Fulham related - remember that crypto chat in here...

[Craven Mad]

Jay, you should take a look at the 'per transaction' environmental impact of bitcoin vs banking, which allows for a level comparison of the two options. Here's a good link: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

In broad terms, for me the issue is one of mining and 'proof of stake' cryptos seem to avoid this issue...

[Cambridge Pete]

Can we pay in Crypto currency for new players. As a senior I am still very dubious. As for the shirts like the away one

[cmg]

As someone who has never had any significant amount of money or is ever likely to (Any I might get I tend to spend on stuff) I consider myself a disengaged and entirely ignorant spectator of this business.
There are a coupe of things that amuse me: Is the fact that El Salvador has adopted it as a currency meant to be a confidence booster?
                                                              : Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have got involved! What could possibly go wrong?

"I'm here for one reason and one reason alone. I'm here to guess what the music might do a week, a month, a year from now. That's it. Nothing more. And standing here tonight, I'm afraid that I don't hear - a - thing. Just... silence."

[FFC1987]

Ah I see we're back to 'your opinions this because you haven't researched it bro'. World economists are are logger heads still with Crypto. Experts on both sides just don't seem to agree so clearly there's a fairly decent argument for it riding to the moon, or being a passing phase, or being around but not really becoming the next revolution, but that type of argument always falls flat. For what its worth, I think it's going to be a solid part of our future but for every 'watch this on youtube', there's a 'but watch this youtube'. It's really not a foregone conclusion like some are making out.

As for people who are in, just ask ol Elon to tweet about it and watch it rocket.

[Statto]

@jayffc, thanks for the patronising post.

I'm not an expert in crypto but I work in finance so have a decent level of knowledge and the general feel I get from most posts on here, including yours, is that with all due respect the technical understanding of these issues is if anything weaker than mine. Not least because I see different issues like decentralised currencies, blockchain and e-money conflated as if the benefits of one apply to another.

Blockchain and some of the other underlying tech has value and no doubt the world is moving away from coins and notes. But as for decentralised crypto currencies such as Bitcoin, it's generally accepted among regulators and anyone intelligent who isn't working in crypto that it's at best just pure gambling, at worst, a scam. By all means put your money in it if you fancy a punt, and you might make an 841% profit like the poster above has done, just like you might win millions if you buy a lottery ticket, but equally you might lose half or all your money like plenty of investors on Bitcoin will have done in the last few months.

The concept of a decentralised currency has lots of problems and substantially zero benefits. Nothing in your post represents a compelling argument to the contrary. Crypto currency investments are invariably justified with waffle about how many people are using it (which proves it's a popular fad, but not that it enhances the way we pay for things) or with conspiracy theories about it being out of reach of state monetary policy controls such as interest rate changes and quantitative easing - things which are in reality designed to ensure you don't wake up one morning and find a loaf of bread costs half your annual salary, like it might if you were paid in Bitcoin.

It will never replace fiat - and you can guarantee anyone who tells you otherwise is either another mug or on the take. 

[jayffc]

@jayffc, thanks for the patronising post.

I'm not an expert in crypto but I work in finance so have a decent level of knowledge and the general feel I get from most posts on here, including yours, is that with all due respect the technical understanding of these issues is if anything weaker than mine. Not least because I see different issues like decentralised currencies, blockchain and e-money conflated as if the benefits of one apply to another.

Blockchain and some of the other underlying tech has value and no doubt the world is moving away from coins and notes. But as for decentralised crypto currencies such as Bitcoin, it's generally accepted among regulators and anyone intelligent who isn't working in crypto that it's at best just pure gambling, at worst, a scam. By all means put your money in it if you fancy a punt, and you might make an 841% profit like the poster above has done, just like you might win millions if you buy a lottery ticket, but equally you might lose half or all your money like plenty of investors on Bitcoin will have done in the last few months.

The concept of a decentralised currency has lots of problems and substantially zero benefits. Nothing in your post represents a compelling argument to the contrary. Crypto currency investments are invariably justified with waffle about how many people are using it (which proves it's a popular fad, but not that it enhances the way we pay for things) or with conspiracy theories about it being out of reach of state monetary policy controls such as interest rate changes and quantitative easing - things which are in reality designed to ensure you don't wake up one morning and find a loaf of bread costs half your annual salary, like it might if you were paid in Bitcoin.

