Topic: Computer Scientists say Crypto Industry is Misleading??? - page 2. (Read 655 times)

The thing is there are many articles who mislead their readers, including this one. If this article can easily appeared on the first page or even first row, newbies could easily thought all cryptocurrency aren't decentralized and secure because it can easily to brute force or using quantum computing etc. I guess only less people are really know this forum, but it have a good source and discussion about cryptocurrency especially Bitcoin.

it is indeed your own choice when it comes to this industry. experts, computer scientists or whatever they call themselves, they are free to give their opinion on this market. but at the end of the day, it is your own decision what to do with your funds. you can listen, read or follow their thoughts, but that is on you now. we have our own opinion on basically everything. it is up to you where you want to go after gauging your options.

Actually, they are just few who think that was misleading, let them judge the market way as we do our own judgment as well. Because whatever it happens in the future, we neither blame them, it is just ourselves.

They have some points regarding shitcoins and many fake projects make people suffer losses but the problem is they generalize the market. And as I believe and trust Bitcoin, whatever they say hasn't affected my desire to hold and invest in them.

He does have some fair points, but yeah, we didn't decide that we don't trust the banking system, it has proven to be unraliable time and time again.  And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 2008 crisis happen because of speculation from banks? So let's not try anything nee and just trust the unreliable system? He's not making much sense.

I agree with them that some regulation is needed. It's not okay that crypto exchanges buy ads and tell people that they can become rich today if they register and start trading crypto (same goes for stocks and forex). Then those people lose their savings in the process, while exchanges can rich regardless of happens with crypto, because they get fees. In a gold rush, sell the shovels. Crypto shouldn't be banned, and government shouldn't interfere with innovation and open source software development, but regulating exchanges more tightly would be a good thing. And right now exchanges are lobbying to keep things as they are - letting them list whatever coin they want, create their own coins, offer extremely high leverage and so on. This doesn't create economic growth, it's just a transfer of money from the masses into the pockets of crypto elite.

Sounds like at least a few of these people lost money investing in shitcoins and pozni schemes and they now want to put the blame on blockchain and bitcoin.

This is the problem. We don't want to do it in a centralized way. Also, they contradict their previous statement that blockchain is not decentralized. Why do we need to do something in a centralzied way to be different from blockchain then?



Yes, that's the point. The banking system is a scam and the amount of centralized fiat money spent to change it doesn't matter since they can print more and more to fill the gap.

That is true, crypto is not decentralized and the blockchain is not secure as the computer scientists said about it, there are over 19700 cryptocurrencies  that are existing now, there are more that should be existing now but become failed, some are existing but if people invested into it, it will become loss for the people. Some coins are just doomed to fail. Some coins are centralized and their price can easily be manipulated. This is true but exception is bitcoin because bitcoin blockchain is secure, it is the strongest, bitcoin is harder to manipulate if compared to many altcoins. Terra Luna is an example of what the computer scientists is talking about which many people even took their lives as they lost their life investment on this coin.

And whose fault is that? Is it the consumer's fault for choosing alternative assets/currencies, or is it the government's fault for mismanaging fiscal policy so badly that they drive consumers away from the state sponsored currency under the jurisdiction they live in?

The banking systems and their incestuous relationship with the government have shown themselves to be flawed and inherently corrupt. The palpable irony of computer scientists referring to crypto as as the unproven financial instruments as if people are so ignorant to the realities of the current centralized system is beyond the pale.

I don't take these clowns seriously. Neither should you.[/list]

They are talking about crypto in general and unfortunately that also includes Bitcoin. But their conclusions don't apply to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is secure, it is decentralized, and the system that gives access rights to anyone who has the signing keys is as secure as the person storing those keys. The majority of the cryptocurrencies are indeed flawed and unproven or just scams. Again, take Bitcoin out of the equation. If someone doesn't understand what they are investing in, they shouldn't invest in it. The same rules apply to all other financial markets and assets.

