Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrencies Are Useless, The Economist Says (economist.com)
With few uses to anchor their value, and little in the way of regulation, cryptocurrencies have instead become a focus for speculation, The Economist magazine said this week. From the story, which may be paywalled: Some people have made fortunes as cryptocurrency prices have zoomed and dived; many early punters have cashed out. Others have lost money. It seems unlikely that this latest boom-bust cycle will be the last. Economists define a currency as something that can be at once a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of account. Lack of adoption and loads of volatility mean that cryptocurrencies satisfy none of those criteria. That does not mean they are going to go away (though scrutiny from regulators concerned about the fraud and sharp practice that is rife in the industry may dampen excitement in future). But as things stand there is little reason to think that cryptocurrencies will remain more than an overcomplicated, untrustworthy casino.
Can blockchains -- the underlying technology that powers cryptocurrencies -- do better? These are best thought of as an idiosyncratic form of database, in which records are copied among all the system's users rather than maintained by a central authority, and where entries cannot be altered once written. Proponents believe these features can help solve all sorts of problems, from streamlining bank payments and guaranteeing the provenance of medicines to securing property rights and providing unforgeable identity documents for refugees. Those are big claims. Many are made by cryptocurrency speculators, who hope that stoking excitement around blockchains will boost the value of their related cryptocurrency holdings.
Can blockchains -- the underlying technology that powers cryptocurrencies -- do better? These are best thought of as an idiosyncratic form of database, in which records are copied among all the system's users rather than maintained by a central authority, and where entries cannot be altered once written. Proponents believe these features can help solve all sorts of problems, from streamlining bank payments and guaranteeing the provenance of medicines to securing property rights and providing unforgeable identity documents for refugees. Those are big claims. Many are made by cryptocurrency speculators, who hope that stoking excitement around blockchains will boost the value of their related cryptocurrency holdings.
Bitcoin is literally useless.
It is better than real money for anonymous transactions, such as buying drugs, or funding an off shore gambling account.
It is also better than real money for many international transactions. My company employs a graphic artist in Karachi. She emails us her work, and we pay her salary in bitcoins. This is much cheaper and faster than using a bank. We have also made a nice profit from the stash of bitcoins we bought for this purpose several years ago.
It's been in continuous publication since the 1830s. Businessmen gladly pay a $130 annual subscription for it because it has journalistic integrity greater than just about any other journal in print.
But dinks on Slashdot know better. I bet Alex Jones has an entire rap he can rattle off about how uncreditble The Economist is.
That would be the same military with APCs and drones that can't beat a bunch of savages armed with assault rifles? Even after 17 years and trillions of dollars spent?
That's because those savages with assault rifles aren't facing tyranny.
They're facing a military that is (by and large) operating under rules and trying to (whether the plan would work or not, that's the ultimate goal, yes?) establish order such that a democracy can form.
(also, the main threat isn't the assault rifles, but IEDs and other booby traps that a military trying to maintain order is vulnerable to)
If you're facing true tyranny, having assault rifles won't help. If you're not facing true tyranny, you don't need them.