What Is Happening to the People Falling for Crypto and NFTs

mnole03

HR Legend
Mar 20, 2005
21,719
56,168
113
I agree with your comment, but I don't want the cure to worse than the disease (i.e. NIL).

I am not against Crypto in theory, but i am not investing my money in something that is so volatile and has no intrinsic value.
I wouldn’t invest in it either, though I do have some very painful g-chats from 2011 where my friend encouraged me to buy bitcoin when it plummeted to 10¢.
 

wcbtee

HR MVP
Gold Member
Apr 21, 2002
2,303
2,779
113
I wouldn’t invest in it either, though I do have some very painful g-chats from 2011 where my friend encouraged me to buy bitcoin when it plummeted to 10¢.
My nephew invested & he asked me my thoughts early on, I told him if you have money that you can lose or win big on and you want to gamble, your choice. The problem is when anything skyrockets up it can crash just as quickly. I would only invest $ that if you lost, you wouldn't lose any sleep on it. Then #2 have an exit strategy, don't get too greedy. #3 I don't play the lottery and I am not investing in Crypto, if you do I hope you make some good money and bail out at the right time. Good luck to you.
 

TC Nole OX

HR Heisman
Mar 29, 2002
8,046
19,107
113
Pena is a grifter. The idea that he knows who started Bitcoin and that the information will blow it up sounds absurd.

It’s a public design, so even if the United States or China was behind it, it wouldn’t matter. It’s used by the absolute worst people on the planet, terrorists, human traffickers, and Gator Boosters. There’s nothing that could come out that would surprise me.

I’m not saying it won’t go to zero or that it isn’t susceptible to a 50% attack. It just won’t blow up because of some secret only Dan Pena knows.

Pena is a fraud and a clown. I am just amused by his theatrics, saying Zeroooo. I do feel bad for they guys who pay him for life coaching that is nothing more than him berating them endlessly.

 
  • Like
Reactions: mnole03

bhawk24bob

HR Legend
Jul 8, 2001
17,221
4,853
113
You don’t understand the value of a distributed ledger that is cryptographically secured as a superior medium of exchange to an infinitely inflating supply of dollars?

For nine years I’ve been searching for a decent argument against hard money, and the closest I can get to it are people who can’t fathom it.

I probably understand the blockchain and crypto from a finance perspective better than anybody on here. The two are not synonymous.....and a public ledger will never be used in its true form to transfer value without first being exchanged and transferred via a 3rd party financial institution/money services business/payment processor.

Crypto transfers aren't cryptographically secure. There are any number of vendors with access to a wide enough sample of transactions that piece them together. Anybody can do it if they have the appropriate access to transaction histories of exchanges and wallets (it's right there on the blockchain for you). You, in theory, can send crypto through a private transaction between 2 of of your wallets and watch how it hits the blockchain. You could sell on an exchange and watch how your coin hits that unique chain. It's no secret, and there are enough nefarious actors on the blockchain that it's never going to be a source for trusted verification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soybean

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
16,553
16,682
113
I probably understand the blockchain and crypto from a finance perspective better than anybody on here. The two are not synonymous.....and a public ledger will never be used in its true form to transfer value without first being exchanged and transferred via a 3rd party financial institution/money services business/payment processor.
I’m not sure what you mean ‘never be used in its true form’?
What, in your view, would its ‘true form’ be?

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly. Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and counterexamples like it by appeal to rhetoric. This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc

The point of a distributed ledger that is cryptographically secured is that you don’t need to trust a 3rd party. You just need to trust the math.
It’s already be used to transfer value.

Crypto transfers aren't cryptographically secure.
The integrity of the ledger is cryptographically secured.
That’s what a ‘block chain’ is.
I’m talking about the security against ‘double spending’, not some notion of anonymous transactions.
You seem to be conflating cryptographic security with the concept of anonymity.
 

bhawk24bob

HR Legend
Jul 8, 2001
17,221
4,853
113
You have a transforor wallet id, a transferee wallet id, and a coin id that hits the blockchain. There's nothing unique from a digital transaction perspective there except for the fact that you can look at the history of that coin and what the two wallets have done and who they have transacted with.

By your definition of cryptographically secured, we already have those thousands of times over archived at every financial institution in the world. Just because the blockchain is repeated ad nauseum through every transaction does not make it unique or groundbreaking, it's simply different in that it's public (not that any one person can discern anything from it).
 

Latest posts