It will never replace fiat - and you can guarantee anyone who tells you otherwise is either another mug or on the take. 

Speak in a patronising tone and be responded to in kind.

You speak like someone absolutely entrenched in legacy md centralised finance to the point they cant imagine a world beyond it. Absolutely echoes of the dot com naysayers. I see plenty of merit for decentralised finance especially given the issues weve had with centralised finance the last few decades too numerous to go over on a fulham board.

Well disagree on this, but I can assure you, given I'm surrounded by Devs (friends) with a greater understanding on the intricacies of the tech than both of us. I'm taken by their knowledge and arguments regarding the tech and use cases over yours. You still think it's all a ponzi...crack on....my post was as I stated just scratching the surface not an intricate dissection as wed be here all night...was happy to point to more detailed articles/videos etc but forget it as ever you are stubborn in your conviction.

The only people who lost money were those who sold. The rest are watching as , predictably,and historically,Bitcoin makes yet another recovery.

I'm actually really not a bitcoin fan personally but you spoke in terms if crypto currency as though bitcoin was all there is to it...as I say there is a world of utility worth investing in under the umbrella of "crypto currency".

Fwiw I'm very much in the camp of not caring for bitcoin but I appreciate it laid the foundation for more advanced and efficient tech + projects with greater utility.. .My focus is elsewhere but frankly I'm more than happy for you to stick to what ya know and not look into it.
I'm confident in the conviction that the projects I'm personally invested in within the umbrella of 'crypto' have plenty value and real world utility and will be around for a long time to come....

I wasnt the one lumping all of them together with bitcoin.
Anyway

You do you as ever

[jayffc]

Ah I see we're back to 'your opinions this because you haven't researched it bro'. World economists are are logger heads still with Crypto. Experts on both sides just don't seem to agree so clearly there's a fairly decent argument for it riding to the moon, or being a passing phase, or being around but not really becoming the next revolution, but that type of argument always falls flat. For what its worth, I think it's going to be a solid part of our future but for every 'watch this on youtube', there's a 'but watch this youtube'. It's really not a foregone conclusion like some are making out.

As for people who are in, just ask ol Elon to tweet about it and watch it rocket.

The last thing I want is Elon tweeting about anything I'm invested in!

[blingo]

I'm happy to be a mug with the amounts I'm making Mr Statto. However, reading your last post it would appear that you need a lot more knowledge than you currently have on crypto before slating it. It will never fully replace fiat, but neither will it be subject to governments controlling money in the way they do now with QE and interest rates as and how they see fit. I had you down as a lot brighter person. I'm guessing all the institutons investing in bc eth etc are also fall under the category of 'MUGS'  in your view?


As a point of interest, this is who I get my info from.

Technical Specialist, DLT Team at Gibraltar Financial Services Commission

[jayffc]

Jay, you should take a look at the 'per transaction' environmental impact of bitcoin vs banking, which allows for a level comparison of the two options. Here's a good link: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

In broad terms, for me the issue is one of mining and 'proof of stake' cryptos seem to avoid this issue...

As an investor in cardano I can assure you I'm all for the positives of Proof of stake consensus 

That said I enjoy what Ergo are doing with Nipipows ...new approach to proof of work,but infinitely less power consumption and doesnt require huge mining farms to be profitable

[Statto]

@jayffc, thanks for the patronising post.

I'm not an expert in crypto but I work in finance so have a decent level of knowledge and the general feel I get from most posts on here, including yours, is that with all due respect the technical understanding of these issues is if anything weaker than mine. Not least because I see different issues like decentralised currencies, blockchain and e-money conflated as if the benefits of one apply to another.

Blockchain and some of the other underlying tech has value and no doubt the world is moving away from coins and notes. But as for decentralised crypto currencies such as Bitcoin, it's generally accepted among regulators and anyone intelligent who isn't working in crypto that it's at best just pure gambling, at worst, a scam. By all means put your money in it if you fancy a punt, and you might make an 841% profit like the poster above has done, just like you might win millions if you buy a lottery ticket, but equally you might lose half or all your money like plenty of investors on Bitcoin will have done in the last few months.

