We're blindly trusting this person not to do anything with their fortune!
Exchanges have never done anything shady and (for a second time) we're trusting them even though they're all established in countries with as little regulations as possible.
If something that can fluctuate by 50% of its value is more stable than your local currency you're not investing in it, you're buying USD, or in the case where you have access to Bitcoin you're buying stable coins.
What the network effect means is that the only reason it keeps its value is that more people buy it at a price where people who were there earlier are making profit. If there's no new buyers then it's worthless. See the pyramid drawing itself now?
So the technology is bad enough that it requires a separate tech to work properly? Going back to your people in poor countries, how do you expect them to deal with the transaction cost to move their funds in and out of the L2 when required if they can only afford to buy a couple of dollars worth at a time?
It just shows how much early adopters could pocket and how unfair it is if it was to become the default currency, even more unfair than regular cash.
See #5 and let's add that the reason fees are lower and transaction speeds faster is only because demand is low at the moment, Bitcoin's network hasn't changed. Still, when transactions were taking an hour or more to go through, how would you have dealt with paying for something if you had realized you didn't have enough funds on the LN and you needed to transfer from your regular wallet? Or very simply, if you're paying for something and the person at the receiving end is a true maximalists that sees how flawed the LN is, do you pay them hours ahead for something they're selling you? That's what I call a trustless transaction!
Oh so as pointed out in OP's meme it's not ok for traditional rich to be rich because they jumped on opportunities, but it's ok for the Bitcoin rich to be rich because they jumped on an opportunity, got it 👍

[–] thoughtorgan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not a crypto guy by any means. But your point 5 doesn't make sense. Almost all of our digital infrastructure is systems being supported by other systems.

If you want to look at debit/credit card processing that is legitimately "bad enough that it requires a separate tech to work properly". The banking systems that existed before cards needed new systems to process those payment methods. From the outside looking in, your critique could literally be applied anywhere for anything.

Again I don't even use Bitcoin. That's just a bad argument.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thing is Bitcoin maximalists are always defending Bitcoin as being perfect, that's a major difference in the attitude of those who use the technology vs everything else (except Linux maximalists that are pretty much the same type of people).

To expand on that point and explain WTF I'm taking about:

Bitcoin's network is so slow and transactions so expensive when demand is high that people now need to move their funds to a parallel network (called a Layer 2) where transactions happen in isolation and when people close their "account" the funds are moved back to the main network with balances being updated based on what happened on the Layer 2.

A problem is that it doesn't eliminate the speed and fee issue completely as people still need to move their funds from Bitcoin's network to the lightning network (and back eventually). That means during busy periods you're still paying 30$+ to move your funds to the cheaper alternative and you still have to wait, potentially for hours, for that transaction to happen if you didn't have enough funds in your lightning wallet to pay for whatever you're buying. All of that means it's not worth it for someone who doesn't have a lot of money in the first place to buy Bitcoin to use it as cash, when the whole point of Bitcoin was to be trustless electronic cash (see Bitcoin.org for the whitepaper).

When transactions fees are low enough on the main network that small transactions aren't as issue anymore? Well the Lightning network isn't as useful anyway because transactions also happen quickly enough that it's not an issue in most cases.

The point of crypto is to have a trustless decentralized system. Not Lighting network has watchdogs making sure fraudulent transactions don't happen (not trustless) and a tendency to centralize: https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

There's a whole lot of info out there about the flaws of both the main and the parallel networks and there's even maximalists that believe Bitcoin is perfect as it is and the Lightning network shouldn't exist.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 3 points 1 year ago

The biggest difference imo between bitcoin and USD is that participation in bitcoin is completely voluntary whereas participation in USD is mostly not, especially when you look at the things done to maintain global USD hegemony and the consequences of leaders who try to, for example, trade oil in currency other than USD or create a hard currency for their country when the de facto currency is USD. Were someone to print (which i can't believe ppl in this thread don't realize is a turn of phrase) a bunch of new BTC then it would only affect people who voluntarily chose to participate in that system, whereas if someone printed a whole bunch of USD and injected it directly into the stock market, those affected worst by this are not in the system by choice, and many times they participate only by coercion.