In some countries, currently there are many cryptosceptics, and I like to argue with such people.
There are better things that you can be doing with your time than looking for skeptics to get into an arguement with. Too much arguement is not good because if you are not careful, you may begin to doubt what you yourself know, and the knowledge that you have. There are some skeptics that their knowledge can confuse you and Make you begin doubting yourself. To avoid this kind of doubts, focus more on people who are more willing to learn than the skeptics about crypto, many of them are not worth the effort. 
Topic: Speculations for cryptosceptics (Read 141 times)
Your arguments are wrong. You are basically saying that a Pyramid scheme is a viable investment!
That's what you are saying, isn't it? When you say "completely useless worthless product" that people buy and has a price that is the description of a scam.
Here is another flaw in your arguments, you are talking about "crypto". But what is crypto? Are you talking about Bitcoin or are you talkin about poopcoin? (poopcoin being 90% of altcoins or 100% of tokes that are "completely useless worthless product").
That would make arguments very different. Bitcoin is completely useful and valuable currency, that is a great distinction that changes the discussion with a "cryptosceptic" very different. But if you are trying to convince them that if they buy some completely useless altcoin just because some programmers created it and used it for something, then you are in the wrong yourself...
That's what you are saying, isn't it? When you say "completely useless worthless product" that people buy and has a price that is the description of a scam.
Here is another flaw in your arguments, you are talking about "crypto". But what is crypto? Are you talking about Bitcoin or are you talkin about poopcoin? (poopcoin being 90% of altcoins or 100% of tokes that are "completely useless worthless product").
That would make arguments very different. Bitcoin is completely useful and valuable currency, that is a great distinction that changes the discussion with a "cryptosceptic" very different. But if you are trying to convince them that if they buy some completely useless altcoin just because some programmers created it and used it for something, then you are in the wrong yourself...
I personally know some people that argue against crypto, but most of their arguments seem to miss some points in the development. For instance, crypto finds a place in mainstream finance. Look at Solana and Polygon, both scale really fast, have real use cases such as speed and decentralization of governance. These networks are now being used by major developers to build robust apps, showing that crypto is not only a speculative asset.
Cryptosceptics? Are you now giving them cool names now? I think you are paying too much attention to convincing people about crypto-currency, I know people who did and are now regretting that decision, if you manage to get this type of people into crypto-currency with so many sessions of arguments and fighting I promising they would blame you as soon as the first thing goes wrong.
Well, I suppose there are not many cryptosceptics in the US now, but I see a lot of them in my country.
In some countries, currently there are many cryptosceptics, and I like to argue with such people. Below I write two simple speculation, which illustrate that the cryptosceptics are wrong; these things are trivial for the members of this forum, and I am sorry if my post is useless for you. I try to formulate correctly what all of you already understand, to help you argue with such people (if this is needed).
1)
Let's assume that there is some completely useless worthless product on the market, let's call it pipyrus; and everyone knows that the price of pipyrus will remain constant in the future (in the conventional correct currency, which does not have inflation). One pipirus costs ten dollars. Then people will quickly understand that they can use pipiruses as a means of accumulation: a worker will buy 300 pipiruses every month, and in ten years, having accumulated thirty thousand pipiruses, he will sell them and buy an apartment with this money. And this option for accumulation is obviously more profitable than dealing with banks, loans and mortgages.
2)
Let's say 100 programmers have created a pipycoin for themselves and agreed to use it as an alternative money (to exchange it for real money). And once a month, each of these programmers sells a part of his salary and buys 300 pipycoins from other programmers. Then, once every 10 years, each programmer sells 30 000 pipycoins to others and buys an apartment with this money.
It turns out that for these programmers, the pipycoin is a convenient means of lending money to each other; thus, an ordinary means of exchange, i.e. money, turns into a means of accumulation, which allows these programmers to save money relatively successfully. These programmers loan the money from each other more honestly, than the banks do.
1)
Let's assume that there is some completely useless worthless product on the market, let's call it pipyrus; and everyone knows that the price of pipyrus will remain constant in the future (in the conventional correct currency, which does not have inflation). One pipirus costs ten dollars. Then people will quickly understand that they can use pipiruses as a means of accumulation: a worker will buy 300 pipiruses every month, and in ten years, having accumulated thirty thousand pipiruses, he will sell them and buy an apartment with this money. And this option for accumulation is obviously more profitable than dealing with banks, loans and mortgages.
2)
Let's say 100 programmers have created a pipycoin for themselves and agreed to use it as an alternative money (to exchange it for real money). And once a month, each of these programmers sells a part of his salary and buys 300 pipycoins from other programmers. Then, once every 10 years, each programmer sells 30 000 pipycoins to others and buys an apartment with this money.
