🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@peterdrake

Bitcoin is horrific, agreed. It was a proof of concept and should have never been so widely adopted.

@stux @cobratbq

@peterdrake

Decentralized control

Garunteed behavior- not open to human interpretations (contracts are in objective code rather than subjective legal contracts

Supply is predictable - again defined by code rather than a small handful of people in control.

Immutable ledger - The history of the movement of it is immutable and cryptographically guaranteed to be accurate.

You control your money, not your bank - You decide where it goes and when and your bank cant say otherwise.

Anonymity when desired - I can purchase or transfer my money while preserving my right to anonymity. No one has a right to know I buy vibrating butt plugs if I dont want them to know.

Your money is actually in your account, unlike with banks where it is loaned out and potentially not there if there is a run on banks.

Interest bearing despite the last point, so can bear interest and still guarantee being present if there was a run on accounts/banks

Depending on the crypto it may serve a double function as providing a useful service while securing the crypto. For example FileCoin makes remote NAS storage available in place of Proof Of Work. So you actually solve real world needs by spending/using crypto

The list is quite long actually.

@stux @cobratbq

@cobratbq

Yup exactly. A currency that is instantly transferable is a feature, not a bug.

@peterdrake @stux

@peterdrake

Thats a bad counter example, cash, or at least some form of physical currency, has existed since the beginning of written history. You take away physical cash and kidnappers would have no way of demanding money other than non-physical means,

Your argument all around is exceedingly weak on this point, im not sure why you press it as a valid point at all. Money being more useful means it will be more useful for criminals and non criminals alike. Crippling money by insisting it have fewer features is obviously not the response to that.

@stux @cobratbq

@peterdrake

Let me try again:

Ransoming little kids wouldnt exist at the current scale without cash.

@stux @cobratbq

@peterdrake

How is that different, i could use thast logic on crypto.

"When you ransom a virtual object you arent going to have a handoff anyway, so might as well just use crypto"

You seem to be focusing on the weakest part of your argument for some reason.

@stux @cobratbq

@peterdrake

> (How do I quote text from the original toot?)

You use a ">" at the start of the line

> Ransomers almost exclusively use crypto. Other people don’t. Why the difference? Because ransomers are committing a crime, so they can’t use banks.

When a person ransoms a child or does any other sort of illegal activity they use cash.

So by your very logic since criminals prefer cash and crypto. So your arguing as much against cash as you are against crypto.

@stux @cobratbq