kitcar
Born on June 20, 2009•3143 Karma
I would love to see a source where land value makes up the majority of the value in most urban area's
In my case, my home is worth about 2x the land the shits on, and I am for sure in a urban area. Most of my state is the same
Now maybe for a ultra dense urban area's where single family home would/should be replaced with high density building that would be the case but for the common subdivision in suburbia I doubt the land is the majority of the value
even in the source article of this story, the average Home Price was $370,000 with land cost being $86,000
In 2013: Land value $154K, House value: $100K. Total assessed: $254K.
Same house in 2019: Land value: $312K. House value: $117K. Total assessed: $430K.
On the market now for $850K.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/5015-Avenu...
Random Property in Philadelphia [1]
Assessed Value 2023: 257300 / land: 51460 - Structures: 205840
Assessed Value 2015: 186800 / land: 90300 - structures: 96500
So in Philly land DROPPED in value, Structures increased
In Austin they appear to claim Structures s have not increased in value at all in 10 years (very odd) and the 100% of the increase in the value of the land
I bet if I dig into local tax laws I will find some justifications for both valuations methods (meaning the local taxing authorities are manipulating the values for maximum tax revenue)
[1] https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/9320-Andov...
That is not the discussion, the claim I was responding to said that the MAJORITY of urban homes the value of the home is made up by the value of the land, not the home
I can see that in some very select regions of the nation, but through not the midwest that for sure should not be the case, and I am suspect that the MAJORITY of the nation is that way
Thus my asking for a SOURCE for the claim that was made as my experience differs
So far all have a gotten was 2 cherry picked anecdotes to prove the claim with no actual data backing it, as such i will simply assume the statement is false
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/baylisascaris/gen_info/faqs.ht...
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/apple-tracking-devices-being-used...
It’s not even an outlandish claim. Knowing the technology and the region this force covers it sounds perfectly reasonable to me that a least some thieves are experimenting with this technique.
Come on. Not everything is a conspiracy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7323835/
("Dr. Dedhar and colleagues previously identified a unique compound, known as SLC-0111—currently being evaluated in Phase 1 clinical trials—as a powerful inhibitor of the CAIX enzyme")
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22SLC-0111%22
AND
"U-104 (SLC-0111) is a potent carbonic anhydrase (CA) inhibitor for CA IX and CA XII with Ki values of 45.1 nM and 4.5 nM, respectively. U-104 shows a significant delay in tumor growth in mice model. "
For research use only. We do not sell to patients.
100 mg: EUR 292
Be honest. It's less capital intensive, with much higher valuations.
"Be honest" is the same as "you're a liar"
Just for clarity, when YC funds a company, the goal is not to have it get acquired. It's to have it go public. Acquisition interrupts that, so it's a suboptimal outcome. That said, YC supports what founders want to do.
I assume you are just as critical of things like Crunchyroll?
I'm turning off of this site for a while.
And the best part is these shows are good! They are really fucking good!
Nothing is stopping you from consuming that content and incorporating into that homogeneous base upon which you build your interactions.
Perhaps the niche-ification of streamed content has resulted in Black shows that don't feel relevant to non-black people. And since the majority don't feel it's applicable to them, they lose the algorithm game.
Just a guess, I don't have any real evidence to back this up. But if that's the problem, it seems like it would be solved by this startup.
1. Fox/WB/UPN. These fledgling networks broadcast a lot of black-oriented content trying to grab a foothold in the market. This in turn spurred ABC/NBC/CBS to do the same to avoid losing market share.
2. Bill Cosby. The success of the Cosby show in the 80s/early 90s instigated a lot of attempts to grab a piece of that market. Cosby had further success with the spin-off show A Different World (which was notable also as being the only TV show at its time to focus on Gen X characters).
I my opinion the problem isn't that there is no demand for black-focused media, its that its just become another subcategory of Netflix. And because it may not be as popular on Netflix it doesn't get as much production. Look at what Netflix is producing these days - its mostly lowest common denominator algorithm driven garbage.
This, the best content on Netflix in the last two or three years for my taste are largely foreign productions
Twitter on the other hand seems to do everything possible to push you away from your niches and selected content, even though the whole idea is to follow people.
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
"For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which can weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans.
Moreover, FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients. Many inactive ingredients found in animal products aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body."