It turns out that for these programmers, the pipycoin is a convenient means of lending money to each other; thus, an ordinary means of exchange, i.e. money, turns into a means of accumulation, which allows these programmers to save money relatively successfully. These programmers loan the money from each other more honestly, than the banks do.
You speak about "cryptosceptics" as if they are in the minority, however it is the opposite way around. Do you think people were not investing money before bitcoin got invented in 2009? Don't be silly, the whole world has been doing business for many centuries in various forms. Crypto is just another currency that allows business to be conducted and it has many benefits in that respect. You could argue that people who are speculating on bitcoin are the detrimental ones, because it deserves to be treated like a functional currency rather than hoarded like gold just hoping to sell to someone at a higher price. Crypto has a valid place in every investment portfolio but it's usually reserved in most peoples 5% high risk bucket.
Cryptosceptics? Are you now giving them cool names now? I think you are paying too much attention to convincing people about crypto-currency, I know people who did and are now regretting that decision, if you manage to get this type of people into crypto-currency with so many sessions of arguments and fighting I promising they would blame you as soon as the first thing goes wrong.
I let people make their decisions, I tell or educate you about crypto-currency, tell you some of its advantages and also some of the risk involved, giving you some material for you to go and do your research but if after than you still not interested I let it go.
I let people make their decisions, I tell or educate you about crypto-currency, tell you some of its advantages and also some of the risk involved, giving you some material for you to go and do your research but if after than you still not interested I let it go.
Right, we call them "nocoiners" here.
Cryptosceptics is a name which they don't deserve because it somehow makes them look cool and they surely ain't cool.
-
OP, if you are going to debate nocoiners, you better have lots of free time because you have nothing to gain. They ain't gonna change their damn minds and you'll be wasting your time for nothing. You could do much more productive stuff in that time. Why waste it on these losers? Even watching charts is a more productive activity.
Cryptosceptics? Are you now giving them cool names now? I think you are paying too much attention to convincing people about crypto-currency, I know people who did and are now regretting that decision, if you manage to get this type of people into crypto-currency with so many sessions of arguments and fighting I promising they would blame you as soon as the first thing goes wrong.
I let people make their decisions, I tell or educate you about crypto-currency, tell you some of its advantages and also some of the risk involved, giving you some material for you to go and do your research but if after than you still not interested I let it go.
I let people make their decisions, I tell or educate you about crypto-currency, tell you some of its advantages and also some of the risk involved, giving you some material for you to go and do your research but if after than you still not interested I let it go.
In some countries, currently there are many cryptosceptics, and I like to argue with such people. Below I write two simple speculation, which illustrate that the cryptosceptics are wrong; these things are trivial for the members of this forum, and I am sorry if my post is useless for you. I try to formulate correctly what all of you already understand, to help you argue with such people (if this is needed).
1)
Let's assume that there is some completely useless worthless product on the market, let's call it pipyrus; and everyone knows that the price of pipyrus will remain constant in the future (in the conventional correct currency, which does not have inflation). One pipirus costs ten dollars. Then people will quickly understand that they can use pipiruses as a means of accumulation: a worker will buy 300 pipiruses every month, and in ten years, having accumulated thirty thousand pipiruses, he will sell them and buy an apartment with this money. And this option for accumulation is obviously more profitable than dealing with banks, loans and mortgages.
2)
Let's say 100 programmers have created a pipycoin for themselves and agreed to use it as an alternative money (to exchange it for real money). And once a month, each of these programmers sells a part of his salary and buys 300 pipycoins from other programmers. Then, once every 10 years, each programmer sells 30 000 pipycoins to others and buys an apartment with this money.
It turns out that for these programmers, the pipycoin is a convenient means of lending money to each other; thus, an ordinary means of exchange, i.e. money, turns into a means of accumulation, which allows these programmers to save money relatively successfully. These programmers loan the money from each other more honestly, than the banks do.
For instance, mutual trust between programmers is what makes pipycoin work. This reflects the regional nature of cryptocurrencies. where the trust is not placed in a central agency rather in the consensus mechanism that drives the internet. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are designed to let the middlemen involved in transactions such as banks. And of course this can be transparent and fair.1)
Let's assume that there is some completely useless worthless product on the market, let's call it pipyrus; and everyone knows that the price of pipyrus will remain constant in the future (in the conventional correct currency, which does not have inflation). One pipirus costs ten dollars. Then people will quickly understand that they can use pipiruses as a means of accumulation: a worker will buy 300 pipiruses every month, and in ten years, having accumulated thirty thousand pipiruses, he will sell them and buy an apartment with this money. And this option for accumulation is obviously more profitable than dealing with banks, loans and mortgages.
2)
Let's say 100 programmers have created a pipycoin for themselves and agreed to use it as an alternative money (to exchange it for real money). And once a month, each of these programmers sells a part of his salary and buys 300 pipycoins from other programmers. Then, once every 10 years, each programmer sells 30 000 pipycoins to others and buys an apartment with this money.
It turns out that for these programmers, the pipycoin is a convenient means of lending money to each other; thus, an ordinary means of exchange, i.e. money, turns into a means of accumulation, which allows these programmers to save money relatively successfully. These programmers loan the money from each other more honestly, than the banks do.
There's something wrong with your two examples.
You say that "pipyrus" is completely useless and worthless, but at the same time you say that it has a stable price and the people are buying and accumulating more of that worthless and useless product. If the "pipyrus" is completely useless and worthless, then it's price would be zero and the people would just give it away for free.
100 programmers can't grow their wealth by lending money or crypto coins to each other. Maybe they could collectively put more and more money into this "pipycoin", but that doesn't mean that this coin would become more valuable for the people outside of this community.
The process of redistributing a fixed amount of money among a certain amount of people won't make the money miraculously grow out of nowhere.
Thought I was the only one that observed that contradictions in his explanation about the said pipyrus cause how would something worthless with no equated value have a market liquidation that could be used to get anything close to an room how much more an apartment. You say that "pipyrus" is completely useless and worthless, but at the same time you say that it has a stable price and the people are buying and accumulating more of that worthless and useless product. If the "pipyrus" is completely useless and worthless, then it's price would be zero and the people would just give it away for free.
100 programmers can't grow their wealth by lending money or crypto coins to each other. Maybe they could collectively put more and more money into this "pipycoin", but that doesn't mean that this coin would become more valuable for the people outside of this community.
The process of redistributing a fixed amount of money among a certain amount of people won't make the money miraculously grow out of nowhere.
In some countries, currently there are many cryptosceptics, and I like to argue with such people. Below I write two simple speculation, which illustrate that the cryptosceptics are wrong; these things are trivial for the members of this forum, and I am sorry if my post is useless for you. I try to formulate correctly what all of you already understand, to help you argue with such people (if this is needed).
1)
Let's assume that there is some completely useless worthless product on the market, let's call it pipyrus; and everyone knows that the price of pipyrus will remain constant in the future (in the conventional correct currency, which does not have inflation). One pipirus costs ten dollars. Then people will quickly understand that they can use pipiruses as a means of accumulation: a worker will buy 300 pipiruses every month, and in ten years, having accumulated thirty thousand pipiruses, he will sell them and buy an apartment with this money. And this option for accumulation is obviously more profitable than dealing with banks, loans and mortgages.
2)
Let's say 100 programmers have created a pipycoin for themselves and agreed to use it as an alternative money (to exchange it for real money). And once a month, each of these programmers sells a part of his salary and buys 300 pipycoins from other programmers. Then, once every 10 years, each programmer sells 30 000 pipycoins to others and buys an apartment with this money.
It turns out that for these programmers, the pipycoin is a convenient means of lending money to each other; thus, an ordinary means of exchange, i.e. money, turns into a means of accumulation, which allows these programmers to save money relatively successfully. These programmers loan the money from each other more honestly, than the banks do.
1)
Let's assume that there is some completely useless worthless product on the market, let's call it pipyrus; and everyone knows that the price of pipyrus will remain constant in the future (in the conventional correct currency, which does not have inflation). One pipirus costs ten dollars. Then people will quickly understand that they can use pipiruses as a means of accumulation: a worker will buy 300 pipiruses every month, and in ten years, having accumulated thirty thousand pipiruses, he will sell them and buy an apartment with this money. And this option for accumulation is obviously more profitable than dealing with banks, loans and mortgages.
2)
Let's say 100 programmers have created a pipycoin for themselves and agreed to use it as an alternative money (to exchange it for real money). And once a month, each of these programmers sells a part of his salary and buys 300 pipycoins from other programmers. Then, once every 10 years, each programmer sells 30 000 pipycoins to others and buys an apartment with this money.
It turns out that for these programmers, the pipycoin is a convenient means of lending money to each other; thus, an ordinary means of exchange, i.e. money, turns into a means of accumulation, which allows these programmers to save money relatively successfully. These programmers loan the money from each other more honestly, than the banks do.
