I wish more people knew about Bitcoin's connection to the bank bailouts. Bitcoin unfortunately does not have the best brand ambassadors. This week is a great opportunity to tell your friends about it, because it matters.
The 2008 bank bailouts were a major motivator behind the creation of Bitcoin. The first block ever mined even contains a reference to it: The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks. During the bank bailouts, the government just printed a bunch of money and gave it to the banks, around 700 billion USD. They did this because it was politically expedient, well really because they had to or the whole damned system would collapse. And the 99% ended up paying for the mistakes of the 1%. All of us were made to pay for the mistakes of a very small, incredibly powerful and wealthy segment of society who made reckless investment decisions. People lost their homes, their jobs, their livelyhoods, their savings, and yet not a single one of those bankers went to jail. Instead, they took the bailout money and gave themselves extravagant bonuses. Yet the problem is not new, throughout history, every nation that has ever failed, has had their currency end in hyperinflation. The temptation to print money is too strong. Perhaps it is something that should not be entrusted to politicians or even humans at all.
Satoshi, in his wisdom, created a system by which no new money could ever be printed. No corruptible, tempted authority could use it to turn on the money printer and rob entire generations of their wealth or force them to pay for wars they did not support. He made a currency which cannot be corrupted and cannot be hacked, with 99.9% uptime, with instant transfers across borders. It is neutral technology open to anybody with a phone or a computer and access to the internet. Which is much less than you need to open a bank account. Bitcoin doesn't care about your credit history, or whether or not you can provide a reliable mailing address. Bitcoin doesn't close on weekends and will never charge you exorbitant fees to use your own money. You never have to wait days for a payment to clear. Bitcoin puts you in charge of your money and nobody else. And it makes sure nobody can print away its value.
But then a bunch of people came along selling get-rich-quick schemes based on crypto technology, and everybody goes "crypto bad". Satoshi gave a gift to the world. He didn't stick around to get rich off it, he didn't use it for celebrity, he just made Bitcoin and disappeared. Thank you Satoshi for your gift to the world.
Crypto freaks behaving religiously is perhaps one of the most disconcerting and offputting things about crypto so props to you for doing praxis by alienating people with this Satoshi as Jesus Christ our lord and saviour shit. You're doing good work deterring people from it.
sure, this might sound good in abstract, but it didn't work out to be useful. almost no one actually uses it as a currency, they hold onto it as a pseudo-asset which fluctuates wildly in "value". you can't do anything with it except buy drugs. you can't use bitcoin to pay for rent or groceries. some stores experimented with taking it as payment several years ago and they all quit because it was a pain in the ass and transactions took too long to clear.
a big reason why people say crypto is bad is because it has an enormous environmental impact and the main thing it's known for is as a vehicle for normal people to be tricked out of their money and left holding the bag as its "value" evaporates. i don't think you can really blame this on opportunists taking advantage of a "neutral technology". i think it would inevitably happen with any so-called "money" or "asset" that has no inherit value and nothing backing it up institutionally.
it becomes a problem when your currency is treated as an asset. if your money will put on gains year-after-year without having to do anything, it's deflationary and that means no one will want to spend it, causing a retraction of money supply. of course no one wants to lose their money's value to inflation, but the deflationary aspect of bitcoin ensures that people will hoard it instead of using it to buy things. if the whole economy was like this, you'd be looking at something akin to the conditions of the Great Depression.
sure, this might sound good in abstract, but it didn’t work out to be useful. almost no one actually uses it as a currency, they hold onto it as a pseudo-asset which fluctuates wildly in “value”.
Have you met currency speculators? They do the same thing with fiat, as do speculators on every asset class in existence. This is not a problem that's unique to bitcoin.
You can’t do anything with it except buy drugs. you can’t use bitcoin to pay for rent or groceries. some stores experimented with taking it as payment several years ago and they all quit because it was a pain in the ass and transactions took too long to clear.
If you google "where to spend Bitcoin" you'll find plenty of places to do so. There are many restaurants, online vendor, hell, some US states even let you pay your taxes with it. Walk into any grocery store in the US with a coinstar and you can convert USD to and from Bitcoin. Is it as popular as the US dollar? No. But it's much more popular than many other smaller national currencies, especially in the countries with those less reliable smaller national currencies. Why? Because even though Bitcoin's price isn't as stable as the US dollar, it's easier to access and better than their local currency, they can trust it. All they need to use it is a cell phone and a cell network, which many places have even if they don't have functional banking infrastructure.
a big reason why people say crypto is bad is because it has an enormous environmental impact
Problem 1: we get too much of the world's power from unsustainable sources, that's not Bitcoin's fault. Bitcoin relies on the cost of energy usage to provide security. Energy has a relatively constant cost relative to the entire economy, relative to physics even, that is important.
Problem 2: What is the environmental impact of banking? Even smaller, what is the environmental impact of the top three remittance companies (Western Union et al) whose core functionality Bitcoin has been better at since day one? Bitcoin has lower fees, faster transfers, simpler cross-border movement of money, etc. What about all the Western Union kiosks and offices and whatever. That adds up. If we assume Bitcoin is to replace the global currency system, SWIFT, etc then we are really looking at a massive amount of energy that system uses. How much energy is spent driving cash from one place to another?. This is not even getting into non-proof-of-work cryptocurrencies which have their own pros and cons.
Problem 3: Bitcoin can actually be really, really good for the environment and can help subsidize the change to green energy due to its ability to dampen demand curves. I'll leave this here for that
and the main thing it’s known for is as a vehicle for normal people to be tricked out of their money and left holding the bag as its “value” evaporates.
Crypto as a whole? Sure. Bitcoin? No. The crypto world is full of grifts, scams, and rugpulls and it's incredibly unfortunate. Then again, many of these are very obvious on the surface get rich quick schemes. But it is how it is. These scammers don't need crypto to scam, there was a healthy scam market long before crypto. Other highly volatile asset classes have similar problems. It's a bad thing, and I agree with you that it's left people with a bad association with crypto, and that is unfortunate.
i think it would inevitably happen with any so-called “money” or “asset” that has no inherit value and nothing backing it up institutionally.
Traditional currency relies on faith, a collective mass delusion that the currency is worth something. It's a network effect. The currency is useful because other people believe the currency is useful. Does having an established, trustworthy government behind the currency help? Of course! You can also just impose the currency on people against their will, as many conquerors have done in the past. But that's it. There's nothing inherently valuable about a piece of paper that has Benjamin Franklin's face on it. It ultimately comes down to trust and faith. People have faith that the US will continue to have sound economic policy and stable currency exchange raters, or at least that it will be sounder and more stable than the other national currencies. But any day that faith could end up being misplaced. Faith in bitcoin is faith in the mathematics underlying the system, faith in the most widely read and audited source code in the world. You don't have to place faith in a person or institution, that is the key difference.
it becomes a problem when your currency is treated as an asset. if your money will put on gains year-after-year without having to do anything, it’s deflationary and that means no one will want to spend it, causing a retraction of money supply. of course no one wants to lose their money’s value to inflation, but the deflationary aspect of bitcoin ensures that people will hoard it instead of using it to buy things. if the whole economy was like this, you’d be looking at something akin to the conditions of the Great Depression.
You are making good points here, and most economists would agree with you that a little inflation is healthy precisely because it incentivizes people to spend money instead of hoarding it. Your statement presumes we would enter in a deflationary spiral because Bitcoin's price would continue to increase forever, but I don't think that's a sound assumption, especially if it were to actually contain a majority of the wealth of the global economy. But even going on that assumption, I wonder how the world might look if somebody had to really convince you to part with your money. Perhaps our products would be of higher quality? Look to any country with hyper-inflation, people will spend their money on anything they can get their hands on because the money will be worthless tomorrow. It's a broken market environment. In the same way that capitalism to function correctly must have the risk of failure, how might corporations and banks act more responsibly if they didn't think the next bailout was right around the corner? These are interesting questions.
Satoshi gave us the ability to create our own financial systems and experiment with them, which many people are doing, and those experiments can be done without wrapping up an entire national economy in them. For the first time in human history since fiat currency became dominant, we have the ability to choose which economy to participate in, and it's much more accessible and useful than for example trading foreign currency ever was. For example, want a universal basic income? Use a coin based around that concept. You can have a protocol that automatically distributes 1% of the total transaction fees of the entire network back to all the participants. And that 1% can be decided by a network-wide vote. You don't have to convince a national government to run that experiment with the entire economy, you can grow a system for it sustainably by starting small. With blockchain technology, we have the opportunity to create economic systems which are ruled and governed by their participants, not their creators, not by whomever currently rules everything else. It represents a new type of democracy. That is a beautiful and exciting thing, and a gift that will bring all sorts of new things both good and bad. And we have Satoshi to thank for opening that door for us.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3639431
Bitcoin’s price volatility is often attributed to speculative mania. Unmolested prices have been shown to exhibit an expected, natural distribution characterized by Benford’s law. Deviations from this distribution indicate an anomaly, and typically that anomaly is caused by some type of fraud. For bitcoin, the entire period of daily closing prices from July 2010 through May 2020 was analyzed. Analyses for calendar years 2011-2019 was also conducted. We can say with near 100% confidence that bitcoin’s price has been fraudulently manipulated at some point in its lifespan since 2010. We can say with 95% confidence that bitcoin was manipulated in 2013; 95% confidence that bitcoin was manipulated in 2018; and 98% confidence that bitcoin was manipulated in 2019.
There's lots of evidence bitcoin is not really living up to the hype. When you try to hype it with the same arguments while disregarding all the issues that have cropped up in the last decade, it's not very convincing honestly. Also considering that its market cap is only ~$500 billion, which ~1% of global wealth, that's not encouraging for its disruptive potential.
We can say with near 100% confidence that bitcoin’s price has been fraudulently manipulated at some point in its lifespan since 2010
Ok welcome to assets traded on an open market like... Bitcoin is not immune to that nor is housing or currency or oil or anything. The bailouts were market manipulation, the shit pulled to stop Gamestop investors was manipulation, the whole economic system is rigged and full of speculative manipulation.
Bitcoin has problems when it comes to usability, adoption, reputation, granted, I don't think anybody who is actually knowledgeable about this topic disagrees about that, I certainly don't. But the system is good, it works well, for 15 years it has faithfully kept to the protocol and worked without being hacked or experiencing any downtime.
You can say it hasn't been hacked, but many people who have used it have been hacked. It's not just people who didn't know how to secure a computer, either. The biggest exchanges have all been hacked at one point or another and lost crypto, some of the most recognizable names in crypto have been hacked. What good is a currency that isn't safe even in the hands of experts?
Ransomware could not exist without crypto. It cost the world 159 billion in downtime in 2021 alone. This doesn't account for the amount of ransoms paid and business/personal data lost.
You hand waved away the environmental issues by putting it on the rest of the world to generate cleaner energy, but the whole problem is that there isn't enough clean energy to meet global needs. If we could stop wasting 127 terrawatts of energy on Bitcoin per year, we would be a little bit closer to that goal. The problem isn't clean energy, it's a useless currency that can only exist by a competition of wasting energy, water, and chip manufacturing capacity during a climate crisis.
It has a huge pile of problems and negative externalities and what did it all achieve? Make a bunch of VC and early adopters rich? Enable crimes that didn't exist before on a mass scale? Enable money laundering? It's a solution still in search of the problem.
Ransomware could not exist without crypto. It cost the world 159 billion in downtime in 2021 alone. This doesn’t account for the amount of ransoms paid and business/personal data lost.
Actually it very much did, before crypto ransomware authors used pre-paid gift cards and other forms of payment. Scams and theft have existed since humanity had anything worth stealing, and they were all facilitated without crypto. There are scams and grifts in the trillions of dollars all of which have been completed with nothing more than some bad checks or faulty bank wires. Bitcoin is not immune to use and abuse by criminals, just like the regular banking system is not immune or the internet is not immune. When people do crime, you throw them in prison, and that's about all that can be done about that. You can equally argue that Bitcoin is a boon to criminal investigators due to the transparent nature of blockchain transactions. You could make any of these arguments for or against Bitcoin just like you can PayPal or venmo or cash app or credit cards.
You can say it hasn’t been hacked, but many people who have used it have been hacked
You can safely make the assertion that "the banking system is secure" even though people get their wallets stolen on the train. The banking system isn't responsible for that.
The biggest exchanges have all been hacked at one point or another and lost crypto, some of the most recognizable names in crypto have been hacked. What good is a currency that isn’t safe even in the hands of experts?
The security of Bitcoin itself has never been hacked. Exchanges get hacked just like regular banks get hacked, it's not an indictment of the currency underlying those systems. Bitcoin and the ecosystem surround it comes with some features to help mitigate this risk like multi-sig wallets, cold storage, and social key recovery.
that there isn’t enough clean energy to meet global needs
A big part of getting to 100% renewable is needing to design energy generation systems to be over-capacity. Supply and demand must be equalized constantly, on a minute-by-minute basis. The only way you can do this with 100% renewable is to design way over capacity, which is expensive, which makes renewables more expensive. A partial solution to this problem is to use mining and other quick ways of dumping loads of electricity in a way that isn't a total loss. Otherwise, you just have to send energy literally into the ground or have an under-capacitied grid which uses non-renewable sources to generate more energy during peak loads. As with all environmental problems, there is no one clear answer, it's "where do you draw the box?". Sure that shirt is made from recycled cotton but because it couldn't be made by cheaper, local cotton manufacturers due to the special process it needs for recycling it had to be trucked from 8,000 miles away etc. etc. All I am saying is that Bitcoin can be a part of the solution and part of the problem at the same time. It's more nuanced than just Bitcoin is a huge energy waste. Again, compare is to the energy usage of just remittance services and all the people and facilities they need to employ to exist.
It has a huge pile of problems and negative externalities and what did it all achieve? Make a bunch of VC and early adopters rich? Enable crimes that didn’t exist before on a mass scale? Enable money laundering? It’s a solution still in search of the problem.
- Created a secure digital currency that can be used by anyone anywhere with the cost of entry of an internet connected device with 15 years of 99.9% uptime 24/7 365.
- Providing banking to the "unbanked" and "underbanked" in ways that the traditional banking system was unable to do. Put the world's poorest people into the same economic network as the richest and gave them equal access without the barriers of traditional banking systems, particularly those around borders, saving remittance users millions in fees sending money back to their home country. If you have ever done international wire transfers or western union you know they are slow, painful, highway robbery.
- It opened up areas of international commerce and trade which couldn't exist before, involving more people in the market economy therefore increasing efficiency, output, and economic opportunity. One way it did this is it made everybody party to these transactions trustworthy. I might be skeptical using PayPal to do business with somebody in a country with a reputation for fraud. But if I use Bitcoin, the money is either sent to me or it isn't, there is no middle ground. They're not going to do a chargeback after I send the item I'm selling, I don't have to worry that my account is going to get blacklisted because I sent a paypal to or from the wrong place. There are many types of online international transactions that benefit from more surety. A fraudster can't have money in two places at once whereas they can with slow settlement layers, chargebacks, "pending" transactions, and other nonsense that comes with traditional finance. I can confidently sell an iPhone to somebody in Romania with BTC, I would never even consider doing that with paypal or cash app or anything, yikes!
- Enabled low fee, nearly instant international money transfers for anybody who wants to access them, moving millions of dollars of value across the globe securely without a single transactional fault or double-spend on a daily basis with insanely quick settlement times compared to banked options. Enabling the recipient of that money to know for sure they actually have it and move more quickly to the next step in the economic chain. High-friction money is bad for the economy, ask any economist. You want goods and services and settlement to be able to move quickly.
- Provided an option for those who didn't want to see their currency printed and eroded by a government they did or did not elect.___
spoiler
During the bank bailouts, the government just printed a bunch of money and gave it to the banks. They did this because it was politically expedient, well really because they had to or the whole damned system would collapse.
They could have nationalised the banks, had the bankers sent to jailed and prevent commercial banks from gambling with depositor's money yet they did not because the state under capitalism works on behalf of the monopolists.
Yet the problem is not new, throughout history, every nation that has ever failed, has had their currency end in hyperinflation.
Or could it be that the nations which had economic issues suffered from hyperinflation? Cause and effect etc.
The temptation to print money is too strong.
You do know the Government knows about the consequences. I wonder why Federal Reserve is constantly on about controlling inflation like its their primary goal.
No corruptible, tempted authority could use it to turn on the money printer and rob entire generations of their wealth or force them to pay for wars they did not support.
Is it though? Because there have been various forks of Bitcoin. I think you are not understanding what money is. Money is used its used to reward people for their labor. Capitalists take a part of the productivity of the labor for themselves. This means those with more control over production has a disproportionate control over the resources. Those with more resources can buy ASICs and GPUs to mine more crypto than a homeless person, this will create inequality and the resulting consequences.
