Oh, you mean like the rest of the entire banking and financial markets that led to all of the bailouts in the first place? And enriched and further consolidated the power of the 'too big to fail' institutions that continue to be rewarded for their corruption.

I'm not going to engage with the same tired arguments we had last time, and I don't doubt the scenario above happening either now that the Federal Reserve essentially got Carte Blanche to buy up so many loans should they go bad from the Banks, but given the current situation you have to at least see the BLATANT irony in your statement.

The SEC shuts down the mainly algo-trained, bot-trading driven stock market because they're taking on too many loses and you're decrying Crypto as the hotbed of malfeasance and manipulation?

If you can't see regulatory capture when it stares at you in the face this way, maybe you should really be looking at another more pertinent axe to grind.

So by that definition, is the person actually bankrupt if they still control all of these crypto assets?

One could argue that crypto makes reckless individuals bankruptcy-proof.

According to Marx, the absence of regulations should clear the path for capitalism's self-destruction. So I don't know if this would mark the end of Marxism or be a catalyst for its revival. But it probably won't be a smooth transition.

But who knows, maybe anarcho-capitalism will work if the communities are small enough.

It's like you think bankrupcy is worse than the alternative - your debts following you everywhere, forever, even when you're utterly insolvent.

You are the one throwing around red herrings and handwaving frantically about corruption elsewhere.

Talking about the value derived from the bitcoin protocol in this situation is absurd - the protocol itself is largely irrelevant, the corruption and manipulation are at the exchanges. The 'value' of your tokens derives more from their manipulation and hype than anywhere else, which is trivial to show because cryptocurrencies are not used anywhere else (besides the dark markets I guess, and even they have moved towards privacycoins).

Your bleating about renewable energy and trustlessness is also bullshit. The claims to use of renewable energy are based on conjecture amd estimation, not measurement. As a counterpoint there is a fossil fuel plant in upstate new york that has recently been kitted out for mining.

Secondly there is no such thing as 'trustless' with cryptocurrency - you must place all trust in people you are transacting with, rather than using a trusted intermediary. I trust established banks far more than J Random Retailer on the web.

Neither is there any compelling case that cryptocurrency has any effect on "banking the unbanked". "The unbanked" have no way to get into the system in the first place, nor the tech stacks to use it.

Your entire post, your entire worldview on this is wishful thinking and practically a set of coiner memes with no basis in reality.

You can't really use them as currencies. They're too unstable. Cryptocurrency transactions are taxable events in the US. That alone is too much of hassle to make them worthwhile.

They're usually backed by nothing, which makes them a purely speculative risk asset. The most stable coins are backed, ironically, by fiat. Sometimes with fractional reserve. I've looked into crypto backed by precious metals, but liquidity is awful.

So they're useless as currencies, they're useless as a hedge, the only use for cryptocurrency is to speculate on cryptocurrency.

> Because from where I'm standing: I continue to have access to a low cost, friction-less token on an immutable ledger operating on the World's most secure Network on my phone, that I can use anywhere with wifi, and I can pay anyone who currently accepts Bitcoin and it operates 24/7 without anyone's permission.

Yes, that's the gimmick. I get it.

> And I can program it to do various things on top of that should I need it to, with built in trustless systems

All your "trustless" system can do is shift around entries on digital ledgers. That's not that useful. Most systems require some degree of real world trust and accountability.

For example, how does cryptocurrency deal with fraud and theft? Quite poorly, if you ask me.

> All of which incentivizes not only fair commerce and a real usecase for triple bottom line accounting, as it spurs on renewable energy as its main source as it continues to grow but also allows for previously marginalized/undocumented people into an economic system to be on boarded

I don't see any evidence that it actually does that. Sounds more like wishful thinking.

In contrast cryptocurrency is fixed, static and inflexible, hampers new entrants to the economy in favour of those with established wealth, and would likely lead to the same stunted, constrained economic circumstances we can see from history, worsen crashes, and generally create the same conditions that lead to abandonment of systems like the gold standard in the past.

I mean if you just want to ignore the fact that all over Europe, you can pay rent, buy groceries, and live your life solely by using bitcoin, then I guess there's no arguing with you. You live in your own little bubble.

I already mentioned Bitpay and made the distinction there.

> Ever heard of buying a sandwich with stock shares?

Well no, stocks aren't currency. That's my point. Bitcoin sucks at being a currency.

Unlike stocks, it also sucks as an investment, because like gold, it doesn't do any work, a Bitcoin stays a Bitcoin.

Unlike gold however, it also sucks as a hedge, because there is no intrinsic value to it.

So, what's the point of Bitcoin? Price speculation. You can speculate on the price of anything, like Beanie Babies or Funco Pops or trading cards.

At least a Bitcoin doesn't take up space on a landfill, should it become worthless. On the other hand, the electricity cost of producing is immense.