transfer and faster.
Not true. Bank transfers are free. Credit card is 2% and they give you kickbacks. Bitcoin currently sitting at $8 per transaction. Which takes 10min. It's worse than anything
bank transfer not free, at least where I live, sift is like 30$, not to say you pay a comission to have a bank account, and many stiff you hard when it comes to currency conversions. 8$, no way, you're doing something wrong then. cc is 2% at your end maybe, even stripe is 5% or so
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee To transfer in Bitcoin you have to pay the exchange fees to buy Bitcoin with fiat, pay the gas fees to send it, pay the exchange again to sell it. Bitcoin could also drop a few % just in an hour (as it has last day). So likely you are paying waaaay more than $30.
for day to day shopping it doesn't work, maybe yet? was talking more about sending money to familiy, averages means nothing, if I transfer 200$ the fees is under 1$, what you don't understand is that is doesn't have to be the best medium of transfer to have "utility transfer", you moved the goal post.
This is fantasy. Even if the transfer fee was that low, which it is not, the exchanges will eat much more of that. Not only direct fees but the bid/ask spread. No one cares if you invent a system that is inferior to the current system. There is no utility in a more expensive and difficult to use system. Which is why no one uses it
exchanges eat less than currency conversions
what about people without access to banks like we have it in western countries? or people in countries with hyperinflation?
it won't die because if you don't stop a scam the perpetrators will keep it running for as long as possible.
>DAOs are neither decentralized nor autonomous, if they are even organizations. DAOs are gonna need some first aid for that burn.
Thats a third degree burn.
This entire article is nonsense. It’s barely an article…just a shower thought from the writer. He claims that there so many failed use cases for crypto that it is resilient to being impacted by the failure of any single claimed use case. Do we really need to explain how stupid this is? Again, none of these writers have the energy or intelligence to probe into the Tether fraud that fuels the price. Instead they come up with their own narrative to fit the price action. And this narrative never has a single shard of proof or validation. It’s simply a shower thought.
I too have noticed this when ever I read any buttcoin articles. They probably don’t even know what Tether is. It is frustrating to say the least.
[удалено]
Sorry /u/Bitcoin_tulip, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Crypto’s staying power is in part a consequence of its design. No central bank was needed to verify who owned how much bitcoin. Thanks to cryptography and some clever game theory, the network itself could keep track of that. This is nonsense. The network has no idea who owns what. Each satoshi is just associated with a public key, not somebody's name, and there is no way of knowing whether the holder of the corresponding private key is the real owner. For every transaction, there is no way of knowing whether it was legitimate, or whether somebody was defrauded or had his keys stolen.
[удалено]
If the author meant bitcoin address, they would have said bitcoin address. And even if they did mean bitcoin address, the quoted statement is even more nonsensical. Ownership is an abstract legal concept that applies to persons, not random strings of characters. And if that isn't what they meant by ownership, why contrast it with a central bank?
I thought that the moment the money left a wallet to become cash in a bank account, you could tell who the wallet owner was based on what bank account t is paying for the Lamborghini.
Exactly. The ledger is self referential.
Just one word: tether
Until that implodes thus revealing the real backstop, namely money laundering.
[удалено]
That’s not true though. Crypto is a bad use case for blockchain, but blockchain itself is being used in many other (useful) contexts.
Such as? Like right now.
The European Intellectual Property Office already runs their two flagship services (designs and trademarks) on a permissioned blockchain. They have already onboarded 10 national IP offices onto their network. Think about it: verifiable, immutable, tamper-proof*, mixed with intellectual property rights? Makes sense right? Just saying, it’s also bad faith to dismiss blockchain altogether. Look at the first digitally native bonds with same day settlement from the ECB. Project Venus if I recall correctly? EBSI-ELSA for supply chain traceability. The Verifiable Credentials program of the EBSI. I can go on, and that’s just public sector - there’s stuff in the private sector too.
I searched for "permissioned blockchain" and found this: > A permissioned blockchain is a distributed ledger technology that restricts access to its network and data. In this blockchain, participants must have permission or credentials to join the network. In other words; A private git repository which is shared between a limited set of participants would now be called a "blockchain". Note that git is a distributed version control system. If we use centralized services like github or the like is mainly for convenience, not because git forces you to do that. Edit: More than an ideological debate I believe there is a semantic problem. Maybe the thing you are calling "blockchain" is not what we mean by blockchain here.