This is an interesting. Examples of pipyrus and pipycoin help show how alternative currencies, even speculative currencies, can be utilized as a savings and lending instrument. What impresses me is how institutional platforms such as crypto differs from the more traditional financial systems like banks.
For instance, mutual trust between programmers is what makes pipycoin work. This reflects the regional nature of cryptocurrencies. where the trust is not placed in a central agency rather in the consensus mechanism that drives the internet. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are designed to let the middlemen involved in transactions such as banks. And of course this can be transparent and fair.
Something to include when you are against cryptocurrencies is the fact that currencies are meant to fight inflation. In many ways, fiat cannot compete with that. Fiat loses value over time due to inflation. But currencies like Bitcoin have steady supplies. That makes them great stores of value over time. This would especially apply during economic valuation.
So, in that way, what you described with pipyrus and pipycoin shows us that the true worth of crypto is really about that it makes a user, or even an owner of one's assets, vulnerable to the traditional financial system in ways that such a system is vulnerable to the effects of blizzards. And, of course, avoiding banks and debt for DeFi management is something we increasingly so see in the crypto space these days.
There's something wrong with your two examples.
You say that "pipyrus" is completely useless and worthless, but at the same time you say that it has a stable price and the people are buying and accumulating more of that worthless and useless product. If the "pipyrus" is completely useless and worthless, then it's price would be zero and the people would just give it away for free.
100 programmers can't grow their wealth by lending money or crypto coins to each other. Maybe they could collectively put more and more money into this "pipycoin", but that doesn't mean that this coin would become more valuable for the people outside of this community.
The process of redistributing a fixed amount of money among a certain amount of people won't make the money miraculously grow out of nowhere.
You say that "pipyrus" is completely useless and worthless, but at the same time you say that it has a stable price and the people are buying and accumulating more of that worthless and useless product. If the "pipyrus" is completely useless and worthless, then it's price would be zero and the people would just give it away for free.
100 programmers can't grow their wealth by lending money or crypto coins to each other. Maybe they could collectively put more and more money into this "pipycoin", but that doesn't mean that this coin would become more valuable for the people outside of this community.
The process of redistributing a fixed amount of money among a certain amount of people won't make the money miraculously grow out of nowhere.
In some countries, currently there are many cryptosceptics, and I like to argue with such people. Below I write two simple speculation, which illustrate that the cryptosceptics are wrong; these things are trivial for the members of this forum, and I am sorry if my post is useless for you. I try to formulate correctly what all of you already understand, to help you argue with such people (if this is needed).
1)
Let's assume that there is some completely useless worthless product on the market, let's call it pipyrus; and everyone knows that the price of pipyrus will remain constant in the future (in the conventional correct currency, which does not have inflation). One pipirus costs ten dollars. Then people will quickly understand that they can use pipiruses as a means of accumulation: a worker will buy 300 pipiruses every month, and in ten years, having accumulated thirty thousand pipiruses, he will sell them and buy an apartment with this money. And this option for accumulation is obviously more profitable than dealing with banks, loans and mortgages.
2)
Let's say 100 programmers have created a pipycoin for themselves and agreed to use it as an alternative money (to exchange it for real money). And once a month, each of these programmers sells a part of his salary and buys 300 pipycoins from other programmers. Then, once every 10 years, each programmer sells 30 000 pipycoins to others and buys an apartment with this money.
It turns out that for these programmers, the pipycoin is a convenient means of lending money to each other; thus, an ordinary means of exchange, i.e. money, turns into a means of accumulation, which allows these programmers to save money relatively successfully. These programmers loan the money from each other more honestly, than the banks do.
1)
Let's assume that there is some completely useless worthless product on the market, let's call it pipyrus; and everyone knows that the price of pipyrus will remain constant in the future (in the conventional correct currency, which does not have inflation). One pipirus costs ten dollars. Then people will quickly understand that they can use pipiruses as a means of accumulation: a worker will buy 300 pipiruses every month, and in ten years, having accumulated thirty thousand pipiruses, he will sell them and buy an apartment with this money. And this option for accumulation is obviously more profitable than dealing with banks, loans and mortgages.
2)
Let's say 100 programmers have created a pipycoin for themselves and agreed to use it as an alternative money (to exchange it for real money). And once a month, each of these programmers sells a part of his salary and buys 300 pipycoins from other programmers. Then, once every 10 years, each programmer sells 30 000 pipycoins to others and buys an apartment with this money.
It turns out that for these programmers, the pipycoin is a convenient means of lending money to each other; thus, an ordinary means of exchange, i.e. money, turns into a means of accumulation, which allows these programmers to save money relatively successfully. These programmers loan the money from each other more honestly, than the banks do.
Jump to: