Small rant re: Linus vs NFT's

[Beerzerker]

17 minutes ago, tikker said:

I don't really see why people think this is such a strong argument. That's like asking what good a sailboat is without wind, or what good a gas-powered stove will be once gas runs out, well none, because it was designed with wind or gas in mind. Similarly crypto was designed with the internet in mind, what a surprise that it doesn't work without it.

It's strong enough that if the means to access your crypto goes down, you've got what you've got in that case which is nothing.
You assume I have it all in the bank which I don't and you also assume I pay rent, again I don't.

Each person's situation is different and one of the points I'll make is you need to assess your own situation and plan accordingly, also to not be reliant on just one means of doing things while shoring up what you can so you won't have such worry.

That's why most sailboats have an auxillary means of propusion available these days - It would if you're smart and can make it happen if you can.

No, it's absolutely no suprise crypto doesn't work without the web and that's the problem, not to mention the inherent weakness of it.
I guess when the magnetic poles flip one day everyone will find out.... Maybe a solar flare that knocks out the entire grid.....

Now - You made the point:

12 minutes ago, tikker said:

but for the average person and younger generations I don't think that is more than something like a week's worth of groceries in this day and age where so much handled digitally. I doubt people will have a year's worth of rent/mortgage, groceries and other expenses just lying around their house in cash.

And while it's a valid point based on an individual, if we get to the point we're gonna be out for a full year's time, things are BAD indeed to the extent no amount of cash or crypto is going to be of much use anyway and you'll have other, far more important things to worry about.

I too doubt most if not just anyone in general would have that much lying around, I don't but I've got enough I'll be OK if things don't go 110% teats up - You know like I do if it gets that bad.....
Screwed doesn't even begin to cover it.

I'll also say crypto isn't the bed of roses it's made out to be for everyone - It's not and for folks to go around touting it as such for everyone is not right or truthful TBH. 

[Sauron]

37 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I think one could make a truly anarchic currency with the right algorithm

I don't think crypto is a viable way to anarchy, you can't solve societal problems with code.

[tikker]

6 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

It's strong enough that if the means to access your crypto goes down, you've got what you've got in that case which is nothing.
You assume I have it all in the bank which I don't and you also assume I pay rent, again I don't.

Each person's situation is different and one of the points I'll make is you need to assess your own situation and plan accordingly, also to not be reliant on just one means of doing things while shoring up what you can so you won't have such worry.

That's why most sailboats have an auxillary means of propusion available these days - It would if you're smart and can make it happen if you can.

No, it's absolutely no suprise crypto doesn't work without the web and that's the problem, not to mention the inherent weakness of it.
I guess when the magnetic poles flip one day everyone will find out.... Maybe a solar flare that knocks out the entire grid.....

Well yeah I can only assume that as that's the average thing a person does. They pay rent or mortgage and have their money in a bank or maybe some other assets such as stocks (more digital stuff), precious metals and physical assets that are maybe valuable, but not immediately useful. If you don't use banks or pay rent, then good for you, I have nothing problem with that. I completely agree that it's good to not be reliant on one thing. I don't advocate putting everything into crypto. I always tell people that do go into crypto to consider it equal to lighting that money on fire as we have no idea where it will go.

12 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

And while it's a valid point based on an individual, if we get to the point we're gonna be out for a full year's time, things are BAD indeed to the extent no amount of cash or crypto is going to be of much use anyway and you'll have other, far more important things to worry about.

I too doubt most if not just anyone in general would have that much lying around, I don't but I've got enough I'll be OK if things don't go 110% teats up - You know like I do if it gets that bad.....
Screwed doesn't even begin to cover it.

Even if it's out for hours or a day it's not any different. I've had multiple times here where for some reason the bank/payment network was down and that basically stopped everyone in their tracks. People at the till couldn't pay, tried the ATM but that was of course dead as well, so there they stood. It's one of the reasons why I do make sure I always have a certain amount of cash on-hand and at home. I was one of the few that could still get their groceries.

16 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

I'll also say crypto isn't the bed of roses it's made out to be for everyone - It's not and for folks to go around touting it as such for everyone is not right or truthful TBH.

I agree. It's a rather niche thing at the end of the day and not this magic saviour of finance.

[Beerzerker]

I can say on most points we do agree, just in different ways and terms used.

Crypto certainly isn't a "Magic Bullet" for one's finances.
One issue I do have with it is in how it's talked up and that everyone should be getting onboard - The OP themself have done just that and their avvy makes no doubt about it and what they think but at least they're being honest.

No prob with them wanting something but at the same time, I see such posts as a form of recruitment. 
The more people you have going after the same thing the more of what you already have becomes in value and that's not unlike market manipulation itself.
What makes this worse for new guys wanting to get in on this is there is no way they'll make much if anything from it, nearly all the mineability is just gone with so many already having at it.

I could have started mining way back in 2009-2010 when it was still possible to mine roughly one bitcoin a day with a good system. I had the system, just needed a few cards and I would have been set but I'm glad I didn't.
I had a miner introduce me to it at that time but I didn't like what I saw after I researched it and still don't today.

