A crypto currency pegged to the dollar won't "go to the moon". If you're looking for that, there's USDT.

Unfortunately, when trying to pick a coin, it's like trying to choose the best programming language. Each coin has its own ins and outs, there isn't one that is the best. They have their own time and place. A lot of people see this and want to use them in inappropriate places, but doesn't mean there aren't appropriate reasons for them, even if they're few and far between.

> Each coin has its own ins and outs, there isn't one that is the best. They have their own time and place.

This is just wishy washy rubbish trying to appear "diplomatic" and "balanced". Oh sure, you can mint some monkey jpegs or construct a needlessly complex and public smart contract for some esoteric "use case", but the truth is the majority of people in the world don't want or need those things.

People just want a money that works. You can send or receive it instantly across international borders, that no one can stop, and it doesn't lose it's value over the years.

Bitcoin is the only game in town, the "crypto bros" just don't realise it yet because they can make obscene amounts of money from pump and dump schemes with flashy marketing about "use cases" and "yield".

Wake up or get burned, again and again.

Agree, but BTC stopped being "Bitcoin" as defined as "peer tomorrow digital cash" long ago.

Now BCH is closer to Bitcoin and still works great. BTC is just a ponzi scheme for morons at this point

> People just want a money that works. You can send or receive it instantly across international borders, that no one can stop, and it doesn't lose its value over the years.

Pure fantasy.

On cross-border trade that cannot be interdicted: There is no reason for any state to deny itself from sanctioning its adversaries.

On currency valuation: An economic zone has many many actors making independent decisions which in aggregate affects the value of the zone’s currency. The ability to debase a currency by over issuing it is identical to the ability to expand the supply to provide liquidity to a growing economy.

> that no one can stop

People don't want that. They do want their financial transactions to be stopped and reversed in the event of theft, fraud, merchant error, defective goods, unprovided services, etc. That's why Bitcoin and the other cryptos haven't caught on universally, there's no recourse when something goes wrong. (Really, Bitcoin just defines any redress as out of scope.)

It's actually INCREDIBLY easy.

99% are scam to be ignored, so really just looking at the oldest "coins" works.

Basically there is only BTC, BCH, XMR and ETH to choose from (of you cant tell the rest are scams that's on you).

Between those 4, BTC is a ponzi scheme for morons that doesn't really work as cash, eth is a hobby security but has equal potential to break or go to $1million.

That leave BCH and XMR, the only two cryptocurrencies that are not obvious scams.

I pay quite a lot of stuff with BTC, either onchain or lightning network. I don't see BCH or XMR accepted nearly as much.

I was under the impression that all of the "pegged to the dollar" coins are too fragile for storing money long term. But USDT dropped down to 94 cents during the crash I was thinking of when others more thoroughly collapsed. What's the difference there?

> But USDT dropped down to 94 cents during the crash

While that is true, they were redeeming them 1:1. So you could buy them at a 6% discount on the exchange, but redeem them, for free 6%.

Few people did because enough of them thought that USDT is going to the ground, causing the discount.

> I want the pendulum to swing the other way. Everybody gets and gets to keep forever an account at the Reserve Bank.

Overhauling the financial system to ensure that citizens cannot have their accounts revoked on a whim sounds like a nice pipe dream. I am cynical we will ever see that in our lifetime, as countries prefer to have full control over their citizen's wallets (e.g. see Canada enacting Emergencies Act to curb protests).

Also doesn’t help noncitizens like ggg(however many,top of the thread)p

in a multipolar world though, a country being able to do that weakens the currency severely in international markets. countries may like keeping their populace under their thumbs, but they may have overriding concerns - at least that's my hope.

"Crypto" as a whole broke the circle of trust for most ordinary people. Mocking cryptos now became so mainstream that UK television ran ads, calling out crypto believers.

Not to mention all of crypto on and off ramps are incredibly centralized.

>Not to mention all of crypto on and off ramps are incredibly centralized

The major ones, yes. That's because most of the decentralized ones got shut down or closed voluntarily out of fear of getting prosecuted on ML charges. LocalBitcoins is a good example, first they got their site blocked in authoritarian countries like Russia. Then they had to restrict service in some US states and other more liberal places as well. Finally they shut down operations completely.