Why trust bankers and speculators, really? Maybe because they are responsible for all the biggest financial crises we know of.

I also find it funny how a high positioned employee of Google Cloud doesn't like alternative platforms. Life would be so much easier for them if everyone just stored all their data in their Google Clouds for easy monitoring, leaking, and privacy infringement all in the name of national security, fighting terrorism, and money laundering.   

K, so lets first check about which issues our „experts“ didnt write letters to officials about in the last years.
Some examples:


One year later




So i think after this it becomes obvious that we should rely on centralized services for everything, and run bitcoin on one 100$ computer, with a password that can be changed easily, for our own safety.

But seriously i agree that altcoins are scams, but i think they will use this as an attack vector on Bitcoin too, since it doesnt seem like they spend much time on understanding the architecture.

One word: Frauds!

Banks could just scrap their decades-old legacy, insecure and unsafe processing systems and adopt decentralized blockchain tech in their place.

But since they don't want to do this, we have to show them the hard way.

Once again, people are trying to maintain the idea that Bitcoin and other cryptos (those that are useful, that is) are mainly used for trading. This is not what Satoshi had in mind when he invented the blockchain.

I've said it in quite a few places, they are meant to be an instrument for global cross-payments. It's not merely because we don't trust the banking system, it's because the technology powering it has become obsolete. It would not be an exaggeration to say America's banks alone sustain hundreds of attempted hacks per day - against COBOL programs and mainframes!

Meanwhile, fintechs are trying really hard to [among other things] bank the unbanked, with their own proprietrary systems. Nothing wrong with that, and hey - it's good that these guys can now do what banked people can do - but these initiatives are often limited to a single country.

Bitcoin is the first global means of payment invented. Let that sink into your head. And let's forget about the bulk of the get-rich-quick coins for a second - They never served a useful purpose for the masses anyway.

And to say, over everything else, that you don't believe a crypto is secured because you can lose the password to your wallet - that is the ultimate blasphemy. Because you can already get locked out of your social media and banks if you forget your password and lose your 2FA anyway [in the case of banks they probably ask for your ID or SSN to give you back access. Let's not forget though that Bitcoin is a technology for banking the unbanked who do not have this type of info.]

So it's not a question about "why don't we trust the system", it's whether the current global community can afford to trust the system. You'll find that most of them will say no, because then they would have no money! Cash is out of the question, because it can inflate and lose its value over a year [especially in 3rd world countries].

This leaves the only option left to the masses - cryptocurrency. And whosoever comes to this space just to invent a coin to dump it later, then damned be to them. This industry is for REAL users only.

And anyone, who thinks, whether by writing a letter, or a legislation, that they can take this free technology away from the people, is mistaken. For crypto is the symbol of total financial freedom.

I'm very disappointed to see Bruce Schneier's name on this list. He sits on the board of both the EFF and The Tor Project, and as such, is supposed to be a proponent of digital rights, self custody, privacy, censorship resistance, and all the things that bitcoin stands for. To see his name, and therefore EFF and Tor, attached to this statement is highly concerning:
A board member of both the EFF and Tor saying that all systems should have someone in the middle who can monitor everything you do and reverse it if they want? This is the complete opposite of what these projects stand for.

And as I've said before, I always find it funny when anyone says something along these lines:
Oh, bitcoin doesn't have any real world use? And here's me spending it every other day for over 5 years at probably hundreds of different merchants by this point. Whoops! Guess that doesn't count?

---

On a wider note, what pooya87 has said above is absolutely spot on. Everything they have said - insecure, centralized, risky, no real world use, scams, etc. - all hold true for 99% of alts. Altcoins give bitcoin a bad name by association, and the sooner that alts all go the way of Luna and collapse in a disaster of their own making, the better for us all.

True thaaat. We all know what this whole big fiasco about Bitcoin is. same old people now using so-called computer scientists to try to discredit Bitcoin so it will look more valid because other people have tried and have failed. It's simple, don't invest in what you don't understand as someone also mentioned earlier but I don't get why you need to convince others to follow you. 

