What are the probabilities that the majority of people are correct about bitcoin?
What is the most likely move?
The problem, as Nakamoto described it, seems curiously modest: financial institutions can reverse charges if a customer disputes them.
“The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.
” For in-person transactions, cash solves that problem — once it’s passed to you, you have possession.
But Bitcoin does it for electronic transactions. It replaces mere “trust” with “cryptographic proof.”
But then there was Nakamoto’s second guise: that of a techno-libertarian, web-forum dweller, tapping into old tropes of right-wing money crankery, presenting Bitcoin as a weapon against “fiat currency” and “fractional reserve banking.
” A web-forum post by Nakamoto linked to the technical paper, but reworked the message for a different crowd.
The problem again was “trust,” but here he focused on Bitcoin as a solution to public rather than private problems: “The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust…
Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve.
” Again, Bitcoin avoids the problem of trust in fallible or malign human institutions through the wonders of “cryptographic proof.”
Money is a social device.
The things that make it work are not to be found inside the coins and notes, but in a network of connections between the people who use it.
Bitcoin’s fundamental flaw is the myth that such workability can be “coded.”
This is no more possible than it was to physically stamp society’s monetary relations at the mint.
At best, Bitcoin will develop such a social infrastructure — in which case, it will work a lot like regular money, and so what’s the point?
At worst, the properties coded into Bitcoin will make it unsuitable for a viable social infrastructure, and it will implode and remain niche — a disruptive technology that mainly disrupts its own users.
Experience so far suggests it is more likely to go the second way.
Facts Land Says :
The reasons you like Raza are exactly the reasons I dislike him and not because he sticks to the facts and evidence but because he is dishonest, biased and a big liar. He has been caught many times lying on the Internet. There are loads of videos about it. My personal favourite is where he is trying to defend the attack on "Charlie Hebdo" in a very slimy way. Calling them Racist. Charlie Hebdo criticized Christianity (and other faiths) 40x more than any other religion. They even had lawsuits against them for doing so. But because he is biased (because of his religion"ISLAM") he defended it without any shame. People lost their lives expressing their opinion in France. Millions of people have given their lives to protect the right and freedom of expressing of opinion in the west. And this guy tried to defend the killers of the people who were simply expressing their views.
I am totally fine with people with different view and opinion but I am not fine with people who try to criticize others faiths based on facts but when it comes to their own beliefs, they even sink SO LOW that they feel the need to even defend murderers. I watch your videos because your share background information and compare different markets and I like you TA. It was a shock to my system to see that a smart person like you would be impressed by a guy like him. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Since you seem to like History: allow me to suggest a "Muslim" author who happens to be HONEST, OBJECTIVE and ALWAYS sticks to the FACTS and never shies away to criticize anything based on facts, even if it ISLAM or Immas for that matter. His name is Tarek Fatah.
Robert Jones Says :
Horrible analogy. I get what you are trying to imply Allessio but to knowingly choose to go after a particular religion and somehow bring it down to a low level is not cool at all. You have subscribers from all religions and “faiths”. Cryptos are what brings us together. What you did just caused division within your circle. Instead of bringing people together you knowingly caused separation. If you were trying to prove a point you should have considered using another analogy but you didn’t. You know what you are doing. I don’t respect that. Keep your prejudices to yourself and stick to what you do best, which is TA and bringing us the best market trends.
