Bitcoin cash is trying an other route with bigger blocks but it remains to be seen if it scales well enough to real-world currency usage. And of course there's the big problem of cryptocurrencies being useless as currencies because they're not stable enough. Which itself can be largely blamed on their limited supply and inflationary nature which is necessary to bootstrap them (there's an incentive to get in early) but seems to turn against them in the long run since nobody wants to spend something that's by design supposed to become scarcer and scarcer.
It might be theoretically free but it doesn't work great so far. And of course we could discuss whether a completely free market is a good or a bad thing, but that's a whole different debate.
The centralization narrative involving LN is somewhat mischaracterized IMHO. Given that source-routing puts control of payments into the the payer, you can choose to mitigate the custodial risk of a single hop holding up your funds in their payment channel a number of ways. For instance, there is no reason one payment from person A to person B needs to involve only one route.
Intelligent wallet software, on the order of tens of milliseconds, could break up one payment of $10 into 100 different routes across numerous payment channels. In addition to giving you custodial risk mitigation, its also beneficial for privacy as well.
That gives well connected "bank" nodes a lot of power because they can decide who they connect with (you could imagine paying a "bank" node to connect with you to enable cheaper transactions for your customers) and as a user you have an incentive to host your coins in one of these bank nodes so that it remains easily and cheaply available for purchases. Meanwhile a small indie shop (or some guy selling socks on ebay) won't have any channel so transacting with them will end up more expensive than buying from a popular store.
Basically you've reinvented Visa without the insurance, regulations and customer protection. At least that's how it looks like to me.
I guess we'll know soon enough which one of us is right. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between.
I think it ends up being more nuanced than that, with plenty of gradations of all of those factors.
If it means, "Literally nobody can know whether I prefer pads or tampons, and where I get them, not even the person I buy pads or tampons from", then I'm going to lean toward paying cash at some random drug store. A brick and mortar because getting things shipped to me requires giving them identifying information, and cash because it has literally zero fees and leaves no paper trail.
If I have to buy something online, then I already have to give them my name and address so I can get it shipped to me. At that point I may not care if my bank and the credit card processing agency also have a record of the transaction, because the info's already out there. At that point it's just a question of whether there are privacy laws that prevent parties from selling too much information or not - either way, I'm guessing 1 and 3 parties will ultimately fall in roughly the same equivalence class, on the privacy front.
Personally, I don't see a middle path where blockchain is preferable to either of those options. If I want complete privacy, then I don't want that transaction appearing on the blockchain, either. If I don't, well, might as well get some consumer protection.
Only the subset of privacy concerned consumers who don't want anyone to know whether they prefer pads or tampons will go out of their way to visit a random drug store.
Except that Bitcoin is (with consensual upgrade) infinitely divisible. (E.g. the network can [vote to] move to 16 decimal places, and so on).
If you have $100 on your bank account today then you've got incentives to spend or invest it soon because it's slowly losing value because of inflation, your $100 will probably buy you fewer goods and services in the future that it does now.
Now if you have BTC100 on your wallet and you believe that Bitcoin will succeed as a currency then you know for a fact that these bitcoins will be more valuable in the future than they are now (because the demand will grow but the supply is capped). Ergo you have strong incentives to hoard your bitcoins and not spend or invest them. Your savings gain value without actually being invested in anything. They don't contribute to the economy, they don't fund anything.
I don't understand why most cryptocurrency enthusiasts don't see a huge problem in this. How will you get a loan to start your company in the bitcoin world? Who would want to take such a risk when they'll keep getting richer by not doing anything at all? You'd have to promise them ridiculously high returns (higher than bitcoin's deflation at least). The rich gets richer by virtue of being rich, the poor needs to buy food and basic utilities so they can't save their coins to become rich. Basically what we have today, only worse.
That said, there's no guarantee that BTC or any crypto will appreciate indefinitely; in fact quite the opposite. It can (and does) lose value.
This also overlooks the benefits of a non-fiat currency, such as protection against things like hyper-inflation (most of us don't think about this right now, but if you have any friends in Venezuela ask them how important this protection is).
Begging the question.
It's zero sum (minus the cost wasted in maintaining the network), and the game theory Satoshi designed will inevitably disincentive new users from adopting it as the barrier to entry increases and alternative options will likely obsolete BTC.
>You could then still increase the virtual money supply through fractional reserve banking
You can't do fractional reserve banking on-chain as far as I know so that would mean having your money managed by 3rd party banks who would take ownership of your coins, pool them with other people's coins and manage them for you. So... Back to the start?
Furthermore I don't think it solves the problem of deflation, even with a fractional reserve the bank has no incentive to invest the money if the expected return are less than what it would end up with by not doing anything at all (and therefore not taking any risks either). If you have inflation of, say, 2% then any investment expected to create value or even lose less than 2% is a good one. If you have deflation of 2% then an investment that managed to generate 1% of additional value over your investment actually made you lose money because you'd have been better off not doing anything.
Therefore deflation will make it a lot harder to loan money, fractional reserve or not. Interest rates will be a lot higher to make up for it. The poor will pay the price for being poor, the rich will reap the reward for being rich.
>“investing” is a lot more like hoarding than it is spending…
Depends what you invest into I suppose, if you "invest" in gold bullions then you're right, if you're investing in a startup or loaning money to people buying houses then you're powering the economy.
Deflationary currencies worked well for literally thousands of years, when people used precious metals for their currency.
Inflationary monotary policy is a fairly recent invention of the 20th century.
But the point is to give people choices.
Some people do indeed prefer deflationary currencies, and that's OK.
The point of a small limited inflation is to encourage a healthy flow of capital into services, workers, and development of activities.
And those of us who prefer deflationary ones should be free to use those as well.
I don't get why the mere existence of alternatives pisses off economists and the like so much.
If inflationary currencies are so great, then that's fine, feel free to go use those, and those of us that disagree will choose something else.
And the majority chose inflationary monetary systems.
Each of us is free to offer to pay for goods and services with, say, for example, gold, and each of us is free to ask you trade your gold for legal tender and give us that instead - yeah, the one the tax agency accepts.
The only thing stopping deflationary currency from being used by most people is that most people are too busy surfing / skiing / rock climbing / recovering from a hang over / what have you to care much about how monetary value is exchanged. People, on the whole, only seem to really care about convenience. And more specifically, the more convenient it is to spend money, your own or credit, the better.
Unless you want to be able to force others to accept whatever you want to give as payment, sure.
This is ultimately what I think will sink blockchain as a medium of exchange (not necessarily as a store of value). By its very nature it cannot be cheap, so TTPs will always be able to beat it on price.
If things do end up being an oligopoly, then any one of the members of that oligopoly will only have a relatively small sprint between their current position and a 51% attack. And quite a few options for how to attempt such a sprint.
Work needs to be approximately the same difficulty for everyone
Edit: It seems this thread has gone off on a tangent. I was adding to the discussion of flawed assumptions, not ethics.
Perhaps it would diminish the ability for early users to extract wealth and capital from later users?
Cryptocurrency mining is as close as one can get to a theoretical free market in the real world. Free markets have known modes of failure [1]. One of these is where first-mover advantage and economies of scale combine to produce a barrier to entry; the result is oligopoly or monopoly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure