• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
Cake day: December 18th, 2023
  • General_Effort@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml•agile is far left too. I will die on this hill
    161·
    3 months ago

    But it’s not “from each according to his ability”. FOSS is what people feel like contributing. And it’s not “to each according to their need”. It’s take it or leave it, unless someone feels like fulfilling requests.

    Traditionally, the slogan meant a duty to work. Contributing what you feel like is just charity.

    Capitalism, at its core, is private control of the capital. Copyright law turns code into intellectual property/capital. I’ve read the argument that copyleft requires strong copyrights. That argument implicitly makes copyleft a feature of capitalism. You know how rich people or corporations sometimes donate large sums to get their name on something, EG a hospital wing? That’s not so different from a FOSS license that requires attribution.

  • General_Effort@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml•Blockchain: the wave of the future
    3·
    7 months ago

    It cannot be cheaper, other than by avoiding taxes and regulation.

    Consider sending money from US Dollar to Euro:

    Sane way: An intermediary (IE a bank) handles this. You give them USD and they give the receiver Euros. This involves some service costs and 2 bank transfers.

    Because people exchange money in both ways, the banks need not run out of either Euro or USD. In the background there is the currency market, on which the proper exchange rate is haggled out, which takes care of imbalances in cash flow.

    Crypto way: You give a crypto exchange (an intermediary) USD and they give you crypto. This already involves 2 transfers and service costs. One of those 2 transfers is a crypto transfer, which is much more expensive (IE uses more resources) than a bank transfer.

    This is already more expensive and then you have to do the same thing again to cash out.

    And then we are still not done. Say there is an imbalance in that more people transfer money from USD to Euro than vice versa. That means that crypto becomes more expensive in USD and cheaper in Euro. There’s more demand in terms of USD and more supply for Euro, right?.

    That creates an arbitrage opportunity. You can exchange USD for Euro, and then buy crypto for Euro to sell for USD. This closes the circle and puts everything back to the initial state. But to do that, we still have to exchange the real currencies. So now the markets bake the cost of exchanging currency into the crypto prices. At a guess, for some currencies (probably not so much Euro/USD), that would have a significant effect. I’m thinking smaller, poorer countries that send many migrant workers, who send money back home. These workers would not only end up paying the insane overhead of the crypto system, but also, still, most of the normal, direct exchange costs (if they relied on crypto).

  • General_Effort@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml•Blockchain: the wave of the future
    3·
    7 months ago

    Which doesn’t solve the economic problem. (Good for the environment, though)

    Ethereum has proof of stake. That means someone has to deposit Ethereum, tying it up. It could be exchanged for money and invested in stocks or bonds, yielding a return. This is only economically feasible if the stake yields the same return as a comparable investment. This profit has to come from the users.

    A competing payment system, based on sensible, modern technology also needs computers and the internet but not a stake. It must be cheaper.

    The stake is supposed to keep people honest, because it can be taken if fraud is detected. Normally, fraud is dealt with by putting the perpetrators in jail. Being known by name is proof of stake.

    Users have to pay extra just so that some kingpins in the back can remain anonymous. Do you want to for that?

    It also doesn’t solve the other deal-breaker (in the spoiler). Whenever you transfer money through crypto, you risk that some “investor” siphons off some of it.

  • General_Effort@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml•Blockchain: the wave of the future
    52·
    7 months ago

    Legal money transfers are not a use case. Crypto is simply much more expensive to maintain. All these mining rigs and all that electricity must be paid for.

    If it seemed cheaper, then either:

    • the banks were charging inflated fees. That can be fixed only once. (And it should have been fixed by government). ETA: Doesn’t work, after all. It can only be the other 2.
    • It was masked by price fluctuations. Eventually, someone else must pick up the tab. Can’t work long-term.
    • Costly regulations/taxes were dodged.

    Under the spoiler is something I wrote recently to explain how crypto is not like stocks.

    spoiler

    Let’s look at how stocks get their value.

    A company sells shares to get funding. Say, you want to make microwave dinners. You need to hire people, an industrial kitchen, packaging and packaging machines, ingredients, and probably a whole lot more. The company takes in revenue from selling the dinners, which pay for the running costs. Anything above that may be reinvested or turns into profit. The profit is paid to the stock-owners to pay them for their investment.

    Now the question is: What is the value of a stock?

    Imagine you take out a loan. That gives you money right now, in the present. You pay back the loan with the money that you get from your stocks; your share in the profit. Now imagine that the company goes out of business (and the value of the stock becomes $0) right as you are done paying back the loan + interest. Then that loan was the present value of the stock.

    In theory, the value of a share is the present value of the future money that you get paid. Of course, one cannot know how much that is, so this is useless for actual investing. Still, the market price of a share should be the best guess of people with money. If the stock is trading higher than someone’s guess, they sell. If it’s lower, they buy. So the market cap should reflect the future profits.

    But what’s the value of a crypto-coin like bitcoin?

    Let’s start by thinking only about a coin being used to transfer money. And to make it easier, let’s say that coins are only exchanged for money once a day.

    Say people want to transfer 10 million USD each day. The senders buy coins for 10 million USD. They don’t care how many coins that gets them, only that the coins represent 10 million USD. If there are 2 million coins being sold on the market, then each coin must transport 5 USD and that will be the market value.

    New coins are constantly being “mined” to pay for the upkeep of the system. Let’s say that’s 100,000 coins per day.

    The intended receivers of the 10 million USD sell their coins to get the money. The miners also sell their coins to pay their bills. So the next day you have 2 million + 100,000 coins on the market. The senders again want to transport 10 million USD, so they buy the 2,100,000 coins on the market. The market value of a coin is now ~4.76 USD. Adding more coins lowered the value of the coins. That is inflation. The “missing” money goes to the miners to keep the system running. That’s not a problem for senders and receivers. Transferring money costs money, however you do it. (That crypto is an extremely expensive way to do this, is one underlying reason why it has no adoption as a payment system in the normal economy.)

    So far, you wouldn’t expect anyone to store or “hodl” coins. The value is just going down. But obviously, this is only true as long as the amount of USD to be transferred stays constant. If the system is more widely adopted and more money is transferred (outpacing the inflationary effect of the newly mined coins), then each coin has to transport more USD and the “value” goes up.

    Now, if you believe that adoption continues to grow, it becomes a reasonable strategy to stash some coins to sell them later at a higher “value”. Maybe the problem is already obvious, but let’s continue to take it slow.

    So, let’s say, it’s a bit later. There are 15 million coins and they are to transfer 100 million USD. The market price of a coin is now $6.67. (Let’s also say that there are no more coins being mined and the upkeep is paid some other way.) Now we bring in some venture capitalists. One day, they buy coins for an additional $50 million. Now the coins trade at $10 per coin. 15 million coins bought for $100 million + $50 million, right?

    The VCs now have 5 million coins. But note where the money went. It went to the transfer receivers when they sold the 15 million coins for $10 each. They got a windfall profit. That’s how it goes in crypto. All the money that people “invested” by buying coins is gone. It was either used to pay miners/for the system upkeep, or early adopters took it and ran. It’s all gone. That’s the big difference to shares.

    If the VCs sell their coins again, they lose. Because when there is only 100 million USD in the market for 15 million coins, they would only get 6.67 USD per coin. The money that they spent is gone. If they want to make a profit, new money has to come from somewhere. There are only 2 ways to achieve this.

    One is continuing adoption. If more money were to be transferred, with the same number of coins, the price goes up. They can siphon off some of that money by selling into that market. But that lowers the price again, so that only yields a profit if adoption increases enough.

    The other is that someone else also removes coins from the market. If there are fewer coins for the same (or a decreasing!) amount of money being transferred, then the market price will also go up. (In this scenario, too, they would be siphoning off money that other people are trying to transfer. The cost of transferring money would be increased for no very good reason; not a great feature in a payment system.) But note that this, too, lowers the price again. That only yields a profit, if “hodlers” sequester the coins sold by the VCs for a higher price than the VCs paid.

    I’m not saying this is a Ponzi scheme because everyone has heard that already.

    So that’s it. If you want to know the effect of 50k bitcoin on price, you need to look at the trading volume (minus wash trades): How many bitcoin are actually “in use”? You also need to know how many of these coins will be promptly removed from the market by “hodlers”.

  • General_Effort@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml•razor blades
    14·
    7 months ago

    A blade tugs at the hairs before cutting them off. That pulls them out of the skin a tiny bit. The first blade pulls them out, the second grips them before they retract, and cuts them off lower. It makes a noticeable difference. The third blade makes a very tiny difference. After that, it’s marketing. (Should I look up studies to cite?)

    In my experience, electric gives the cleanest shave. In the long run it’s cheaper, too.