The whole "Big Pharma" industry are full of experts and see what they did with the Covid fiasco.    The government was misguided by experts in the medical industry and millions of people died as a result. The severe consequences of the vaccine was ignored and the long-term affect of the vaccine will kill a lot more people. (amyloid clots)

Let's see the names of the so-called "expert" computer scientists and then dig a little deeper to see who they worked for and who are they working for now. (Even experts can be bought to push a specific agenda)  

Their goal is to “counter-lobby” current Blockchain lobbying groups....... SO, we know what their agenda is. (Question is.. who is paying for this)

This is basically trolling. So they claim that a 100$ computer can consume more electricity than the country of Denmark.
All their bullet points are the typical "crypto hater" BS we've heard for years. I'm surprised they didn't add the "crypto mining is polluting the environment" mantra or the "crypto is being used by criminals and terrorists" mantra.
Nobody is actively promoting cryptocurrencies as a some sort of financial Eldorado (except a few scammers and con artists pumping their shitcoins).
There's no perfect system, that can protect the humans from their own stupidity. Even blockchain technology can't do this.
I remember a guy, who wrote "everybody loves decentralization, until there's no customer support and refund option". He's kinda right.
Most of the people aren't responsible enough to handle their own assets.

Bitcoin has been in existence for few years and no one has been been able to breach its security. It is completely safe and if we compare with physical money, it is easy to transfer as well. You can carry large amounts of money with convenience.

Now regarding it being misleading, it is not entirely true. There are some shitcoins which make fake promises and then break the trust of people. People should do own research before investing in any alt coin.  But bitcoin in general is just as what it was claimed to be.

I think they just wanted to make a statement about Bitcoin and how some other people have been misled by people who possibly don't know much about the crypto industry. Maybe they have relatives that a scam has victimized, and they have decided to let people "know" what they thought about crypto in general. It's still going to be per person to decide what they will do with their involvement in crypto.

Thanks for sharing this Old post as it is worth to understand and believe as this will also boost Bitcoin supporters Mind and Heart reading this post .

I also believe that it is about SHitcoins and not Bitcoins because people tend to relate bitcoin to those shitcoins .


agree as well.. and Computer Scientist ? do they really understand this as a financial matter?

Its highly secure, and it's secure with thousands of nodes getting integrated with data which is almost next to unreachable. Peeps are so crazy about it they have started to integrate quantum computing to break the code with at-most failure in the same.


There is no pressure at all. That's the beauty of crypto space. If you want to use it then use it. There is no documentation needed to transact on the blockchain, you are doing it at free will, so that statement is definitely contradictory.


The volatility is since it's inception but slowly every trader using it to day trade effectively and earn their daily wagers. So I would care less about its volatility in the long term usage.


Thats really misleading statement. There is no proof like that. If you have to create solid system which can not be hacked, and has data integrity at its best then you need to invest into technological advances. Let's not forget those miners do get paid for the same.


We are not, because its a system where energy is utilised, we pay bills, money keeps circulating in the system and life goes on smoothly in the crypto space.

Fair enough.


Bitcoin doesn't need a regulatory safe haven.


Note that government interest is not necessarily the same as public interest, especially when the government interest is self-serving and benefits the elites.


Ordinary citizens can decide for themselves if Bitcoin serves them or not. They don't need governments and academics to tell them what is good for them.


Fair enough.


Irrelevant.


That is your opinion, and the "deep expertise your fields" provides no support for that opinion.


That is, of course, a narrow-minded view and it demonstrates a lack of any imagination and foresight. Besides, if cryptocurrencies never show any promise, they will go away without the need for any encouragement on your part.


What about as a foundation for small-scale economic activity, instead? Your small-minded views again show your lack of imagination and foresight.


The best protection is information and not restrictions on what people can decide for themselves. Your kind of protection is a foundation of tyranny.