Zin en onzin van cryptovaluta

I don't give a shit who Willie Woo is. What a stupid name is that anyway. Ik ben blij dat ik niet in die cryptowereld zit, ik zou me kapot ergeren. En nu met z'n allen Musk bashen. Jaren terug zag je dat bij de identitaire beweging ook, als wolven stortten ze zich allemaal op Jordan Peterson. Sektarische shit, I want no part of it.

Mike
 
Lievergezond zei:
Klik om te vergroten...

Het kan erger, een Tesla heeft naast de drive accu een gewone 12 volt accu voor verlichting besturingssysteem ed die laad alleen tijdens het rijden, dwz laat je Tesla een maandje of 2 ivm lockdown staan aan de stekker en ga dan rijden..... Nee 12 volt op dus besturingssysteem werkt niet en dan mag je de halve auto slopen om de accu te laden.

 
Kleine kinderen zijn die cryptolui, kleuters. Musk crasht hoogstpersoonlijk jullie geliefde Bitcoin en nu hij is de gebeten hond. Ga eens nadenken over hoe het kan dat BTC zo makkelijk en zo plotseling kan stijgen of dalen. Fiat, anyone? Ja hoor, dit gaat de centrale banken ten val brengen, suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. :rolleyes:

Mike
 
fatsnotbad zei:
Wat heeft dit met crypto's te maken?

Mike
Klik om te vergroten...
Musk zei eerder dat bitcoin-mining energieverslindend is en daar reageert Willy Woo (doet veel aan ´on chain analysis´: probeert patronen te ontdekken met bitcoin door direct de blockchain te analyseren) met zijn tweet op. Musk heeft zijn bitcoins overigens niet verkocht (hij heeft iets van iets met miljard dollar bitcoin in bezit). En Space X zit ook in de bitcoin.
 
Laatst bewerkt:
Artikel in de Financial Times:
In recent weeks, I have embarked on a journey that many investors have travelled before me. I put a metaphorical wet towel over my head and immersed myself in the world of cryptocurrencies.

It has been strikingly hard. This is partly because crypto, like any area of accelerated innovation, is a cultish place where insiders have extensive knowledge that defines them as a tribe. At present, society is split between a small minority of players with a PhD-level understanding and a kindergarten audience, with little in between.

The other problem is that this world requires an unusual blend of intellectual skills. Alexander Lipton, a friend, Wall Street veteran and maths professor, outlines the issue in a book he recently co-authored on the topic, Blockchain and Distributed Ledgers.

Cryptocurrencies, the book notes, lie at the intersection of three fields: “(a) cryptography (to ensure the integrity of transactions); (b) game theory (to establish consensus on the state of the ledger); and (c) economics (to design proper economic initiatives)”.

Most people may understand two of the three, but “mastering all of them is a tall order”. In other words, working out whether a particular cryptocurrency is a Ponzi scheme or not demands a knowledge of computer science and finance and psychology or anthropology.

To see why this matters, consider the issue of “decentralised autonomous organisations” or DAOs, a feature of the ethereum ecosystem. These are quasi companies, but they are run by automated computing programs, not humans, to organise participants to perform joint projects (usually financed with cryptocurrencies).

If there was an institution such as a regulator overseeing DAOs, or a well-known bank running one, investors could judge whether a DAO was trustworthy based on their level of trust in that institution. But there isn’t. Instead, trust rests on the computer code, which is (supposedly) structured in a way that creates incentives for all DAO participants to behave responsibly (for example, by offering a transparent way to track behaviour and ensuring that anybody who misbehaves will suffer penalties).

However, you cannot check whether trust is justified unless you understand that computer code. And you probably can’t work out the worth of a DAO’s activity without knowledge of economics and game theory, which would allow you to ascertain, for example, whether the community has a joint interest in protecting its value.

(This is not a theoretical issue. As two recent books, The Infinite Machine and Out of the Ether, explain, there was a massive hack on a DAO project in 2016 that almost saw the entire ethereum system implode until the community rallied to save it.)

So why do relatively few people understand all three crypto fields? Basically, our education systems do not yet train students in this way, while institutions such as banks tend to put people with these skills into different departments. The IT team is not the same as the economics research group.

In the regulatory world, the institutions with oversight of IT and finance have also traditionally been kept separate. And even if you “just” consider financial regulation, there is another challenge around definitions. In a country such as the US, products that are securities are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. So, if bitcoin is a security, it falls under the SEC.

But if it is also a money or payments system, as many crypto evangelists insist, it should fall under the wing of the Federal Reserve or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. If it is better viewed as a commodity such as gold, then it is the responsibility of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Crypto evangelists say their tokens are all three. But a world where everybody could take charge is a place where nobody might actually feel empowered to act, particularly given that regulators are national in scope but the market is cross-border in nature.

So you don’t just need three pools of knowledge to understand cryptocurrencies on a micro-level, but on a macro-level too: you cannot predict the future of crypto without judging the health of fiat currency and the global financial system, nor without a knowledge of computing trends. (A judgment about the value of crypto is also a forecast about whether breakthrough technologies such as quantum computing might enable cryptographic passwords to be hacked.)

To predict the future of crypto also requires political and social analysis: will governments try to control this? Could they? Will they work together?

Of course, such problems of epistemology are not unique to cryptocurrencies. But it is the speed, scale and ambition that make it so hard for our institutions to catch up. Along with our brains.

So if, like me, you feel stuck in crypto kindergarten, don’t be ashamed. There is a good reason for this, and it’s the same reason regulators and organisations need to reorganise themselves for the 21st century, as do schools and universities. Faced with crypto, we need to deploy curiosity and humility — not qualities normally displayed by educated elites.
Klik om te vergroten...
https://www.ft.com/content/cf89a64d-32fe-48ca-85f3-5b36ce4fb6fe
 
Je moet ingelogd zijn om te kunnen reageren. Log in | Registreer

Forum statistieken

Onderwerpen
4.541
Berichten
544.528
Leden
8.663
Nieuwste lid
Gerard.38
Word vaste donateur van dit forum

Vrienden

Terug
Bovenaan