[True]

The idea of NFT as digital asset markers is not inherently bad but the implementation we have been seeing is got dam evil.    
1.   The transacation cost in energy from proorf of work blockchains like ETH and Bitcoin just make me sick..        Proof of stake like SOL is better but i still not 100% sold and I do understand the risks involved since with less total nodes on network..  

 

2.  The Assets currently linked to NFTs (Pictures) and they Loot box crap these with rarities  drops use to market them is just skummy  as helll.    

 

3.   Now if you steam/Epic/Xbox/Nintendo  game licenses were NFT's  creating a true secure used games market for digital  that would be an interesting application..    The current idea of in game dlc for  single or handfull of games from one publisher?  no   that's what steam workshop is for..  

 

 

[RD8B]

Linus is the worst at economics. On the last WAN show, he said if rich people spent their money, it would help the poor.

That is a stunted understanding of economics. If the rich spend their money on art and NFTs, it does not hurt the poor at all. In fact, it helps the poor, because the poor are free to make art or NFTs.

If the rich spent their money on steak,  jet fuel, and GPUs, it hurts the poor because it bids up the price on those items and reduces the amount of these items that the poor can afford to buy.

Billions of dollars stuck in a bank does not hurt anybody. If those billions were suddenly being spent on things, it would lead to much less things being available to everyone else. The money supply would increase much more than the supply of goods. That Linus does not understand this basic thing tells you everything. Just laugh whenever he talks about economics or trying to get kids fired from their jobs.

[Implications Unpleasant]

12 hours ago, RD8B said:

Linus is the worst at economics. On the last WAN show, he said if rich people spent their money, it would help the poor.

That is a stunted understanding of economics. If the rich spend their money on art and NFTs, it does not hurt the poor at all. In fact, it helps the poor, because the poor are free to make art or NFTs.

If the rich spent their money on steak,  jet fuel, and GPUs, it hurts the poor because it bids up the price on those items and reduces the amount of these items that the poor can afford to buy.

Billions of dollars stuck in a bank does not hurt anybody. If those billions were suddenly being spent on things, it would lead to much less things being available to everyone else. The money supply would increase much more than the supply of goods. That Linus does not understand this basic thing tells you everything. Just laugh whenever he talks about economics or trying to get kids fired from their jobs.

I think your grasp of economics is what's actually suspect here.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

12 hours ago, RD8B said:

Linus is the worst at economics. On the last WAN show, he said if rich people spent their money, it would help the poor.

That is a stunted understanding of economics. If the rich spend their money on art and NFTs, it does not hurt the poor at all. In fact, it helps the poor, because the poor are free to make art or NFTs.

If the rich spent their money on steak,  jet fuel, and GPUs, it hurts the poor because it bids up the price on those items and reduces the amount of these items that the poor can afford to buy.

Billions of dollars stuck in a bank does not hurt anybody. If those billions were suddenly being spent on things, it would lead to much less things being available to everyone else. The money supply would increase much more than the supply of goods. That Linus does not understand this basic thing tells you everything. Just laugh whenever he talks about economics or trying to get kids fired from their jobs.

Wow that’s wrong.

billions of dollars going in used is terrible.

it drives up inflation because they'reS not enough in circulation, which means there’s more reason for more money to be printed.

If someone with 50b goes and spends say,  all of 500m, it goes into a bunch of different things, sure, but some of that goes to the government for things like, I don’t know, schools, or stimulus checks, But most of it would go to a business where it gets circulated back through the economy.

 

Basic economics, spending money keeps economies healthy, and prevents crashing a economey

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

On 2/5/2022 at 6:07 PM, RD8B said:

Billions of dollars stuck in a bank does not hurt anybody. If those billions were suddenly being spent on things, it would lead to much less things being available to everyone else. The money supply would increase much more than the supply of goods. That Linus does not understand this basic thing tells you everything. Just laugh whenever he talks about economics or trying to get kids fired from their jobs.

Not true. Billionares hoarding money definitely hurts the economy, disproportionally the poor. A capitalist economy requires by design that money changes hands. Hoarding money has the same effect of taking it out of circulation, but without adjusting downward the value of the currency.

 

Someone's gain is someone elses spending. Hoarders take money, but don't give money, causing the active money in circulation to reduce and economic activity to slow down, and eventually stop. Capitalism requires people to spend and gain, because volume is what makes the machine turn.

 

At the extreme, if a national currency was deflationary, every partecipant in the economy would be compelled to stash money as it gains value except for necessities, and this would have a cascading effect that eventually would cause the economy to stop to a standstill and crash in a deep depression (no money changing hands).

 

A small and consistent amount of inflation is required in a capitalist economy for this reason: Inflation slowly ereases debts, and slowly erode deposits, so peope with money are compelled to invest that money. That money invested increases economic output, in a positive feedback loop. Likewise, debt is a tool that when used well, accelerates the increase in economic output.

This is the best video I know that explains the concept:

[Sauron]

On 2/5/2022 at 6:07 PM, RD8B said:

If the rich spent their money on steak,  jet fuel, and GPUs, it hurts the poor because it bids up the price on those items and reduces the amount of these items that the poor can afford to buy.

Maybe instead that money could be used to build up infrastructure and offer necessary services to the population rather than be hoarded up by people who don't use it.