Quoting from the Wikipedia page:
"Half of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded jointly to Campbell and Ōmura for discovering avermectin, "the derivatives of which have radically lowered the incidence of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis, as well as showing efficacy against an expanding number of other parasitic diseases"
"There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin to treat humans with COVID-19. Ivermectin is often used in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals.
The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses."
My point being that you can over-dose on almost any compound at high enough doses. So instead of driving the conversation underground and letting patients self-medicate, we should empower doctors with proper information rather than painting Ivermectin as a conspiracy theory drug
"If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed. Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans."
For interest, according to https://turbotax.intuit.ca/tax-resources/canada-income-tax-c... net on $170K is $111,547, meaning closer to $11K / year
It should be noted though that it is pretty rare to reach $175K salary in the GTA before turning 30 (Average household income in Toronto is sub $100K[3]). Therefore for the majority of people it will take more than 18 years to build up that down-payment, which could be where the number in the article came from.
[1] https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/average-gta-home-price-to-top-1-m.... [2] https://www.moneysense.ca/spend/real-estate/cmhc-tightens-mo... [3] https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/to...
As opposed to elephants or sea urchins? How can humans not be the cause humanity's biggest problems?
The Buddha taught there are three kinds of dukkha [usually translated as “suffering”]. The first kind is physical and mental pain from the inevitable stresses of life like old age, sickness, and death. The second is the distress we feel as a result of impermanence and change, such as the pain of failing to get what we want and of losing what we hold dear. The third kind of dukkha is a kind of existential suffering, the angst of being human, of living a conditioned existence and being subject to rebirth.
https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/what-did-the-buddha-...
That's a pretty good indicator of a civilization's state. For an advanced one, the answer to your question would be "it's nowhere near the top worries". All human-made horrors (war, climate change, etc.) would be left far behind.
If we were as smart as we think we are, our biggest problems would be rogue asteroids, solar storms and aggressive aliens, not human geopolitical bullshit, poisoning our water, or destroying our own ecosystem.
It's only after we barricaded ourselves in towers protected by walls that we started to find predatory animals cute (and even made children's toys in their image)
I don't think that's entirely accurate. Dogs were domesticated well over 10k years ago, possibly close to 30k years ago. I see no reason to think that people didn't find puppies cute then as well since the reasons why we think of baby animals cute seems to be related to the same pattern recognition that causes us to recognize those attributes in human infants and think they are cute. The version of animals we find "cute" are all represented with infantile portions. There is something to be said for removal of danger as a prerequisite though (I doubt most people would have been receptive to the teddy bear in the 1920's if problems with bears were still frequent).
Or maybe the aliens are all holding hands in a circle singing kumbayah?
The disruptions to equilibrium that we witness are almost always man-made. But there have been others, caused by new species, ice ages, asteriods, the Great Oxygenation Event, etc.
Alien civilization might be at equilibrium. Or, if we meet them, they may more likely be in an expansionist phase.
But I think a civilization that harnesses its conflicts - as we try to, with competing businesses, scientists, olitical parties, sporting teams - will have greater long-term success than a destructive, exploutative culture, by definition. It's not that competition is "good", but they we have aggressive aspects seeking dominance, and we are better off shaping them than having tribal warfare, raiding parties, etc which is more our natural state. And something like it is part of the nature of life itself.
Preagricultural peoples exerted reproductive control so they were not vulnerable kind of population crunches that affect other species.
Diverse food webs were also more reliable and nutritious than what was available to the early agriculturalists, as you say.
> "The bones of 'domiciled' Homo sapiens compared with those of hunter-gatherers are also distinctive: they are smaller; the bones and teeth often bear the signature of nutritional distress, in particular, an iron-deficiency anemia marked above all in women of reproductive age whose diets consist increasingly of grains"
from Against the Grain
see also: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/
The linked article addresses famine more specifically.
I know a couple books[1] that suggest life prior to the agricultural revolution wasn't nearly as famine-stricken as we tend to think it was. These books claim hunter gatherers were quite proficient at finding enough sustenance.
Obviously starvation was still possible and likely, but was it the primary cause of death? Is there some more evidence that humans were suffering from starvation before agriculture? Wouldn't populations thin out and stabilize accordingly if starvation was such a problem?
[1] - _Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind_ and _Sex at Dawn_
How happy are we who have never experienced that! How would our ancestors envy us!
Would our ancestors envy us or be happy for the fruit of their effort? There are setbacks and frustrations about the slow state of progress sometimes for certain. Maybe they would also be sad for the material orientation of many people and the loss of spirituality that gave them much hope and fortitude.
I for one think, this is a subjective question.
It certainly seems plausible to me, but I'd be fascinated to review the data and how it correlates to time and geography.
Maybe we made it in a lab, or even if we didn’t, maybe we should have been much smarter about preventing or containing it.
It’s not like an alien virus we never predicted and can’t understand. Experts had been warning about this exact thing for years.
That doesn't mean humans were responsible for the pandemic, though. That means humanity might bear responsibility for not as effectively containing the pandemic.
If an asteroid strikes the earth, and causes a mass casualty event that doesn't mean humans caused the asteroid strike (even if we maybe should have invested more in preventing the asteroid strike).
I think it's reasonable to expect more effective human preventative measures, without confusing the disaster for ones caused by human activity.
These “problems” are opportunities to serve.
Because I would like to believe that this capability will only ever be used to protect the Earth from them, but our history says otherwise. Anything that can be used as a weapon will ... well, at least enter the arsenals, and only fear of devastating retaliation will stop people from actually using it. Or has, so far.
Except humans. More humans die each year due to other humans, or due to things other humans have created (for example humans ignoring mask mandates).
Point is, we are the only specie who has become its own worst enemy.
Idk, what am I saying? I think we can improve eachother's lives quite a bit if we just kick out the assholes from power.
Ganging up to kill seems to be mostly a primate thing.
Male lions will kill cubs fathered by another male without remorse. It is not the same as our primate instincts of war, but remarkably close to ethnic cleansing.
What other species creates scalable, global solutions to large scale problems? Example (not real, but realistic) - a group of scientists in India create a vaccine that a company in Germany manufactures, so that people in the US can avoid a deadly virus.
Only one I can potentially think of is Fungi, as they appear to have large scale symbiotic relationships, but nothing is comparable to humans.
Think in simpler terms, like a technology used at work, or a tool used at home; I've been in enough changes in the former that tell me many people believe a new thing will be better than the old thing, even after going through that same process several times.
The introspection needed to understand that people will break the process if they want or need to is hard to come by.
Dinosaurs' biggest problems was asteroids. There are plenty of externalities outside of human control, or that humans are only marginally responsible for (asteroids, gamma ray bursts, volcanic eruptions, famine due to crop diseases, pandemics, etc).
Also Bill Gate's opinion is based on Bitcoin offering almost no utilitarian value but consumes a ton of energy, nothing to do with monetary policies.
Bitcoin has negligent utilitarian value. It does nothing besides reward people who can consume energy the fastest.
BTC might have no short term utilitarian value, but in the long term the utilitarian value is to create a globalized monetary policy.
1. BTC is speculative because it may not actually achieve the goal of a single globalized monetary policy. Some other crypto might become the defacto denationalized currency instead, or maybe nothing changes.
2. A single globalized monetary policy may not be useful. However, no one really knows. People investing in any crypto seem to believe that a denationalized monetary policy will be better functioning.
Speculation alone doesn't imply no long-term utilitarian value exists.
Could we do this without burning more energy than entire countries?
> If and when we have a globalized monetary policy, how do we run it without burning more energy than entire countries?
1. You could get all entities governing the market / governing the globalized monetary policy to perfectly trust each other. Seems impossible given the Prisoner's Dilemma is exponentially more difficult to solve as the number of actors grows.
2. It is outside my domain of expertise to know how we can make a trust-less ledger efficient to run. The engineers behind ETH and Nano seem to believe it is possible.
However, given 1. is an impossible problem, and every unique entity that governs the globalized monetary policy will be competing with each other for control. They will all compete in an arms race to control as many crypto nodes as possible (i.e. a war of energy production).
It seems like the amount of energy needed will always be larger than most countries use because otherwise any one country can spin up a 51% attack very easily.
This doesn't mean crypto energy consumption will spiral to infinite as the world's super powers compete. Because, the world's super powers already have to worry about "mutually assured destruction" and as such can "trust" each other not to trigger a 51% attack because that would be treated as a global signal to launch nukes[0].
And like nuclear de-armament, there will likely be a push for the super powers to consume less energy while protecting against a 51% attack. There will be some interesting equilibrium. My guess is the equilibrium will probably be around the energy consumption of the p99 country sorted by energy consumption.
[0] I've never thought about this before, but a 51% attack could be an automated signal to launch nukes. I hope no country removes the humans from the launch process.