The question is if people still want to fight for such liberties or not. There are multiple countries working on CBDCs and to abolish or at least severely restrict cash payments. In many EU countries this is already reality. For example France has a limit of 1000€ for residents.

Cash is a quasi anonymous form of payment, in self-custody. Throughout history something similar has always existed, be it metal coins or even earlier forms of money. There is a real danger as we're on our way to go fully digital to lose control over this freedom to governments and/or banks.

Crypto however is not anonymous. It’s the opposite: a permanent immutable public record (ledger) of your transactions and holdings. That has always been unappealing for many people

So we're at the "then they laugh at you?" stage of the game it seems?

I guess that happened years ago and we are fully in the "and then they fight you" portion of the timeline.

No, more likely it's the "I've invented the perpetual motion machine" game, and we're at the "No, you didn't, it's snake-oil" stage.

I personally don't think so. I think there are very, very few people actually believing in real-world usage of cryptocurrencies. Most are in it for speculative reasons.

I was really interested in building things for bc really early on but the medium attracted nothing but pump and dump folk. The analogy would be to talk about growing your own food with people running mega farms.

I agree, to the point that it's getting harder for me to even have any sympathy when I hear about this issue.

Anyone without a good portion of their net worth in crypto is making a huge and obvious mistake.

Note that his story closes with the admission that he was given his money back. When funds get stolen, they can be clawed back (barring issues of institutional willingness to do so).

For everyone whose Bitcoin wallets get stolen, there is no recourse. There is no customer service number to call, no court in which to file suit, and no service agreement over which to sue. Unless you live in some war-torn country where you don't know what government you'll live under tomorrow, putting a good portion of your net worth in an asset so easily stolen (or lost to something as banal as a forgotten encryption key) is a fool's errand.

Disambiguating the above sentiment from another context, we had a huge problem with Indian immigrants becoming victims of home invasions once it became apparent to opportunists that they accumulate and hoard large amounts of gold in their homes.

If you live in a first-world country, playing by third-world rules will pit you against third-world opponents.

So you're admitting to having a self-interested stake in getting others to convert a portion of their net worth to crypto, no? Since getting others to buy in would directly provide liquidity to your own position. Tell me, what customer or financial protections are in place for your crypto position. Are there any? At all? Or if the drive holding that "good portion" disappears, then so do your assets, yes? Having a bank close my account sucks. A lot. The answer isn't to buy into an even more broken system built on the exploitation of those looking to buy into a get-rich scheme. The answer is to hold cash for times where your bank isn't available. Cash depreciates in value, sure, but at least it's not locked into a guaranteed deflationary spiral that ends with guaranteed marginal returns. At least my position in cash doesn't pit me in a game against people who bought in cheaper and stand to make exponentially more than I can, off my back even.

Crypto bros are the guy who used to stand in the alley with a trench coat full of watches... Hah.

We're doomed if this type of crowd sourcing of scams sets in without people noticing and calling it out.

I bought $100 of BTC about 1 year ago when it was at $24,000, just the other day it was at $34,000 and my account said my crypto was at $102. That's all I needed to know about it.

> I want the pendulum to swing the other way. Everybody gets and gets to keep forever an account at the Reserve Bank.

I believe this would result in more instances of funds being frozen when under the suspicion of doing something/being associated with someone doing something illegal.

Just as Social Security was promised to never be used as a national ID, but was ultimately used as an identification mechanism[1], accounts with the Federal Reserve would be sold as a way to have a permanent bank account, but would ultimately be used as a way of implementing financial ruin upon those who choose non-compliance.

Conversely, I also believe crypto serves the same end. There is nothing a financial regulatory body would enjoy more than having every transaction take place on a publicly auditable ledger.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/26/weekinreview/the-nation-n...

Providing the account != requiring its use

That's what folks said about credit and debit cards to the curmudgeony folks like me 30 years ago.

Now I can walk to a half dozen places that won't do business with you if you have neither.

It would likely be defacto required, just line SSN is today. Sure you can "opt-out" - but at severe expense to your life.

Isn't it the law for a business in the US to accept legal tender?

There is no federal law that says all businesses must accept cash.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220127202620/https://www.treas...

I agree. It would be so much easier if everyone had a government bank account just like a SSN, that they could use (or not use), and also have other private checking/savings/etc accounts like now if they wish. It would also help teach people how to use them.