He made a currency which cannot be corrupted and cannot be hacked
Yeah I wonder why Bitcoin forks exist and why exchanges and rich coiners get hacked so often. Could it be that there is more to stealing crypto than not being able to manipulate blockchain? Its almost like humans are imperfect and make mistakes.
It is neutral technology open to anybody with a phone or a computer and access to the internet.
And those without a phone, computer or internet can get paid in cash.
99.9% uptime, with instant transfers across borders
Uptime ultimately depends on the reliability of those who run the internet. Lets say someone cut all the fiber links between NA and Europe/Asia, crypto will fail. Its reliability is dependent on real things like network switches, fiber optic cables and routers all of which are imperfect.
You know what else can do instant transfers? PayPal, Card transfers and thousands of instant money transfer systems which exist. Bitcoin meanwhile can take hours to confirm a tx.
Which is much less than you need to open a bank account.
You dont a phone or internet to open bank account. You go to a bank branch fill a form along with an ID, there you have a bank account. Don't have a bank account? You can get paid in cash
Bitcoin doesn't care about your credit history.
Neither does most banks. Credit history is for obtaining credit cards and loans, not for opening bank accounts. Its why even children can open their own bank accounts.
or whether or not you can provide a reliable mailing address
Neither does cash. You can also have virtual addresses provided to bank and there are digital banks which don't even ask for that.
You never have to wait days for a payment to clear
As mentioned earlier, neither does paypal. In fact, paypal and cards are faster than crypto in many cases.
. Bitcoin doesn't close on weekends and will never charge you exorbitant fees to use your own money.
Neither does internet banking. Bitcoin does charge fees, if you do a tx with zero fees there is a good chance itll never clear.
And it makes sure nobody can print away its value.
And nobody can stop someone from accumulating value in your wonderful utopia.
"crypto bad"
Yes, ghg emissions, no banking insurance, can be stolen very easily, slow and fluctuating value, easy to do price manipulation etc etc
He didn't stick around to get rich off it, he didn't use it for celebrity, he just made Bitcoin and disappeared.
Doesn't he have like over a million bitcoin? Your definition of 'getting rich off it' is selling it for real money. If lets say real money didn't exist, wouldn't he be the richest person on the planet?
Finally I want to ask, what do you think of age of consent laws?
If I point a gun to your head and tell you to send me all your bitcoin, you will probably do so, and then you will call the police to tell them that I robbed you at gunpoint. The police will then arrest me and make me return the bitcoin to you that I stole. When you call the police after I stole your Bitcoin, are you trusting a centralized authority to decide whether or not the transaction was legitimate? After all, if I check the blockchain, the transaction seems perfectly fine.
Blur and OpenSea, the leading NFT marketplaces, both have measures in place to attempt to stop the sale of stolen NFTs. Should we trust these centralized platforms to decide whether or not a token should be tradable? Should we demand they abolish these theft protections in the name of decentralization?
As long as there exists a state with an authority on violence, Bitcoin being decentralized is a mere technicality. All power comes from the barrel of a gun. If the state wants to take your Bitcoin to pay for another war, they can do so regardless of what the code says by simply having the police knock on your door.
Do you want to abolish the state altogether? If you think all centralized authority is bad, what are your thoughts on the crypto space getting increasingly centralized? What do you think about Yuga Labs buying up other top NFT collections? Should they be allowed to do this and if no, who should stop them? How does Bitcoin solve any of the problems you outlined and do you really think that if the government hadn't been able to print money, they wouldn't have found another way to bail the banks out?
If I point a gun to your head and tell you to send me all your bitcoin, you will probably do so, and then you will call the police to tell them that I robbed you at gunpoint. The police will then arrest me and make me return the bitcoin to you that I stole. When you call the police after I stole your Bitcoin, are you trusting a centralized authority to decide whether or not the transaction was legitimate? After all, if I check the blockchain, the transaction seems perfectly fine.
Bitcoin can't solve theft and has never claimed to. Neither can our existing banking system. Bitcoin can guarantee that money can only be in one place at a time. The only theft Bitcoin can solve is the theft of government's inflating the money supply and reducing your dollar's purchasing power. It can change the theft of irresponsiible central banks. That's it. All a transaction on the blockchain tells you is that the person with that private key can own the money, it doesn't establish who that person is or should be, the same way if you have $5 USD and spend it at a hot dog cart, the hot dog vendor has no way to know how you acquired that $5 or who the that $5 "should" belong to.
Blur and OpenSea, the leading NFT marketplaces, both have measures in place to attempt to stop the sale of stolen NFTs. Should we trust these centralized platforms to decide whether or not a token should be tradable? Should we demand they abolish these theft protections in the name of decentralization?
I have nothing nice to say about the NFT marketplace or any of the actors in it. NFTs are a joke. Interesting tech but in 99% of cases used for completely garbage purposes. And no, some random startup running a NFT website shouldn't be in charge of your ownership of your coins or NFTs or anything. Like many things that are bad in crypto, people think Bitcoin = stupid monkey JPG NFTs = Ethereum = Dogecoin. They are all different things but they get painted with the same brush in the media unfortunately.
As long as there exists a state with an authority on violence, Bitcoin being decentralized is a mere technicality. All power comes from the barrel of a gun. If the state wants to take your Bitcoin to pay for another war, they can do so regardless of what the code says by simply having the police knock on your door.
It's more nuanced than that but, sure. Bitcoin makes it a lot harder. A lot harder. It's much easier to simply inflate the money supply and spend that money without people's consent than round up people, point guns at them (or use some other, less direct form of coercion) and tell them to give up their Bitcoin. The state controls the banks, BTC puts you back in control of the economic power those banks hold. Ultimately, if the state asks the bank to turn over your funds, they will, you cannot control that. You can control whether or not to say "no". If you stick to it, and they kill you, they still do not get your BTC. Let me ask you, if Putin had to send his goons door-to-door in Russia to collect funds for his invasion, don't you think that reaction from people might be a little different than if Putin just turns on the money printer and slowly eats away the savings of his people? How might the vietnam war have gone differently if not only was there widespread opposition but the government had to double the tax rate or confiscate people's BTC? Through a particular lens like this, BTC can be a tool for global peace. Wars of aggression are much harder to start without central banks backing them. It does not make war impossible, but it changes the rules of the game and the scales which can be tipped.
Do you want to abolish the state altogether?
No. The state has many important jobs which we currently cannot replicate any other better way like paying for common goods (roads schools etc), providing an imperfect but important check against runaway effects in the capitalist economy (market aggregation leading to monopoly, destruction of the environment for profit, etc). I hope humanity will continue to experiment with, iterate on, and improve what we think the state's function is and how it should function, just as we should with money and our economy.
If you think all centralized authority is bad, what are your thoughts on the crypto space getting increasingly centralized?
It's bad, I have no love for centralized digital currencies. Decentralization is key to cryptocurrency being something which enables access to democratic and open markets.
What do you think about Yuga Labs buying up other top NFT collections?
Haven't heard about this and don't care about it. NFTs are a joke.
How does Bitcoin solve any of the problems you outlined and do you really think that if the government hadn’t been able to print money, they wouldn’t have found another way to bail the banks out?
#1. I agree the bailouts were necessary given the circumstances. The way they were carried out wasn't great for example bankers giving themselves massive bonuses with bailout money, but something had to be done to prevent the collapse of the banking system in insert_country_here. The question is how to we avoid getting into those circumstances in the future? Part of the answer is having hard currency. The second you start making promissory notes, lending, and especially allowing the private sector to be involved in lending, you will inevitably end up in situations where banks fail. So the central bank becomes their backstop. But what happens when the central bank fails? This happens. The reality is that anytime you have fractional reserve systems, you run the risk of a bank run. You can have the safest economic policy in the world as I would argue the US is generally seen as having, but there are economic shocks you simply cannot prepare for, and when those happen, you will have bank runs. With BTC, if you hold BTC, you don't need to worry about that because nobody can print more to bail out unelected, irresponsible bankers for making decisions you had nothing to do with.
#2. If fiat and Bitcoin are to continue to co-exist, I imagine the government would still print their way out of the problem. Or perhaps they would raise taxes. Bitcoin isn't concerned with how to solve the problems of other economic systems, it's only concerned with providing a strong, robust currency which it has faithfully done for 15 years.
My only concerns about popular cryptos are whales conquering coins on coins. Technology itself is solid and Satoshi is a god.