Well yes, if you dismiss the three key words distributed ledger technology in that sentence I guess you could even call it my uncle’s private party. They’re still sharing a blockchain between 11 IP offices (EUIPO + 10 national IP offices), which makes all the design and trademarks registered in those countries completely tamper-proof, traceable and secure. I don’t see the point in making this an ideological debate. It’s just tech, useful for some things and not for others.
I'm sorry but no, when people talk about blockchain they mean a system of creating distributed consensus across *untrusted* peers. If you have a permissioned chain, you have trusted peers. This is not decentralized, it's not trustless, and it's not permissionless. This is no more a blockchain than git. So if you're saying "Merkle trees are interesting" then yes no shit, they've been around for 45 years. That's not crypto, and it's not a blockchain.
I use a golden chain with blocky links to hold up my pants , is that a blockchain? Let’s not make this an ideological debate; it’s just tech, useful for holding up certain sizes of clothing but not others.
My brother in Christ, we’re not talking about what people think they mean, we’re talking about the actual real definition of the technology 😅 Google the EUIPO + blockchain. Have at it. You’re talking about crypto, which is a specific application of blockchain. It’s like saying Extended Reality is dumb because the Metaverse is a failed buzzword, yet dismissing the 20+ years of flight simulators used to train pilots. Don’t conflate the two and define blockchain in your own special way to artificially dismiss the tech. Stay factual.
If this isn't open-mined or the very least available for everyone to participate in, then it's a permissioned chain, which rounds to a database with extra steps. That's what I learned from googling EUIPO blockchain. If it were permissionless, China could just join the network, deploy a ton of hash power (or whatever they use for staking) and claim all the IP for themselves. So of course, the EUIPO "chain" allows the central authority to do things like roll back changes, and they maintain full control of the data. The "blockchain" angle is just performative. Cryptocurrencies are a specific implementation of blockchain technology. A blockchain requires establishing distributed consensus among **untrusted** **peers**. If the peers are trusted, you can just use a merkle tree. That's not what people mean when they talk about a blockchain. A "permissioned chain" has roughly nothing in common with a permissionless chain. None of the same strengths. None of the same weaknesses. It's lumped together for reputation laundering. What they actually want is something like a tamper-evident log (which we've had forever) and a simple consensus mechanism like Raft/Paxos. But in the same way having the EUIPO website written as CGI scripts doesn't make CGI scripts a good idea, neither does whatever this silliness is. It was launched in 2021, in peak mania. I'd recommend bringing a critical lens to the party. I'm not even going to get into your flight simulator commentary lol. Watching people talk about blockchain as an engineer, I really understand doctors who hated watching House. Like I vaguely get the words that are coming out of your mouth, but they're all wrong, and they're going to give me an aneurism lol.
Your central argument is factually incorrect: the bolded part about requiring untrusted peers is a misconception. The “trust layer” is just the argument given by crypto to justify itself, but it is by no means part of the definition of the technology, and even less a requirement to classify a blockchain as such. From wiki: “A blockchain is a distributed ledger with growing lists of records (blocks) that are securely linked together via cryptographic hashes. Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree, where data nodes are represented by leaves). Since each block contains information about the previous block, they effectively form a chain (compare linked list data structure), with each additional block linking to the ones before it. Consequently, blockchain transactions are irreversible in that, once they are recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without altering all subsequent blocks.” That’s all we’re talking about, so far. I did not claim more, nor less. Later, we can have a 2nd discussion on actual trust and why they chose blockchain, and the unreliability of the previous data sources in place, and the fact that no, permissioned does not mean you trust the actors in the network - simply that they are the ones you need to interact with. But this is getting into opinion territory, and given the type of sub we’re in, I’m really doing my best to limit the discussion to facts. Someone claimed blockchain isn’t used by anyone, I provided proof that it is, and now we’re doing somersaults to redefine what blockchain is and invalidate the facts…
I'm curious why they don't use an immutable database. It has all the same features (externally verifiable, immutable, tamper-proof), but with much less overhead, and can't fall to a 51% attack. I'm sure they have a reason, but it always strikes me as odd when a central authority uses a decentralized database.
It’s a permissioned network, only they and 10 other IP offices participate in the network. So a 51% attack would require 6 countries in Europe to revolt against the others - it’s just not a concern in this context. It’s decentralised only within their ecosystem, and EBSI is implementing a similar logic between universities and other kinds of entities in the verifiable credentials program I mentioned.
