Why not accept cryptocurrency for financial support?

[jez9999]

Why not just accept Monero payments?

[Moonchild]

Why not just accept Monero payments?

top search result for monero:
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/08/monero_project_developers_announce_breach/

And for a more general overview of everything web3:
https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

And I'm still get plenty of scam phone calls tying into crypto, which annoy me to no end.

TL;DR: not getting involved with crypto again.

[jez9999]

Little bit of a narrowminded attitude there. Crypto is still rather in its infancy, and yeah there are a few issues with it but there is with any tech. That Monero breach doesn't seem related to the protocol itself but to a specific wallet. And scam calls? Ehh? You just ignore them like spam.

Really, as a purveyor of alternative tech people like you ought to be trying to embrace and help crypto. Centralized banking is extremely bad for us, and with CBDCs around the corner it's going to be frighteningly easy for them to freeze assets and implement AI-based restrictions on spending.

[van p]

I'm no expert on crypto, but my understanding is that Bitcoin's blockchain technology doesn't scale well for widespread/global use and that Bitcoin is a dead man walking. Don't know if there's only one blockchain technology. Also, there are plenty of stories about hacks where the funds get stolen. I'm not volunteering to be a victim. (I agree, the CBDC thing is a concern, maybe a good reason to eliminate digital currencies altogether.)

[jez9999]

Hardly. Digital currencies are a logical development from fiat currency which is not backed by a gold standard anymore. Digital currencies are backed by nothing either, but they have scarcity that can't be watered down through a central authority minting more money, which is a Good Thing.

Bitcoin may be unable to handle vast numbers of transactions, but layer 2 protocols like Lightning can. And Monero is designed to handle vastly more transactions, not to mention that it does privacy right by default, hence my recommending it.

[Moonchild]

Little bit of a narrowminded attitude there. Crypto is still rather in its infancy, and yeah there are a few issues with it but there is with any tech.

Not so much narrow-minded as just financially aware and cautious what risks I take.
Crypto is not in its infancy. I've seen Crypto's infancy and was part of it. I was involved in early Litecoin and Dogecoin and other altcoin mining and pools when they became a thing, more than a decade ago. I've seen hundreds of coins rise and fall. I'm intimately familiar with it, so don't try to tell me I don't know enough to make an informed decision here. "A few issues" indeed, that I didn't even touch on in my reply. One of the major issues plaguing all forms of crypto is the very thing you are afraid of: it's all digital and can be manipulated. There are countless examples of Crypto manipulation as their trading value (and that is literally the only real value any currency has) is exactly as much as what people decide it's going to be. If you're concerned about CBDC then you should also be concerned about all forms of crypto.

Having seen first hand how one can invest thousands into something and then have it collapse overnight like it was some bad joke becoming worthless was a pretty good wake-up call to have a very critical look at it. And no, I'm not just talking about "investing money in a coin on an exchange" I'm talking real investments of hardware and energy. If nothing else, the work needed to maintain a blockchain (essential for any transactions to be possible) is literally destroying our planet for something that has zero intrinsic value. For that reason alone, people like me ought not to be trying to embrace and help crypto. No, "Proof of stake" is not a solution for this -- in fact, it makes the playing field more unbalanced, preventing wide adoption by the everyday man. If you think that is somehow "maturing", then you don't understand the drivers behind it.

Also: it supports the grifting economy and is absolutely rife with criminality. I have no good words for that, period.

Digital currencies are backed by nothing either, but they have scarcity that can't be watered down

The problem is not artificial scarcity (since once again the only real value it has is an agreed trading value - it has no intrinsic value, and even more so, no agreed guarantees, unlike fiat). It doesn't matter how "scarce" you make a coin or how hard it becomes to mine them, since the economics of them have infinite fractional calculation making it relative. If you make a coin more scarce by design, people will trade in smaller increments of it -- as a result the market remains just as fluid and volatile as when you'd have a less "scarce" coin. Scarcity only matters if you have literally limited amounts of asset-backed resources. There's only so much you can divide precious metals up into and being usable. Crypto? not so much. you can just as easily trade with 0.000001 of a currency as you can 10,000 of a currency, if it's all just a number in a digital wallet.

[jez9999]

Well, since this subject interests me and I think it's a pretty important one for the near-future...

Not so much narrow-minded as just financially aware and cautious what risks I take.
Crypto is not in its infancy.

I meant compared to traditional currency, which has been around for hundreds of years. It most certainly is in that regard.

I've seen Crypto's infancy and was part of it. I was involved in early Litecoin and Dogecoin and other altcoin mining and pools when they became a thing, more than a decade ago. I've seen hundreds of coins rise and fall. I'm intimately familiar with it, so don't try to tell me I don't know enough to make an informed decision here.

Mining is rather different from using the currency. I haven't been involved in mining. Mining probably is a waste of time for everyone other than a few people with high powered graphics card setups. Eventually there will be nothing left to mine and everything will rely on transaction fees, so that's not even a long-term factor. By all means, don't mine.

"A few issues" indeed, that I didn't even touch on in my reply. One of the major issues plaguing all forms of crypto is the very thing you are afraid of: it's all digital and can be manipulated. There are countless examples of Crypto manipulation as their trading value (and that is literally the only real value any currency has) is exactly as much as what people decide it's going to be.

Yes, the dollar value of crypto can be manipulated, just as literally any commodity or currency that is traded can be manipulated, unless is it literally pegged to the dollar. The more one crypto currency becomes widely used (which is the aspirational end goal), the less manipulable it is by whales, corporations, etc. Ideally you end up not caring about its dollar value because you're just spending the crypto, not going through dollars. If you're bothered by its volatility, you can change it for dollars or a stablecoin immediately upon receiving it, thus locking in its current dollar value.

If you're concerned about CBDC then you should also be concerned about all forms of crypto.

I don't see how that follows; the evils of CBDC are from the fact that they're created by the government, for the government. The government will steal money from people through minting/inflation, and have Orwellian levels of control over people's money (it won't really be people's money anymore, it'll be government-approved spending tokens that can be withdrawn or nerfed at any time). XMR is created by privacy advocates, for privacy advocates. And if you don't think privacy in your currency is important, it is.

Having seen first hand how one can invest thousands into something and then have it collapse overnight like it was some bad joke becoming worthless was a pretty good wake-up call to have a very critical look at it.

You don't have to invest thousands to simply use it, though. That may have been a bad decision.

And no, I'm not just talking about "investing money in a coin on an exchange" I'm talking real investments of hardware and energy.

Yeah... I'm not sure that was a good idea. It's much higher risk than just using (sending/receiving and even trading) a currency.

If nothing else, the work needed to maintain a blockchain (essential for any transactions to be possible) is literally destroying our planet

I've heard this "destroying our planet" claim before and I don't know whether I'm missing something, but isn't it utter nonsense? You've got what... a few thousand PCs working flat out with graphics cards to mine BTC and process blocks? Compared to all the world's computers, let alone all the world's energy usage, that's a drop in the ocean. Turn off crypto overnight and there'd be nary a change in the world's energy usage. In any case, if the world just switched to nuclear (as I think it should) there would be emissions-free energy for a long time, anyway. Fusion, and it becomes emissions- and waste-free pretty much forever.

for something that has zero intrinsic value.

Yes, it has no intrinsic value. One could argue that nothing has an intrinsic value, merely what value people are willing to ascribe to it. If you make some lovely food but no-one will pay you for it, you may find it useful to eat but it still has no value from a monetary perspective. Nevertheless, (some) crypto has significant extrinsic value, value which is assigned to it merely because a critical mass of people decide that it is worth a certain amount and acceptable as a form of currency. That's not nothing, is it? Pretty significant, actually.

For that reason alone, people like me ought not to be trying to embrace and help crypto. No, "Proof of stake" is not a solution for this -- in fact, it makes the playing field more unbalanced, preventing wide adoption by the everyday man. If you think that is somehow "maturing", then you don't understand the drivers behind it.

Got to admit I really don't understand POS. I've read intro videos on it and I just don't get how it works really. POW is complex but it does fundamentally make sense. But is it "destroying the planet"? Again, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding that claim, no. Not even close.

Also: it supports the grifting economy and is absolutely rife with criminality. I have no good words for that, period.

Frankly, so what? Any form of currency that isn't completely government-controlled and unanonymous is going to allow that. There are means to deal with grifting and criminality, problems that have existed for as long as humanity, other than having total government surveillance of your currency. You could make the same argument for a web browser or OS spying on everything you do. If that happens, it'll significantly reduce criminality on the web... right? It's far more important for evil governments / central banks not to have control over currency, which allows pretty much totalitarian control of all citizens (short of citizens resorting to bartering).

The problem is not artificial scarcity (since once again the only real value it has is an agreed trading value - it has no intrinsic value, and even more so, no agreed guarantees, unlike fiat).

What "agreed guarantees" does fiat have? In the last few years, massive amounts of fiat have been minted and even dollars are losing value fast. It's really not a safe haven for storing value. Safe havens are property, gold, silver, and frankly, Bitcoin (yeah it's volatile day-to-day but over the course of years it's holding and even increasing its dollar value much more than gold). The major use-case for Bitcoin, in fact, has become as a hedge against inflation, and it's doing a pretty good job of that, even though it's not really the main purpose for which it was created.

It doesn't matter how "scarce" you make a coin or how hard it becomes to mine them, since the economics of them have infinite fractional calculation making it relative. If you make a coin more scarce by design, people will trade in smaller increments of it -- as a result the market remains just as fluid and volatile as when you'd have a less "scarce" coin. Scarcity only matters if you have literally limited amounts of asset-backed resources. There's only so much you can divide precious metals up into and being usable. Crypto? not so much. you can just as easily trade with 0.000001 of a currency as you can 10,000 of a currency, if it's all just a number in a digital wallet.

It matters because a government can't mint a ton of new currency and thereby reduce the value of all existing currency, effectively stealing from those holding the existing currency. They do this all the time with fiat, and build it into the system as "inflation", implying that value loss for savings is just inevitable. This leads to a terrible situation where people don't want to save (and why should they? it will lose value fast), and therefore people spending everything they get ASAP even when they don't need the crap they're buying. Is it perfect? No, but avoiding that (as well as totalitarian government control) is a heck of a lot better than most alternatives I can see. And if you say not to use crypto, well, I don't think you're gonna have a choice. Not in many Western countries, at least. In the UK, a CBDC will be introduced in 2025 and I'd wager "old" fiat will fall out of use over maybe as little as 10 years. When the government is forcing everyone to be paid in CBDC, pay their groceries in CBDC, automatically converting their bank savings to CBDC, etc. it will become a fait accompli. And in some ways I wouldn't even blame the general populace for going along with it; government can do the switch in a way that's hardly noticeable given the amount of electronic transactions already happening, and they can make it pretty much impossible to pay for anything with old fiat. Cash may be the one sticking point, but I can see them phasing that out without too much trouble; I believe some Australian banks are already doing away with cash withdrawals.

[leothetechguy]

Having lost the staggering sum of 10 dollars due to market manipulation, my only advice is to just keep watching the space, it's cool from a technical perspective, but that's about it. You'll see everything Moonchild has said keep being a problem for the foreseeable future, and the more you look into it, the more you'll understand the points made.

[athenian200]

Why not just accept Monero payments?

Well, I'm not as familiar with crypto as Moonchild, but I will just say this.

From my perspective, Monero has the same problem as any other currency... you have to pay a fee to convert it into dollars. And since I have no interest in holding Monero (seeing as I can't walk down to Micro Center and spend it), I would just want a service that converts any Monero into dollars at the current exchange rate instantly. About the only advantage I can think of is that it would enable people to donate anonymously, if they don't want their identity known for some reason.

But I mean, if credit card transactions involve a fee, and converting Monero to dollars involves a fee, then why wouldn't I just use credit cards? It's the same thing. Holding Monero is pretty much the same thing as holding stock in a company. It's like if I owed you $300, but instead of paying you $300, I gave you a share of stock and said, "That's worth about $300," and you were stuck deciding whether to hold onto it hoping you'd get more out of it later, or sell it worrying it might not hold value. The only difference is that holding shares of stock in a company, means you might get paid dividends if they do well. With bonds, there's a good chance you'll get paid at the end. Something like Monero doesn't have that advantage, it's like investing in gold futures, or simply holding foreign currency. It's just a riskier and more volatile investment than other investments, I don't get the appeal.

Crypto is only a good deal is if you can get free electricity and use other people's hardware to mine it... which is precisely what some people do with botnets (and a really good reason not to use outdated operating systems, which have no protection against botnets that will try to mine crypto on your PC when you're not looking). But for anyone seeking to do legitimate business, it just isn't worth the risk.

[jez9999]

I don't get the appeal.

Crypto is only a good deal is if you can get free electricity and use other people's hardware to mine it... which is precisely what some people do with botnets (and a really good reason not to use outdated operating systems, which have no protection against botnets that will try to mine crypto on your PC when you're not looking). But for anyone seeking to do legitimate business, it just isn't worth the risk

It all depends on whether you think the current financial system is sustainable, and whether the government is about to replace it with something much, much worse. I think they are, and that the lifeboat of crypto is needed. But by all means, keep sleepwalking onward.

[athenian200]

It all depends on whether you think the current financial system is sustainable, and whether the government is about to replace it with something much, much worse. I think they are, and that the lifeboat of crypto is needed. But by all means, keep sleepwalking onward.

Okay, I understand the fear of financial system collapse, but how exactly is crypto a lifeboat? It's completely dependent on the Internet and the power grid to work. The Internet and the power grid are not sustainable without the current financial system. When the financial system goes, the Internet and the power grid will likely go down with it, at least for a while. Life as we know it will fall apart, and we'll be worrying about food and guns, not cryptocurrency. If the financial system falls apart, I'd rather have a few bars of gold hidden in my house, than a wallet full of cryptocurrency I won't be able to use.

However, there is a more immediate concern. The world's reserve currency is the US Dollar, and that's currently the only thing that allows us to live well. Look up the Breton Woods system, and then look at the Petrodollar and the Nixon shock. We are barely hanging on and have been barely hanging on for decades. If that ever changes, the US will probably be a third-world country overnight. The primary people who would benefit from a change to the status quo are Russia and China, because it would enable them to get around US sanctions and also make it impossible for the US pay off debts at a reasonable price, because foreign countries could demand payment in a currency that we can't print.

The main appeal of cryptocurrency right now seems to be that people who hold it can fly under the radar and pay for things anonymously, and presumably are not declaring the amount of crypto in their wallets on their tax forms. If it ever became more popular, it would be regulated to death because the government is not going to tolerate a currency it can't tax, whether it's crypto or fiat. Look at what the US did in the 1940s when FDR seized people's gold when the US needed to pay for a war. You think they can't seize find a way to seize crypto or break the encryption, that they won't regulate the cryptographic technology needed to make it? And I don't think anyone in the US, government or otherwise, particularly wants the consequences of the US dollar ceasing to be the world's reserve currency, which is a very real possibility if crypto takes over. Maybe the current system is not sustainable, but people are going to fight to keep it for as long as possible... because the moment it's gone, no crypto or stockpiling will save you from the decline in quality of life that follows.

Some people stockpile food and guns and live in the middle of nowhere... those people might survive. In my case? I'm far too dependent on modern conveniences and have no skills that would be useful. I'm basically screwed if that happens, and I know it. I just don't think I could be happy without the financial system as it exists. It's not that I don't get what you're talking about, it's that I don't think any kind life worth living by my standards would even be possible if that happened, so I have no incentive to prepare. I'm not sleepwalking... I'm walking onward with my eyes open and staring at my watch while wondering how long I have left, and watching the people who try to flee succumb to untimely deaths, knowing that I'm doomed when we get where we're going, but resigned to my fate and just lacking the energy to fight it.

If crypto gives you hope, more power to you... I just don't see how it's a lifeboat.

[Moonchild]

The main appeal of cryptocurrency right now seems to be that people who hold it can fly under the radar and pay for things anonymously

You know what also has that feature? Cash.
Bonus: cash doesn't require you to take more out of your wallet than what the thing you want to buy costs. Unlike crypto.

[jez9999]

The main appeal of cryptocurrency right now seems to be that people who hold it can fly under the radar and pay for things anonymously

You know what also has that feature? Cash.

Good luck sending that over the internet.

[athenian200]

Good luck sending that over the internet.

You can send it through the mail, though. In the US at least, it is possible to reserve a P.O. Box at the post office so that you can have people send you cash or other small items without having to give away your home address.

But seriously, it seems to me like all we really need is something like this:

https://www.zellepay.com/

But on an international scale. I'm guessing it would involve the central banks of various countries coming together, and agreeing to a common set of rules for sending money from one account to another at the current exchange rate. Currently all this is happening in the hands of companies like PayPal or via credit card processors like VIsa that are skimming off the top. Such stuff exists in a form already, but it's antiquated, wire transfers via IBAN numbers, and also ACH transfers designed for sending checks. If we could somehow bring that into the digital age and have the infrastructure in place so that banks can send money directly to each other across different currencies without a middle-man like Visa at a low cost, the problem is basically solved.

If crypto has a role to play at all (which I hope it doesn't), it should be behind-the-scenes, something banks send to each other to settle transactions, and not something individuals are expected to deal with directly. Just my two cents.

[BenFenner]

You can send [cash] through the mail, though. In the US at least

No one sends money through US carriers more than once unless they just like throwing away money. The loss rate on currency through US carriers flirts with 100%, and all of them exempt it from their liability processes.

[athenian200]

No one sends money through US carriers more than once unless they just like throwing away money. The loss rate on currency through US carriers flirts with 100%, and all of them exempt it from their liability processes.