Based on my (arguably poor) ability to predict the future the answer seems to be a "No, crypto energy consumption will always be more than most countries".
Other people like the ETH and Nano developers seem to believe the answer is "Yes it is possible to be more efficient with crypto mining". However, I don't know their stance on "Will the energy consumption still be more than most countries?"
Nobody accepts it as payment, because its value is too volatile, speculation-driven, and nobody wants to spend it, because it is deflationary.
And that's not even considering the fact that it can only be transferred at around 6 transactions per second, less than 1/10,000th of the transaction volume of Visa.
Doesn't inflation favor people having debt? Esp. since salaries follow inflation.
Presuming Satoshi did this out pure altruism, I wouldn't say perfect. However, if Satoshi still has 10% of the Bitcoin supply, then I couldn't agree more. Given the fact that most of us don't know, we're simply projecting whatever believe we have on that particular matter, which definitely votes for "an almost perfect exploitation of humanities fatal flaws"
But that's how I look at it :)
10x price increase equals 10x mining expenditure, mostly on energy.
As recently as 2012 I was going around the office, before leaving, turning off the monitors left on because Windows did not default to doing that itself. On CRTs it was even worse.
But it is not a competition. Bitcoin and Windows together are clearly much worse than either alone.
What's the utility of that?
Bitcoin does none of that. At its very very best it's a way to buy hallucinogens on the internet with massive external consequences.
I feel sorry for anyone that expects bitcoin to actually be anonymous. Given that we can use statistics and timing to determine the memory contents and instructions run on different cores in a CPU, anyone that uses a currency that keeps public global transaction log and thinks they can anonymize themselves by just mixing their money in a pool is in for a rude awakening at some point. For any useful amount of usage, my guess is they're just kicking the de-anonymization can down the road a few years.
Edit: As suspected, it's not a silver bullet.[1]
1: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoins-taproot-upgrade-wont...
(Also, the slightest movement in those coins would likely cause a massive drop in the value of bitcoin, as rational people realized a huge cache of previously assumed out of play coins might start being sold and everyone using it as an investment rushed to exit ASAP to avoid beat that).
The reality is there is no consumer demand for crypto as a means to purchase things.
At best its an alternative finance system that works around the captured, corrupted, and rent seeking finance systems of the world.
The industry is growing like crazy as well.
Bitcoin was 122 twh/year I believe.
Both gaming and bitcoin kill the planet and are not necessary until global warming under control.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285396475_Taming_th...
If game consoles/PCs get more efficient, they use less power for the entertainment value delivered to the world. Or, if renewable tech makes energy cheaper, the fixed amount of energy gaming uses becomes less of a big deal.
If ASIC miners get more efficient, difficulty and hashrate goes up, and they use the same amount of power for the same amount of security delivered to the blockchain. Or, if renewable tech makes energy cheaper, miners will use more of it.
The "W" in PoW means work but it could equally mean "waste". The whole reason it's secure is that you look at the total hashrate of the network and go "wow, that is so expensive, nobody would ever burn so much energy just to double-spend some bitcoin". No matter how good hardware gets or how freely available energy gets, it must always be incredibly costly to operate the network, because that's the premise its security is built on.
Fractional reserve lending are an almost perfect exploitation of humanities fatal flaws (greed, unwillingness to acknowledge externalities - i.e. selfishness).
Also, bitcoin is fiat.
Contrary to the dollar-sign-eyed bitcoin hacks, the purpose of money is to be exchanged for goods and services, not to sit in an account forever while you watch numbers go up.
Is land a bad thing to buy because they are not making more of it?
I'm sure you know you can exchange those numbers for other numbers that show up in your bank if you're inclined..
As a person who wants to buy a house but doesn't have the full purchase price in liquid dollars, the thing you want is for the government to give lenders access to low-cost money so they can then lend it to you at low rates so you can afford the principal+interest on your loan.
As a person with savings to invest, you want to know that the bonds you're buying will be paid back with some interest to balance the risk of higher-yield stocks/bonds.
If you see educational costs, at one point in the 70s I think, the govt decided to offer loans so that students wouldn't need to do a job on the side to fund their education. Now it's ballooned to become such a mess..
The home ownership rate in the United States is 65.8%. San Francisco. Is. Not. Normal.
The purpose of money is not so that you can "hodl".
I swear, this speculation bubble has melted y'alls brains.
The beauty of Bitcoin is that no human can increase supply to address short-term interests, like central banks can. The energy is not wasted. To the contrary, it is used to ensure that the supply is distributed in the prescribed manner and that it is capped. There is no other way of creating a decentralized system that has this feature.
In what future world are we not trying to create more Bitcoin?
Some more questions... So let's say BTC is greed - the many financial instruments out there, derivatives, credit default swaps, funds of funds, the crazy options stuff going on ... and you drew the line at BTC?
"It's that old SF-trope that the cause of many of humanity's biggest problems is humans."
Fitting for a city known today for its vast outdoor tent cities of homelessness.
"Greed" is neither good nor bad, but instead it is a pathological optimization. Optimizing for profit, by definition, is an "unwillingness to acknowledge externalities", as stated by the GP. Optimizing for profit resulted in many bad situations for Americans (see the Love Canal and the Cuyahoga River) and it was the reason the United States created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), so that negative externalities could be converted into dollars.
To bring into the discussion "Teslas" and "rockets that land" changes the argument from the demonstrable "bitcoin is bad for the planet" to a morally relative argument of "yeah, but it got us rockets and Teslas", which does nothing other than prove GPs point: to say that that Teslas and landing rockets are worth the price of Bitcoin is to ignore or disregard the externalities!
And it's hard to imagine that the GP "drew the line" at Bitcoin; to take that as the position is making a straw-man argument. Instead, an interpretation that would lead to valuable discussion should be adopted, like the position that Bitcoin both demonstrates the flaws of greed and that it does so in a way that is simple to understand and demonstrate, especially when it comes to externalities. Financial instruments are complex and opaque on purpose, designed to confuse and obfuscate greed. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has a much simpler equation: money versus power consumed versus pollutants produced.
Finally, a suggestion to all: avoid acronyms, or at least spell them out on first use. It's highly likely that "SF" meant "Science Fiction" and not "San Fransisco". Knowing the correct definition of an acronym can help avoid embarrassing situations.
Don't tell people what their motivations are. The original comment talked about greed, my comment questions our definitions of greed.
Edit: Can't you just reply and make a point about externalities instead of being essentially passive-aggressive?
> Finally, a suggestion to all: avoid acronyms, or at least spell them out on first use. It's highly likely that "SF" meant "Science Fiction" and not "San Fransisco". Knowing the correct definition of an acronym can help avoid embarrassing situations.
Wowzers. How about you design the guidelines for conversations, and we can defer to you if there's ever any ambiguity.
Bitcoin is far too volatile to be a widespread, standard currency which seems to be the "reason" people say it's worth as much as it is. But it will never be a widespread currency until it has stability. So it's a chicken/egg situation, one of the two has to come first for the other, and both ideas rely on each other.
Most people that hold bitcoin today are doing so because they think it will increase in value, NOT because they care about the stability or viability of currency. That's pretty selfish insofar there are plenty of developing nations that would benefit greatly from a stable currency. Bitcoin might still be more stable than some countries, but that doesn't negate the issues.
So, because many people look at bitcoin as a wealth generator that produces tons of heat and waste, and it starts to look like a perfect marriage of shitty human behaviors.
Banks and hedge funds don't inherently care about currencies. They care about the currency that governs their lives but beyond that everything is an investment. Banks don't provide mortgages because homes provide a stable economy or a stable currency. They do so because they will make money back on what they lend through interest. The fact that you store your dollars there is just one way for them to collect tons of assets for lending (among other things). This doesn't means banks care much about the volatility or exchange rate of the currency itself.
Hedge funds would only care about currencies insofar that it's an investment vehicle and investing in currencies can be a good investment. Bonds or other currency investments can increase over time without the volatility of BTC. A hedge fund is literally just an investment group, so it's pretty obvious they don't NEED to care about BTC stability or any stability at all.
Now, the question could be why would banks and hedge funds be willing to invest into such a volatile currency when they are usually risk adverse (banks more than hedge funds). And that would be a good question, except BTC has kept going up and now crypto as a whole is just another ETF market. So there are plenty of safe ways to hedge your bets on BTC or crypto generically without actually believing in the underlying philosophical justifications.
EDIT: Also, I don't think that it's impossible to have a crypto currency that is viable and stable. I think Ethereum has a fairly logical approach to their core issues that could solve the issues down the road. We'll see. I do think it'll be hard for BTC to become a viable currency because of how pumped up it is, and people treat it like an infinite money machine. Until the systemic issues of the BTC ethos are solved, I don't see a promising future for BTC as a widespread currency. But, it might have value in setting up the infra that the future crypto that IS viable will use.