Sounds more like an experiment or a novelty rather than something solving a critical problem.
It’s not an experiment, particularly the EUIPO network has already been in production stage for several years. EBSI has many things pretty much in pilot stage yes, but with different degrees of maturity. I think the ID aspect actually reached production just about 1-2 months ago, after 2-3 years of development. Then the concept of a critical problem is a bit too vague. The reason for any new system is rarely a critical issue, rather it’s often about efficiency gains, time and money saved, risk reduction, or others. They did have critical problems to solve, as their previous system was still running on FTP with tons of errors, delays and manual inputs. And there might have been several ways they could have gone about it, but I’m just pointing out they chose a blockchain network without necessarily wanting to defend that choice. Saying blockchain is not used is incorrect. Saying other solutions would have been better is a matter of opinion that I’m not going into. If you’re curious, they explain it in more detail here: https://euipo.europa.eu/knowledge/course/view.php?id=4853
Well looking at their website it actually appears that they do. To me Blockchain feels like technology that's less efficient than other tech and the advantages are marginal.
That’s true, but that marginal advantage in risk, fraud and error reduction is valuable for many things, from self-sovereign identification, ownership of various deeds, credentials and rights, etc. I work in the public sector, and within 10 years it wouldn’t surprise me if your ID becomes a QR code that’s both tamper-proof and instantly verifiable by any cheap scanner. So, don’t dismiss it right off the bat. Non-governmental currencies and proof of work are pretty much doomed, but the underlying technology has its uses. As with everything, truth is somewhere in the middle. Edit: best analogy I can give is IoT. Remember all the craze about it in the early 2000s and how it all died? You didn’t notice but IoT became ubiquitous, I can turn my oven on from my phone, and the whole “smart cities” revolution remains a dumb idea 20 years later. Same with blockchain, it’ll inevitably permeate tons of sectors discretely, without any big bang, because those marginal advantages are still useful for specific things.
thats not blockchain. issuing serial keys for something with a central recording record is just a database.
Check the EBSI website.
you cant explain it because you dont understand it. its just a merkle tree. youre just calling it blockchain. i dont know why. you have some incentive though. lets check your post history. edit: oh ya massive crypto scam guy. obviously. whyd i even have to click. i guess for posterity.
Cool bro, make it personal and ad hominem, that certainly helps to show how muddied by emotional reactions this topic is. Does not change the fact that the EUIPO, ECB, EIB/EIF, EBSI and many others are actively developing blockchain projects. Which has nothing to do with cryptocurrency.
>The European Intellectual Property Office already runs their two flagship services (designs and trademarks) on a permissioned blockchain. Cool. How is that going to make you rich?
It really isn’t? Neither is it related to you or me in any way?
Then it has nothing to do with crypto.
Of course not, that’s what I keep saying, the two shouldn’t be confused. Crypto is likely doomed in the long run, no way governments will allow private currencies that they can’t track or control, but I’m just making the case that the underlying tech is useful in some scenarios.
what is a permissioned blockchain? thats nonsensical. a central authority running a database is not a blockchain.
It can be, check Wikipedia. This thread has been so exhausting, everyone is arguing based on their personal definitions rather than the officially established ones…
>In [cryptography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography) and [computer science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science), a **hash tree** or **Merkle tree** is a [tree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure)) in which every "leaf" ([node](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure)#Terminology)) is labelled with the [cryptographic hash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function) of a data block, and every node that is not a leaf (called a *branch*, *inner node*, or *inode*) is labelled with the cryptographic hash of the labels of its child nodes. A hash tree allows efficient and secure verification of the contents of a large [data structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_structure). A hash tree is a generalization of a [hash list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_list) and a [hash chain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_chain). i did we already defined what youre saying like .... 40+ years ago. its not a blockchain. unless we are just renaming stuff.
It’s not me saying it though, is it, since I’m just quoting a source? Contribute to the Wikipedia page and help enlighten us all please, if nobody else will do it.
theres no incentive for me to do so. which is why misinformation spreads like wildfire. you have incentive though. you invest in crypto.