Well, he was making the rather asinine argument that physical objects like currency can't be shipped through the Internet (as if that weren't obvious), and that's the level I was arguing on. Obviously for physical items you use the mail, I didn't intend to get into an argument about whether sending cash through the mail is a good idea. Of course, what you're talking about is why people used to send checks or money orders and not cash in the mail, but technically yes, you can send cash. You just have to make very, very sure it isn't obvious that what you're sending contains cash so that the postal workers won't be tempted to open it. The reason why you don't? Well, because if it gets lost or stolen, it's just gone. That doesn't mean it will always get lost or stolen, but it's risky, and when alternatives like money orders and checks exist that are more traceable, people didn't want to take the chance. Besides, I used to get Christmas and Birthday cards with cash in them, so obviously it doesn't always get stolen out of the envelope.

Incidentally, that is also why cryptocurrency isn't something I think people really want that often... most people like the traceability of things like checks or credit card transactions because it protects them from fraud. Sure, it means the government can spy on you potentially, but it also means that if someone cheats you out of your money or tries to defraud you, there's a paper trail and you can hold them accountable. Crypto doesn't have that at the same level, because the wallets are anonymous. So using crypto on the Internet is almost as bad as using a wire transfer on eBay, or cash in the mail. No protection from fraud, in dealings with a person that lives far from you. And as long as people have a choice between something that does protect them from fraud where they can complain to customer service and have something done, and something where they are just on their own, they'll take the one with better service. Also, a darker thought... how do I know the person isn't sending me stolen money, money they got from illegal activities, or maybe even money they got from illegally running a cryptominer on someone else's machine, and I don't want to be complicit with something like that for ethical reasons? There's very little chance of me having a guarantee with crypto that I'll ever find out if that was the case.

[Moonchild]

Well, he was making the rather asinine argument that physical objects like currency can't be shipped through the Internet (as if that weren't obvious), and that's the level I was arguing on.

You could argue that things like Western Union and Moneygram is sending cash through the internet. Yes you're going through a third party. But so is anything going through the internet.
Sending cash through any party is always risky. So is sending crypto through any party (like "cloud wallets" or most painfully: exchanges). Here's the kicker though: when it comes to crypto you have no choice but to rely on third parties if you actually want to spend it.

Incidentally, that is also why cryptocurrency isn't something I think people really want that often... most people like the traceability of things like checks or credit card transactions because it protects them from fraud.

it supports the grifting economy and is absolutely rife with criminality.

[moonbat]

The day it is possible to use crypto for regular everyday transactions from buying groceries to paying your bills online and everything else you do with fiat currency while also not having to give a crap about what the conversion value is - is the day crypto can be taken seriously.

Right now every damn crypto currency is nothing but a volatile stock, with its value only seen relative to USD or other fiat currency.

Want it to be an actual currency? I shouldn't have to care what it's worth in dollars any more than I have to care what dollars are worth in euros or pound sterling or vice versa when all I'm doing is buying regular everyday stuff from the corner shop near my house.

All the other points about being a grift etc are only because of it being used like a volatile stock instead of an actual medium of exchange.

[Moonchild]

All the other points about being a grift etc are only because of it being used like a volatile stock instead of an actual medium of exchange.

The thing is, nobody wants to change this. The people creating crypto coins want it to be a volatile stock because the main incentive by everyone involved is not, at all, to provide a fair medium of exchange, but instead to get rich quick. And it's subject to manipulation like pump-and-dump and all the other things stockmarkets have to guard against, only nobody provides oversight over crypto like stockmarkets. So what do you get? grifters. Because it's so damn easy to abuse.
Then, you run into the issue that crypto doesn't want regulation, because regulation and oversight is considered "evil". So, this will simply never change.

The only way crypto could fulfil that role of a true exchange currency would be if it is created and regulated by a global organisation that does not have financial incentive/greed, nor political or religious incentives as a driver. Good luck making that happen -- in fact the global sociopolitical atmosphere is steering away from that kind of environment, not towards it.

Humanity is probably simply not ready yet for something like that. tribalism is still way too much of a thing.

[moonbat]

The only way crypto could fulfil that role of a true exchange currency would be if it is created and regulated by a global organisation that does not have financial incentive/greed

Bitcoin has been legalized in El Salvador and a few other countries by the govt to use as legal tender, and those I'd say are the success stories. Ironic that it still takes a govt to make it work as a medium of exchange even if they aren't controlling the wuantity.