1496

submitted 3 days ago by FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

202 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/9525207

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] vanillama@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago

There are plenty of issues beyond that, especially BTC and similar coins being energy inefficient, just imagine if every single transaction ran through that. It wasn't designed to be practical.

And on the less technical side, the biggest contributor to crypto being despised by most people is the massive prevalence of scammers, from companies that pretend to help you invest (while being a ponzi scheme) to rug pulls to other scammers being attracted to it for its perceived anonymity.

Afaik there's legitimate uses for the underlying technology, but cryptocurrency is just inferior to regular digital currency from a practical standpoint, and you either have to put up with government regulation (defeating the purpose of a currency aside from government) or put up with fraud that can't be stopped by our governments.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

the biggest contributor to crypto being despised by most people is the massive prevalence of scammers

At risk of being called a crypto bro or something (I'm really not, I learned all this shit years before everything turned into what it is), I'd like to play Devil's advocate here for the moment and ask how that's different from fiat currency?

USD is practically untraceable, and people are being scammed out of it constantly with no recourse.

[-] musicalphysics@discuss.online 1 points 1 day ago

Bitcoin energy use doesn’t scale with the number of transactions but based upon the competition for mining.

[-] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 2 points 2 days ago

so you have to put up with surveillance or put up with freedom?

I dont think the state should be able to trace transactions

[-] vanillama@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago

That's very understandable, but impractical for investments and savings, the US insures some banks and the like but it doesn't insure crypto funds, if people's savings end up there based on false promises (or if their assets are managed by a third party) they can lose everything and have no recourse.

This isn't a hypothetical, it's the story of countless people who lost everything to grifters. I don't think blaming individuals makes a lot of sense when it comes to emerging technology and when, again, regular finance is generally insured by the state. The biggest reason for scammers to flock to crypto is that there's a lot less regulation, making it harder to prosecute them. And that's my original point on the choice we have right now, even if ideally we want better choices in the future. Right now you either go with a traditional institution for financial services, which includes government oversight, or you operate on your own and assume a lot of risks, whether you're even aware of that or not (and financial actors purposely deceive people on this end, as it's in their best interest to do so).