Re: [tlug] Receiving money internationally

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Christian Horn writes:

 > We had crypto currencies mentioned already in the thread.  For me 
 > personally the current proof-of-work based ones like bitcoin are
 > out of question for anything - we are already without proof-of-work
 > currencies running full steam into the climate crisis.

Agreed.  For my money, Bitcoin is the safest choice, and it's
ethically unacceptable for more than just the environmental damage it
does.

 > I wonder though how chances are that in foreseeable future 
 > proof-of-stake currencies get wider adoption.  Ethereum is apparently
 > planning the switch in a few weeks - they did talk about that for a
 > while already, so maybe it gets shifted out again.

Bitcoin with its Satoshi Stash is bad enough, but at least one
suspects Satoshi's keys don't exist any more.  Proof-of-stake is just
another of saying "plutobux".  The drive for centralization in the
Ethereum community is already irresistable, and if wildcat
cryptocurrencies aren't going to be decentralized, what's the point?
The rich just get richer, and they're for sure less trustworthy than
the Federal Reserve.  https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ for your
amusement(?).

As for ETH v1.999999, I guess they're actually going through with it
this time, the mechanism is semiautomatic.  They could stop it if they
really wanted to, but I think Vitalik & Co have really put their reps
on the line this time.

But even Bitcoin isn't really safe.  The Ponzi aspect will go on for a
while; if you're skillful or lucky at buying low and selling high, you
can get rich on other people's fiat.  But none of the 'coins are ever
going to be "money", too volatile, too illiquid.  90% of the world are
going to be perfectly happy with CBDCs, and the IRS, FBI, and
CyberCommand are all going to be really interested in anybody trying
to evade KYC/AML (although for somewhat different reasons).

Steve