Is he right?

mfw burgers actually go in debt to study this (((misinformation)))

Attached: 1522727786366.gif (499x499, 1.09M)

many of these arguments have been about since before I got in and BTC was at $600. same fucking twats that fud'd me out of buying sub $300

He is a brainlet that cant understand the basics of cryptography and statistics anyway is funny how they come up with these kind of bullshit in a bear market imagine him thrash talking cryptos in a bull market btcp pumping 2k while this brainlet tries to fud things he doesn't understand

Attached: Screenshot-2018-4-5 Nicholas Weaver ( ncweaver) Twitter.png (882x287, 46K)

I assume nothing has changed from that time, why and how would they even invent new arguments

He is a SJW cuck from Berkley. His opinion and his entire existence is worthless.

Just gunna leave this here for you goys..

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 10.44.29 AM.png (684x148, 41K)

Because there's not new arguments left to fud btc they literally tried everything from btc is Satan to the tether fud to korean banning and unbanning btc every couple of weeks

>tfw Smith is a jewish name

what the fuck

Hes not wrong.
Crypto is inherently flawed.
However that doesnt mean its not a good investment.
People who dont like pyramid schemes are usually the ones who are late to buy in so they shit on it in hopes of fucking people over.
Crypto currency will never become Americas national currency because they would lose all control of it and that is a sign of weakness for a country.

lmao dudes a schizo

This is like someone from the 18th century talking about the fraud of the securities markets because of the litany of fraudulent projects, totally ignoring the benefits of the market and the solid projects. Oh boy, you discovered that 99% of erc-20 tokens are shit/scams and that 80% of coin are useless. Brilliant.

This liberal 'professor' is a fucking fraud. He hasn't said a single thing in the first two minutes that is actually true.

He refers to fiat currency as 'money' when it is intrinsically valueless. Gold is money.

>you need banks and banknotes because they're good and not corrupt, banks never do bad things
>with crypto though, it's a pyramid scheme, because I literally have no actual reason why it is other than scaling issues one coin is facing

What a stupid fucking kike.

"cryptocurrencies are provably inferior when you don't require censorship resistance"
1. much of the point of cryptocurrencies is censorship resistance.
2. international bank transfers take several days. cryptocurrency transfers take a few minutes.
3. cryptocurrencies even just in their currency aspect offer use cases traditional currencies couldn't do. i.e.: secure gaming with money
4. cryptocurrencies allow for predictable inflation models
"any volative crypto requires two currency conversion steps"
this assumes your client or seller doesn't accept crypto
"any stable crypto requires an entity"
decentralized stablecoins exist. DAI has maintained a $1 value despite a 64% crash in the underlying collateral asset (ETH). there is NO bank, nor any kind of centralized authority approving you for a DAI loan. you load metamask with the appropriate amount of ETH, enter the loan yourself and you get it

"blockchain security guarantees are inefficient and overrated"
in comparison to what? the USD lost almost 100x of its value in one century, and maintaining its strength has required endless military expenses, not only economic costs but also human suffering
"a private blockchain is trivial to implement"
a private blockchain lacks most of the use cases of a public blockchain
"any lottery-based reward creates mining pools"
any amount of mining pools above 1 represents an improvement over fiat currency. true decentralization is an ongoing challenge, insinuating things that are difficult shouldn't be done because they are difficult is a logical fallacy
"code developers can act as central authorities"
again it's certainly not all roses, but unlike governments having complete freedom to do whatever, said developers are bound at least to some extent to the community reaction
"protection is limited to the amount of money wasted"
this is still senseless without drawing a comparison at least to the money spent on banking institutions and military expenses

>he's not wrong
You're retarded
>crypto is flawed
Because our system is not
>crypto will never....
Yeah sure kiddo people like you used to say the dollar would never ever not be backed by gold

Man, crypto will be in the future, but will not be THE future.

FIAT money will still exist, and crypto will become a means of exchanging money in an useful way for some desirable goods for which FIAT money would make it less accessible.

Fine, but censorship resistance isn't absolutely irrelevant.

Fair, things aren't as decentralized as they appear and reduction of costs may not be paid the way we would like, maybe you get some coins for running something for me and I also pay you in dollars X a month because you don't trust that coin isn't going to dump.

Not buying into death spirals because difficulty gets adjusted, miners may have to readjust their business (basically limit investment, slower transactions) but I think there's a sustainable point, I don't agree with the idea that we can get stuck forever.

Not much to say here, smart contracts can still be useful but a wrong line of code and the contract may never pay who it intended to pay even without an attacker. So who is really interested in it and how do they want to deal with these obstacles, how much capital do they want to trust on it?

That's what I have I don't know.

Nice response.
You sure used all those facts and figures to prove me wrong.
Its one thing to change what backs your money and another to choose what you use as currency.
Look at the travesty that is the Euro.
Countries switched to a currency they didnt have direct control of and greece wrecked everyones value.

This is how I see it too, for example using computation power from idle devices may make more sense to be paid in crypto than dollars.

These arguments are so dumb. I would genuinely drop out of the class. I dislike crypto and don't hold anymore, but these arguments are the exact kind someone who goes in to learn about crypto to disparage it would come to.