The concept of a decentralised currency has lots of problems and substantially zero benefits. Nothing in your post represents a compelling argument to the contrary. Crypto currency investments are invariably justified with waffle about how many people are using it (which proves it's a popular fad, but not that it enhances the way we pay for things) or with conspiracy theories about it being out of reach of state monetary policy controls such as interest rate changes and quantitative easing - things which are in reality designed to ensure you don't wake up one morning and find a loaf of bread costs half your annual salary, like it might if you were paid in Bitcoin.

It will never replace fiat - and you can guarantee anyone who tells you otherwise is either another mug or on the take. 

Speak in a patronising tone and be responded to in kind.

You speak like someone absolutely entrenched in legacy md centralised finance to the point they cant imagine a world beyond it. Absolutely echoes of the dot com naysayers. I see plenty of merit for decentralised finance especially given the issues weve had with centralised finance the last few decades too numerous to go over on a fulham board.

Well disagree on this, but I can assure you, given I'm surrounded by Devs (friends) with a greater understanding on the intricacies of the tech than both of us. I'm taken by their knowledge and arguments regarding the tech and use cases over yours. You still think it's all a ponzi...crack on....my post was as I stated just scratching the surface not an intricate dissection as wed be here all night...was happy to point to more detailed articles/videos etc but forget it as ever you are stubborn in your conviction.

The only people who lost money were those who sold. The rest are watching as , predictably,and historically,Bitcoin makes yet another recovery.

I'm actually really not a bitcoin fan personally but you spoke in terms if crypto currency as though bitcoin was all there is to it...as I say there is a world of utility worth investing in under the umbrella of "crypto currency".

Fwiw I'm very much in the camp of not caring for bitcoin but I appreciate it laid the foundation for more advanced and efficient tech + projects with greater utility.. .My focus is elsewhere but frankly I'm more than happy for you to stick to what ya know and not look into it.
I'm confident in the conviction that the projects I'm personally invested in within the umbrella of 'crypto' have plenty value and real world utility and will be around for a long time to come....

I wasnt the one lumping all of them together with bitcoin.
Anyway

You do you as ever

So again the distinction between the concepts of decentralised currency and blockchain/tech has gone completely over your head with a long but largely irrelevant rant about your "dev" mates' views on the latter. Name one advantage of the former over fiat currencies - go on, try. Actually articulate it in simple terms...

[jayffc]

@jayffc, thanks for the patronising post.

I'm not an expert in crypto but I work in finance so have a decent level of knowledge and the general feel I get from most posts on here, including yours, is that with all due respect the technical understanding of these issues is if anything weaker than mine. Not least because I see different issues like decentralised currencies, blockchain and e-money conflated as if the benefits of one apply to another.

Blockchain and some of the other underlying tech has value and no doubt the world is moving away from coins and notes. But as for decentralised crypto currencies such as Bitcoin, it's generally accepted among regulators and anyone intelligent who isn't working in crypto that it's at best just pure gambling, at worst, a scam. By all means put your money in it if you fancy a punt, and you might make an 841% profit like the poster above has done, just like you might win millions if you buy a lottery ticket, but equally you might lose half or all your money like plenty of investors on Bitcoin will have done in the last few months.

The concept of a decentralised currency has lots of problems and substantially zero benefits. Nothing in your post represents a compelling argument to the contrary. Crypto currency investments are invariably justified with waffle about how many people are using it (which proves it's a popular fad, but not that it enhances the way we pay for things) or with conspiracy theories about it being out of reach of state monetary policy controls such as interest rate changes and quantitative easing - things which are in reality designed to ensure you don't wake up one morning and find a loaf of bread costs half your annual salary, like it might if you were paid in Bitcoin.

It will never replace fiat - and you can guarantee anyone who tells you otherwise is either another mug or on the take. 

Speak in a patronising tone and be responded to in kind.

You speak like someone absolutely entrenched in legacy md centralised finance to the point they cant imagine a world beyond it. Absolutely echoes of the dot com naysayers. I see plenty of merit for decentralised finance especially given the issues weve had with centralised finance the last few decades too numerous to go over on a fulham board.

Well disagree on this, but I can assure you, given I'm surrounded by Devs (friends) with a greater understanding on the intricacies of the tech than both of us. I'm taken by their knowledge and arguments regarding the tech and use cases over yours. You still think it's all a ponzi...crack on....my post was as I stated just scratching the surface not an intricate dissection as wed be here all night...was happy to point to more detailed articles/videos etc but forget it as ever you are stubborn in your conviction.