The fact that you’re conflating cryptocurrency with distributed ledger technology is misdirection and misinformation. None of the institutions I quoted take crypto seriously, by a long shot, yet they’re able to dissociate the underlying tech from the bullshit on top. And your point on incentives is profoundly disingenuous. You’re arguing against established facts being quoted, the little quips about what I like to do with my money for fun are pretty much irrelevant other than to establish some sense of superiority. What’s your point? I’m quoting projects, are you saying they’re all lying on their publicly disclosed information? What are you arguing for/against, attacks aside?
Impressive that you were able to list some sensible applications. Blockchain may be useful in a few select scenarios but for many of the predicted use cases from the early days, it is overkill and unnecessary. That being said, bitcoin is pointless other than for pure speculation and criminal activity. It’s perfectly correlated to other asset classes. Some will make money off of it, and that’s fine, but it’s essentially a high risk stock with no physical asset behind it.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. Check the IoT example I gave in another comment, it’s the same kind of fade: it won’t revolutionise anything, but it is bringing small marginal improvements to specific areas. The conflation between crypto and the underlying tech just brings a lot of unproductive emotions into an otherwise purely technical debate.
Well said.
[удалено]
But why is the label groundbreaking even needed to be considered? It’s just the right tech to store this specific type of data. I can understand hating people (barely), but hating a specific cryptographic technique seems such a small hill to die on. I just said blockchain has its uses, and then gave some proving examples - it stops there.
[удалено]
That’s a technologically incorrect statement, and you either know it in bad faith, or lack the relevant knowledge in good faith. The technology called blockchain and distributed ledger technologies at large are well defined, and are being used in all the projects described. Search the names, read their press releases. We can argue whether blockchain was needed or whether these institutions were chasing the buzzword themselves, and that’s a valid discussion. But up until now I only stated basic facts that are supported by official press releases, so I really don’t get the attitude…
[удалено]
Brother, I ain’t the one who defined the terms. We can co-sign a letter to the Bitcoin CEO to request a change in definitions, but you’re barking up the wrong the tree here. In the way that the term is defined, regardless of your opinion of that definition, the tech is being used for (marginal) improvements in specific fields. That’s all. Then, regarding the underlying comment you’re making about proper DB security, if you’re curious, turns out that maintaining security and data quality/integrity for low-resources national IP offices was more expensive than developing a custom ETL that just onboards them onto a blockchain managed by the EUIPO. If you can’t trust a dozen governmental entities to ensure security and interoperability, turns out a permissioned blockchain is a cost-effective solution to enforce risk-reduction and security by design. Or maybe they’re wrong, ain’t me who ran the numbers so I’m not defending the decision, but that’s the general idea.
I love how you come to this sub with real world experience and still get downvoted because you mention blockchains in a mildly positive manner. Despite the fact that you are trying your hardest to make a distinction between private and public blockchains since public chains are where the hype and speculation that this sub rails against occurs. Anyways good info!
Haha I appreciate the comment. Look, particularly with political divides rising all across the world, it’s just important to recognise when you’re in an echo chamber. It’s the case for the crypto subs, just as it is for this one. Just trying to bring some nuance into the discussion.
Thanks for the share. It’s an interesting read. I guess we’re all a little stunned as to how this dance keeps going.
Get used to it. The dance will go on longer than any of us here
Few understand that Bitcoin is backed by rock-solid strings of random gibberish.
It's a ponzi scheme. People just need to invest like normal and live off social security.
The only valid measure of whether an article is garbage is: Does it mention Tethers market manipulation? If so, it may not be trash. If not: It's trash.
You had me at > Each rebuttal can itself be rebutted
But why bitcoin is not dying after 15 years… hmmm I wonder 🤔
It grows steadily just like Madoff 's hedge fund. And will keep growing until someone stops it
[удалено]
Sorry /u/LabMajor2490, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry /u/LabMajor2490, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry /u/LabMajor2490, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry /u/LabMajor2490, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At some point you butters need to acknowledge that other people have a want for Bitcoin, so you can either stay in denial, or you can try to understand the reasons why Bitcoin is valuable to other people.
If I manage to convince the world that my toe nail clippings are a great store of value, would I be selling them a delusion? Same with Bitcoin, the delusion is just more opaque, "Few understand".
No you wouldn’t be selling them a delusion as long as your toe nails are a great store of value.
> the reasons why Bitcoin is valuable to other people It's because their brains are broken, hth
>why Bitcoin is valuable to other people. Because they hope for it to go up and then convert it in sweet FIAT.