Banks and hedge funds put money into cigarette companies and arms manufacturers and all manner of scam companies.
Their decisions are based on estimated risks and rewards over different time periods.
Taking a position in Bitcoin doesn’t imply anything about it’s nature or long term prospects.
Only that there is a perceived path to potential gains over a time period known to the investor, and not to us.
I don't have exact data, but my gut feeling tells me that 99.99% of the people buying cryptocurrencies today are driven by greed instead of innovation.
> and you drew the line at BTC?
Not really, if you look at the perspective that we already have enough instruments for financial manipulation and greed, why introduce another one that consumes so much energy?
>Fitting for a city known today for its vast outdoor tent cities of homelessness.
I mean...you know that's a completely man-made problem right?
Greed or fear. More fear than greed at this point.
That seems like you are putting words into the GP’s mouth.
Nobody is saying these other instruments aren’t also ‘greed’, just that Bitcoin is no better.
That’s relevant because one part of the Bitcoin narrative is that it is actually better in some way, and not just another speculative instrument.
It's not tulips and 100% useless. A digital currency is interesting to explore. It's interesting enough that institutions are stuffing their cash into it because they are fearing inflation, and the old school explanations of why we won't get inflation are now being questioned.
Don't ask me to forcefully argue for or against, there are many other people on this thread to argue both positions. But you can't say it has NO utility.
I've never done it, but when I lived abroad and I had to transfer money, I got fleeced by banks and then (a few years ago) there weren't really any alternatives. I don't have any skin in the game with Bitcoin, but I guess that left a foul taste in my mouth.
There've been other comments about Bitcoin that are a bit more nuanced and interesting, in one case there was a gentleman from Argentina making an impassioned case for the use over and against the polices of his government.
I think there's an element of institutional mistrust that Bitcoin claims - maybe wrongly, given how centralized it is - to solve.
Edit: I should clarify. I am saying that the status of the USD as a reserve currency has led to lots of US military action.
Notice how displacing some military force usage by changing the motivation or capability for intervention (for example to maintain a currency advantage) might be in itself a Good Thing (tm) and how it does not require replacing armed forces entirely.
That was literally a quote from the post being responded to.
Bitcoin doesn't solve, for example, hate crimes or something like this.
Conversely, if all money suddenly become Bitcoin, military force and police would still be needed, in mostly the same amount they are today.
My post was referring to how the US has killed lots of people to keep strong dollar. I think its feasible that a true global currency (possibly bitcoin) could prevent violence like this.
If Bitcoin would become a risk to that status, would the US government just give up and admit defeat or would it outlaw usage of it?
Or it could become highly regulated and be much less useful for trade due to onerous compliance requirements. For example, how do you prove that wallet X that one is sending money to isn't going to someone who's in an embargoed country?
I think that's a gross possibility, and I hope no governments take this measure, but I don't think it would be difficult.
From that perspective, it seems to follow that most governments would want to regulate cryptocurrencies, and probably not in the way that Bitcoin bulls would like it to be.
I could definitely be wrong on this though. I thought in the past that the ad model of Facebook and Google would go nowhere, and look where they're at now.
Are there any other benefits? If not, wouldn't adopting bitcoin be an easy solution to monetary policy while avoiding this issue? Or am I missing something?
One example of having monetary policy out of a country's control is the EU, which has both strong economies (eg. Germany) and weaker ones (eg. Greece). A strong Euro works well for Germany, since they get more effective purchasing power out of their trade surplus. For Greece, a strong Euro means that their exports are probably not competitive price wise.
If these countries had their own currency, the Deutsche Mark would be a strong currency (making their exports relatively more expensive) and the Greek Drachma a weaker currency (making their exports relatively less expensive), giving them a push towards a more even trade balance. As citizens tend to transact in local currency, this also encourages Greek citizens to seek more local goods (eg. Greek tomatoes grown on Greek soil with Greek labor) as foreign goods are more expensive, hence further stimulating their economy.
I am also doubtful of PoS but perhaps there's a way to make a greener coin using some amount of trust and regulation?
Many projects and tokens use it by now.
The promise of violence is free until realized though.
Did everyone forget that the best goal we can achieve with power usage is by reducing consumption outright? Just because some of the mining is done on greener solutions doesn't mean it's a net positive.
Global warming isn't exactly going away if we keep this experiment up.