The only people who lost money were those who sold. The rest are watching as , predictably,and historically,Bitcoin makes yet another recovery.

I'm actually really not a bitcoin fan personally but you spoke in terms if crypto currency as though bitcoin was all there is to it...as I say there is a world of utility worth investing in under the umbrella of "crypto currency".

Fwiw I'm very much in the camp of not caring for bitcoin but I appreciate it laid the foundation for more advanced and efficient tech + projects with greater utility.. .My focus is elsewhere but frankly I'm more than happy for you to stick to what ya know and not look into it.
I'm confident in the conviction that the projects I'm personally invested in within the umbrella of 'crypto' have plenty value and real world utility and will be around for a long time to come....

I wasnt the one lumping all of them together with bitcoin.
Anyway

You do you as ever

So again the distinction between the concepts of decentralised currency and blockchain/tech has gone completely over your head with a long but largely irrelevant rant about your "dev" mates' views on the latter. Name one advantage of the former over fiat currencies - go on, try. Actually articulate it in simple terms...

In my original post I used the term crypto as an overarching umbrella term ...no one mentioned bitcoin specifically until you did. As stated crypto is just a multi faceted broad term but saying crypto doesnt have to mean any particular project. Many platfirms will fail,many wont, just as with traditional business


So if the distinction is going over anyones head it isnt mine.

In answer to your question there are alot too extensive to spend time I dont have explaining each intricacy

That said...if we really must talk in non nuanced cliff notes

- decreased risk of manipulation from corrupt centralised entities controlling all assets and personal data....

In relation to cardano specifically this is a problem particualry prevalent and amplified in a number of african nations which is their initial main focus.

[jayffc]

Should add

You've asked for a simple answer
That's one but it's not a simple topic...which is why I was saying it may he worth deep diving the literature on it. It's not a cop out, it's just not a simple one sentence answer

[FFC1987]

Way to give up any credibility you had in this area Jay 

[jayffc]

Way to give up any credibility you had in this area Jay 

You don't believe  that with defi there is,in theory a decreased risk of manipulation from a centralised entity,or something else in the post?

Alright man, no worries, as I say , I dont gotta convince you guys, you disagree then no worries,no skin off my back.

[FFC1987]

Way to give up any credibility you had in this area Jay 

You don't believe  that with defi there is,in theory a decreased risk of manipulation from a centralised entity,or something else in the post?

Alright man, no worries, as I say , I dont gotta convince you guys, you disagree then no worries,no skin off my back.

I mean, I gave my position earlier, in support of it. But you just copped out massively on the debate.

[jayffc]

Way to give up any credibility you had in this area Jay 

You don't believe  that with defi there is,in theory a decreased risk of manipulation from a centralised entity,or something else in the post?

Alright man, no worries, as I say , I dont gotta convince you guys, you disagree then no worries,no skin off my back.

I mean, I gave my position earlier, in support of it. But you just copped out massively on the debate.

He asked for 1 simple answer and I gave one above.

Reality is it is an extensive topic and I do have a life and job outside of spending all day writing up what could be an extensive multi page thread on the merits of defi and specific defi projects (not all are the same) on a Fulham message board. ...when surely it would take less time for everyone involved to just link to some info that may be useful for people to do their own research and reach whatever conclusions they reach from there. It matters little wether someone I dont know believes I comprehend the topics at hand or not. So I'm not particularly concerned about my knowledge of defi/crypto being questioned here. As I say I'm secure enough in my convictions there that I dont need it confirmed by random people on the internet that dont know me. If someone acertains that I dont know what I'm talking about from this convo...cool, no drama.

It's not a cop out I answered the question-explain one benefit in simple words.....I gave one...then I followed it up saying...that's a simple answer as requested, but reality is it's an extensive conversation probably better suited to other mediums given the shape of my week right now!I

I dont have the extended time it deserves today to walk someone through each step of the merits of defi, especially given there are plenty of extensive articles, videos , breakdowns of this topic available with a quick google search...its possible to look up arguments for or against and form an opinion from there. indeed that's what I had to do at the start and its why I'd originally offered, to pass on some links that may or may not be useful. Sure I can spend my day reiterating in my own words each point and why I personally agree or disagree ...but why do so when there are plenty of well written articles and pieces on this readily available.

But nay bother...if individuals want to rubbish it without taking the time to really extensively research it beyond their own immediate circle of info then all good.

