[MiKeLezZ]

Originariamente inviato da Ryddyck

C'è (sempre il solito) problema, non spiegano per quale motivo è: una bolla, uno schema ponzi ed un disastro ambientale
Passi sul disastro ambientale legato al consumo di energia elettrica (sempre al solito in via di risoluzione eh ) ma perché sarebbe una bolla ed uno schema ponzi?
Pur essendo un banchiere (perché alla fine questo è) è inutile menarla sul fatto che la banca centrale (e gli istituti di vigilanza) protegge i cittadini quando non lo ha fatto benissimo né dalla bolla sui subprime (di cui alcuni ne sostenevano anche la visibilità molti anni prima) né da uno schema ponzi in stile Maddof.
A questo punto, secondo la mia visione, è molto più semplice dar retta a Giancarlo con il suo "Do no harm" (utilizzato anche per Internet al tempo, tutti volevano creare la loro Internet personale e poi si è visto il risultato... adesso tutti vogliono la loro blockchain con i loro token ) cercando di regolamentare la proliferazione di ICO (leggi truffe e schemi ponzi) e gli exchange (leggi tassare a dovere) piuttosto che bandire in generale qualcosa che non possono bandire

PS: vedo che comunque da oggi sono in leggera ripresa tutte le crypto, domani mattina sicuramente staranno sopra gli 8k, come volevo dimostrare prima ancora che si tenesse la discussione in commissione al senato

Certo che lo giustifica

Debasement. As I mentioned, we may be seeing the modern-day equivalent of clipping and
culling. In Bitcoin, these take the form of forks, a type of spin-off in which developers clone Bitcoin’s
software, release it with a new name and a new coin, after possibly adding a few new features or tinkering
with the algorithms’ parameters. Often, the objective is to capitalise on the public’s familiarity with Bitcoin
to make some serious money, at least virtually. Last year alone, 19 Bitcoin forks came out, including Bitcoin
Cash, Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond. Forks can fork again, and many more could happen. After all, it
just takes a bunch of smart programmers and a catchy name. As in the past, these modern-day clippings
dilute the value of existing ones, to the extent such cryptocurrencies have any economic value at all.

Trust. As the saying goes, trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair.
Historical experiences suggest that these “assets” are probably not sustainable as money. Cryptocurrencies
are not the liability of any individual or institution, or backed by any authority. Governance weaknesses,
such as the concentration of their ownership, could make them even less trustworthy. Indeed, to use them
often means resorting to an intermediary (for example, the bitcoin exchanges) to which one has to trust
one’s money. More generally, they piggyback on the same institutional infrastructure that serves the
overall financial system and on the trust that it provides. This reflects their challenge to establish their own
trust in the face of cyber-attacks, loss of customers’ funds, limits on transferring funds and inadequate
market integrity.

Inefficiency. Novel technology is not the same as better technology or better economics. That is
clearly the case with Bitcoin: while perhaps intended as an alternative payment system with no government
involvement, it has become a combination of a bubble, a Ponzi scheme and an environmental disaster.
The volatility of bitcoin renders it a poor means of payment and a crazy way to store value. Very few people
use it for payments or as a unit of account. In fact, at a major cryptocurrency conference the registration
fee could not be paid with bitcoins because it was too costly and slow: only conventional money was
accepted.

To the extent they are used, bitcoins and their cousins seem more attractive to those who want
to make transactions in the black or illegal economy, rather than everyday transactions. In a way, this
should not be surprising, since individuals who massively evade taxes or launder money are the ones who
are willing to live with cryptocurrencies’ extreme price volatility. In practice, central bank experiments show
that DLT-based systems are very expensive to run and slower and much less efficient to operate than
conventional payment and settlement systems. The electricity used in the process of mining bitcoins is
staggering, estimated to be equal to the amount Singapore uses every day in electricity, making them
socially wasteful and environmentally bad.
Therefore, the current fascination with these cryptocurrencies seems to have more to do with a
speculative mania than any use as a form of electronic payment, except for illegal activities. Accordingly,
authorities are edging closer and closer to clamping down to contain the risks related to cryptocurrencies.

Central banks need to safeguard payment systems. To date, Bitcoin is not functional as a means
of payment, but it relies on the oxygen provided by the connection to standard means of payments and
trading apps that link users to conventional bank accounts.

Le solite cose. Però da un po' di soddisfazione arrivarci da soli e poi sentire che sono le stesse conclusioni a cui sono arrivati altri, sicuramente più capaci.