In other words if I literally set out to prove with the internet is dumb and lame and stupid and can never work, I could find enough psuedo-arguments and evidence to support my conjecture. But it isn't a balance evaluation because they are ignoring many of bitcoins strongest points. Often a few strong points outdoes a hundred weakpoints.

See the attached image from an article from 1995.

But anyways these would be my counter-arguments:

Bitcoin has precisely TWO value propositions
>The supply is inherently fixed and impossible to forge
>Transactions can be sent and verified without any identification beyond a private key

The simply truth is if bitcoin remains worth more than 10 USD, it has succeeded. Fullstop. It might not have made more than a handful of people rich, but it will exist as something worth more than nothing that cannot be printed or hacked or taken away. That's all it set out to do. These idiots don't realise bitcoin doesn't need to replace the FED, it simply needs to be worth a reasonable amount. To go from 1 cent to even 100 USD is a monumental achievement and means bitcoin will always exist as a means of exchanging money discretely. Not necessarily privately, but certainly discretely. The burden of proof that bitcoin has failed lies on the naysayers.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 16.55.09.png (1358x1050, 317K)

>5 minutes to explain

lol okay

"limited capacity fee death spiral"
bitcoin != {crypto}

"speedrunning 500 years of bad economics"
recognizing the old economic system is flawed could be ground for evaluation of a new system
"exchanges are full of frauds banned in the 1930s"
centralized exchanges are antithesis to the spirit of crypto, a necessary nuisance due to fiat. with decentralized exchanges coming online and more adoption, the problem will hopefully wane
to address the logical flaw in the argument itself, this is akin to claiming capitalism is inherently flawed because apple uses chinese sweatshops. no model is defined by individual participants in it
"tether"
no argument on that one, it needs to explode
"ICOs"
ICOs are gambling
"cryptokitties"
gaming with money is going to be the killer application of ethereum in the short term, whether people want it or not. millenials like gaming, and any higher purpose has been squashed by the globalist machine
"smart contracts are finance bots"
not even sure what that means. a smart contract is just a piece of code, you can make it do anything a normal program could do on a very low power computer
public access is a boon, helps us move out of the cancerous closed source community. the best aspect of cryptocurrency may yet just be that we discovered a way to make open source development financially viable. if you're actually interested in openness and human connection and not just in the fake globalist way, this should be an incredibly exciting development

>See the attached image from an article from 1995.
Well, he's actually partly right.

That's because people are shit at predicting the future but good at ballparking it. A lot of people realised the potential of the internet without being able to truly articulate it. The same is happening with crypto. At the time everyone said the internet would be used to create virtual classrooms and for voting on legislation remotely or some shit, no one could think of facebook and youtube etc. So in the same way people can vaguely express half brained applications for crypto, but in 20 years it'll be ubiquitous.

i would be depressed too if i gave some shitty presentations on how bitcoin is terrible when it was $100 instead of just throwing a couple thousand dollars in and becoming a millionaire

Oh God, just the way he speaks

No. He thinks he is though.

>requires two conversions
Same as when people changed from using stones to using paper for money. He apparently expects both a revolution, and everything staying the same.
>Requires banks
Well no shit, barely any merchants are accepting BTC yet. Could have been much better, but core kiked out and turned btc into a ponzi, losing 3 years for us.
>trivial to implement private blockchains
Private blockchains are usually created using Hyperledger, which has multiple full-time contributors and has tons of additional UX/security features. What has this cuck coded?
>proof-of-whatever/no central authorities being A LIE
It's a lie that it's all maths, as devs are a central point of failure. If he means anything else, he should have elaborated, he sounds immature
>lottery-based reward creates mining pools
Every profitable opportunity creates a market niche, every market niche is either captured by only a few entities, or the multiple entities in it form pools. There's nothing wrong with that, it's literally how the world works.
>devs are central authorities
correct, and sad. This is how the project got hijacked by kikes
>Protection is limited to the amount of money wasted
If they turned a profit, it's not wasted, but then again this guy is a commie. The protection is also much better than SWIFT, so the word "limited" sounds like a joke here. As does the snarky remark at the bottom, guy sounds prepubescent.
>Transactions, capacity
If miners are up to it, apparently they're making money, so they welcome "spam". Again, this guy is a commie so he probably doesn't get it.
>exploitable
Both are being exploited, and I've never seen the "victim" miners complain
>full of frauds banned in the 30-s
duh, technocrat regulation weakens the community's "immune system". 1 year after the first scam ico, new scam ICO-s are already failing to get money, so obviously we're improving without government intervention. But the author is a commie, so he'll turn a blind eye to that.

Attached: pepe5.jpg (655x527, 34K)

>If he means anything else, he should have elaborated
it's a slide from a presentation, there is a vid ITT

Of course he's immature, he's a professor.

Frankly speaking, what we have today (e-commerce, social media, online entertainment) is still a little bit more dumbed down than fully virtualized schools and governments. Which means, reality doesn't necessarily exceed the expectations.

dem digits

How can anyone tell the difference between a scam ICO and a legitimate project especially when the market prefers pump and dump scams overall and SWIFT just announced that blockchain is useless and existing systems are superior

His little submissive cuck voice tells me he's pissed he missed out.

Cryptocucks utterly BTFO

how can you ever recover

ebin