[Simply91]

Will be interesting to see, the impact on retail banks, if central banks do end up rolling out their own digital currencies, so everyday people can use it for everyday purposes.

There was a good article in the economist a few months ago on this looking at the pros and cons - one point which was quite interesting was around the general lack of innovation in the banking / finance industry, with the last successful innovative idea executed being the cash point! Hence a new idea is overdue and maybe crypto currency controlled/ issued  by the central gov is that.

[Plodder]

I think there may be a long term future for government regulated digital currencies, but not for the existing generation of cryptocurrencies as a mechanism for buying and selling goods and services.  Tt is noteworthy that cryptocurrencies still don't have any intrinsic value - their worth is still measured and expressed in fiat currency terms (i.e. "I have got x bitcoins which are worth y pounds", never "I have got x pounds which are worth y bitcoins").  As things stand, cryptocurrencies are tradeable assets, measured in terms of their fiat currency value; they have not become replacements for money as intended.

I fear for a world in which cryptocurrencies become the dominant force behind economic activity.  I think that they would badly damage the lives of billions of people, unless taken over as digital currencies and regulated by government. It would take an essay or even a book to set out all the reasons, but I'll summarise just three, the first two as mentioned by Tim Harford, a respected economist, statistician and thinker:

(1) Your bank can send a replacement internet banking login if you forget yours or lose it. Lose the passcode to your Bitcoin wallet, and you can kiss all your money goodbye. (A problem for inheritance too if someone dies without passing on their passcode)

(2) Banks and other intermediaries who hold/control fiat currencies can also resolve disputes. How best to do that with blockchain "smart contracts" is most kindly described as an evolving conversation.

(3) Cryptocurrency safety - there is none. Fiat currency is guaranteed by government. If you hold money in a bank, there is a high degree of protection against you losing money from criminal activity or the bank going bust; but cryptocurrency isn't backed by anything. Wallets are insecure , and if you get hacked, you don't have a way to get your money back. It's gone. I find that frightening.

Digital currencies will only become accepted once those fundamental problems have been addressed, and I can't see anything other than governments taking on this role.

[Simply91]

I think there may be a long term future for government regulated digital currencies, but not for the existing generation of cryptocurrencies as a mechanism for buying and selling goods and services.  Tt is noteworthy that cryptocurrencies still don't have any intrinsic value - their worth is still measured and expressed in fiat currency terms (i.e. "I have got x bitcoins which are worth y pounds", never "I have got x pounds which are worth y bitcoins").  As things stand, cryptocurrencies are tradeable assets, measured in terms of their fiat currency value; they have not become replacements for money as intended.

I fear for a world in which cryptocurrencies become the dominant force behind economic activity.  I think that they would badly damage the lives of billions of people, unless taken over as digital currencies and regulated by government. It would take an essay or even a book to set out all the reasons, but I'll summarise just three, the first two as mentioned by Tim Harford, a respected economist, statistician and thinker:

(1) Your bank can send a replacement internet banking login if you forget yours or lose it. Lose the passcode to your Bitcoin wallet, and you can kiss all your money goodbye. (A problem for inheritance too if someone dies without passing on their passcode)

(2) Banks and other intermediaries who hold/control fiat currencies can also resolve disputes. How best to do that with blockchain "smart contracts" is most kindly described as an evolving conversation.

(3) Cryptocurrency safety - there is none. Fiat currency is guaranteed by government. If you hold money in a bank, there is a high degree of protection against you losing money from criminal activity or the bank going bust; but cryptocurrency isn't backed by anything. Wallets are insecure , and if you get hacked, you don't have a way to get your money back. It's gone. I find that frightening.

Digital currencies will only become accepted once those fundamental problems have been addressed, and I can't see anything other than governments taking on this role.

Good points.

Would you also add the environmental issue - e.g. needing to find a more efficient way of mining and trading digital which doesn't take up so much energy. My very basic understanding is that, the calculations become more complex, the more you mine coin, which requires more and more electricity to run the servers.

[MikeTheCubed]

I believe the real agenda behind CBDC is for there to be 'programmable' money, which for example would allow:

• Money which 'expires' if not spent within a given period of time
• Money with an in-built contract as to what it can or cannot be spent on
• Money which is returned automatically if conditions of an in-built contract are not fulfilled

Potential for extreme tyranny if such a technology were to be abused.