According to reports from The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, Facebook has partnered with companies like Uber, Visa and PayPal to create its new cryptocurrency called Libra.
The digital currency will allow Facebook users to send money to each other and pay for goods through Facebook's family of apps like Messenger and WhatsApp.
Why does anyone need to do that? Why not just sync with Paypal or build your own function that would transfer USD (or better yet, BTC)?
Why does Libra coin need to be a part of it?
Speculating on Libra might workout decently, if you get in early and we figure Facebook has deep pockets and will try to not let it tank. I'm not sure how big the buzz is. I could see stuff like this being the next wave of altcoins and replacing Ethereum and stuff up top.
So I'm not suggesting that there isn't opportunity here for people who want to play the market timing game.
But in general -- say, years from now after the buzz has worn off -- I don't want to hold and speculate on Libra just so I can send money to someone via Messenger.
It's not like it was difficult to send money to them otherwise, as tho Paypal and things like that don't already exist. Are there people out there who struggle to ever click away from Messenger to the point where they need this?
So there's little to no increased ease of sending money to people, and I have to speculate on some random token to be able to do it.
And if we're doing this for the unbanked or because Zuckerberg sees the perils of centrally managed currency networks.. well, Bitcoin already exists.
And the biggest network will be the most secure. So you could just sync Messenger to be able to transfer btc units rather than Libra units.
You only need Libra units if the goal is for Facebook to make money out of thin air by creating their own token.
There's no actual breakthrough here.
Allegedly I guess Libra is a decentralized blockchain, since they're pipping it as a cryptocurrency. I wouldn't be surprised if it's basically just centrally tracked on a database by Facebook and they're calling it "cryptocurrency". But I have no idea and haven't looked into it.
If actually it's centralized, and Facebook could control the creation of new units or reverse payments or ban accounts, or anything like that, then all the more reason to not see anything special here or wonder why they don't just build a way to transfer USD.
I'm not in the business of rooting against "cryptocurrency" being the talk of the town and being used by big businesses and stuff.
It's part of the progression.
When stuff like this happens, it indicates that we're evolving away from centrally managed money.
So I like what it indicates, but it itself is still pointless, and a misdirection and confusing to anyone trying to figure out what "blockchain" is and what it's useful for.
I challenge anyone to read what I say above, and please let me know what pray tell is the point or need for there to be a Libra coin.
That's essentially what blockchain is.
And it was a wonderful mathematical discovery.
We don't need to make 1000 networks. Essentially the same as why we don't use 1000 internets.
Your efforts as a miner or as a merchant or as a hodler or as anything will, in general, be more fruitful by doing it on the biggest and most secure network, rather than on a smaller, less secure duplication.
And gradually it congeals on the one network. (Probably Bitcoin.*)
*If there proves to be an attack vector or some sort of previously unknown fatal flaw with Bitcoin, it would probably mean we're decades away from having one that works. Or that this idea just doesn't work and we were wrong. And your diversified basket of altcoins will crash too. There's no hedge or purpose to the duplicates.
So when people duplicate the code and try to start from scratch, they're not tapping into the wonder of blockchain technology. The way to tap into blockchain technology would be to use the network that currently people are congealing on!
It's like if I tell you the point is to ride my bike really fast, I don't choose to take a headwind when I could just as easily choose a tailwind. If I choose the headwind I probably have some other motivation.
Maybe Zuckerberg wants to make a run at the house and be the 1. Fine. I don't see it happening. Long live the Winklevii. But that's actually more reasonable than anything else.
(Than the idea that we should have various different networks to service different websites or spending purposes.)
it's totally reasonable for Facebook. Reasonable for them to cash in, and be hip to the times. And if people are asking for this, then sure, give it to them. There just isn't actually a point to it.
Sometimes I think the people who want nothing to do with Bitcoin or any crypto are actually sharper than those who believe the altcoin storylines.
The altcoin logic makes strictly no sense, whereas I reserve at least some, Idk, tiny little chance that I'm out to lunch and missing something and Bitcoin won't work either.
It's like some people are wary of the thing that's new, and other people are wild with it and draw some wrong conclusions.. and a few of us actually get it.
馃槂馃槂馃ぃ
Not trying to be a hater, just shedding light.
Buy Bitcoin, tune out the noise, hodl, look back in 10 or 20 years. Play around with things like Libra if you like to gamble or are good at market timing.
The end.
