I think your confusing providence with medical science in the form of vaccinations, blood thinners, and Mr. Dahl's contributions to hydrocephalus relief
A child could die from cancer or from falling while playing, and no vaccination or blood thinner can prevent this. I can understand op's reference to providence in not having to face these tragedies.
Yeah, but his kid died of measles, and his other kid got hit by a car (something that is actually also solvable with technology).
Literally every problem discussed in the article was solvable or mitigatable with science or technology, except the political problem of fascism, which was effectively solved by 20 mm cannon fire from Dahl's Spitfire fighter plane.
Won't expound on my life story, but this is massively overlooked. You can't just prioritize money without taking into account the massive sacrifices it will require in your life. I spent a long, long time becoming successful in careers that I hated, only to burn out and do the career I knew I wanted to do since I was old enough to think and remember. Except now I have wasted decades of my life that I will never get back.
The majority of your life is spent working so you absolutely MUST find it fulfilling or you will burn out (at best) or destroy your body and mind as a sacrifice to the insatiable Mammon.
There is nothing wrong with doing a job you don't like. However you need to ensure that it doesn't burn you out. Work enough to get the money you need to live. Then do things you like. Many people do this: there are a lot of jobs people don't enjoy but they have to be done so someone does them.
Even people who find a job they love often find after 10-15 years they are sick of doing it all the time. This is likely to happen to you unless you are careful not to let your job alone be what defines you. This is normal.
Don't get yourself into a job you hate. (part of this is not being so picky you hate everything!) however liking - much less loving - your job is optional. Then go home and do something else for fun.
They also block Brave browsers entirely. I tried reading into it, but it appears to be one of those "programmer personality quirks". The fellow that runs the site appears to think Brave is a scam of some sort, and just decided to block the entire browser.
There's millions of much stronger reasons to hold grudges against Google and Microsoft, yet their browsers are somehow fine? It's incredibly arbitrary. For what it's worth I think crypto has been a scourge on society so I'm not making this point for any crypto shilling reasons.
Not only is not "incredibly arbitrary" for lobsters to respond in kind to Brave's specific, targeted action against lobsters -- it's not arbitrary whatsoever.
This kind of stuff gives me hugbox vibes, i would not feel safe there. I'm somewhat sure some of the moderators use the website as personal political leverage.
I used to have an account on that site as well and left for the same reason: repeated messages telling me I had been flagged and I needed to reconsider when I dared to venture too far outside the desired narrative. There will be many others who have made or will make the same decision which leaves sites like this with a population which is mostly ideologically cohesive. Maybe that is a good thing for those sites and maybe the participants feel 'safe' in such an environment but it surely is lacking in stimulating curiosity and widening one's intellectual horizon.
At least HN allows you to come back under another name and with that is less at risk of totally succumbing to the echo chamber mentality. It also does not tie new users to existing ones nor are existing users who happen to invite new users who are deemed to be 'problematic' punished for those invitations.
> At least HN allows you to come back under another name
You can also come back under the same account, which is what I did. I emailed dang, and promised to respect the site's guidelines this time.
Lobste.rs on the other hand has terrible moderation, with moderators arguably being from one political clique. You can find details about the ridiculous ban they issued on my account in this X thread: https://x.com/sridca/status/1751586241110519837
Yes, well, I probably would be lying if I did so so I just reincarnate instead. All my bans have been over the same thing, this me not following the 'west coast narrative' in some clearly political discussions. I can't promise to say what I consider to be closer to the truth and I do think sites like these are better off with a more diverse [1] group of participants so I'll just settle for a short lifespan while I wait for the place to become more accepting to different viewpoints.
[1] diverse in the only way which really matters, this being diversity of opinion. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog after all.
Does this person actually buy into the nonsense, though, or are they just being provocative? Both are reasons to mute someone, but only one is ideological.
Yep, just pointing it out. It's like a completely unironic version of that joke:
> Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
>
> Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
>
> Con: LOL no...no not those views
>
> Me: So....deregulation?
>
> Con: Haha no not those views either
>
> Me: Which views, exactly?
>
> Con: Oh, you know the ones
"Oh no, I keep getting kicked out of places for throwing around neonazi references"
Is it me, or is brave more of a cryptocurrency platform that pretends to be a browser?
A lot of people don't really like the toxic discussions that crypto usually tends to devolve in. So it makes sense to block the browser if you don't want those people on your server.
I am no fan of Brave, but where is the logic here? Just because someone uses Brave, they will engage in toxic discussions on crypto? Am I missing something?
I use Brave for YouTube and other streaming, and I've never encountered any crypto stuff. They have/had their own BAT token that dealt with paid advertising but I've not seen it mentioned in quite some time.
As far as I can tell it's just another browser that blocks a lot of internet crap.
Bit of a boomer statement here but maybe this will encourage devs such as yourself to contribute more to open source passion projects that will help dethrone the monopolies. Looking at Valve's investment into Linux via Proton as a great example.
It would be so nice to have a productivity Linux OS that just works on all my devices without tinkering. I want to stop supporting the closed source monopolies, but the alternatives aren't up to par yet. I am extremely hopeful that they will be once mega corps inevitably decay and people tire of the boom-bust cycle.
As technologists, we all want beautifully designed tools, and I'm increasingly seeing that these are only created by passionate and talented people who truly care about tech, unlike megacorps that only care about enriching their board and elite shareholders.
"We are in the midst of a group delusion — a consequence of an economy ruled by people that do not participate in labor of any kind outside of sending and receiving emails and going to lunches that last several hours — where the people with the money do not understand or care about human beings."
Regardless of the hostile tone of the article, this stuck out to me as an incredibly poignant description of the current tech/finance elites' mindset.
As most of us who have tried LLMs can attest, they are indeed stochastic parrots with no capacity for knowledge or understanding. This is best exemplified by their non-deterministic outputs, wherein they give different answers to the same question if asked enough times. This is not how a human brain works. Perhaps it is a small building block, but the systemic architecture required to reach brain level is currently not in sight based on what I'm seeing.
You forgot to add that the majority of climate scientists agree on climate change.
This is important because science, like America, is a democracy. And we know democracy is the best thing ever. Period. Therefore, when groups of people agree on something (DEMOCRACY!!), it becomes an inviolable law of the universe. It wasn't until America became the world's greatest nation (thanks to democracy) that we discovered this natural phenomenon, however.
Does anyone know why Nvidia chose to re-use the 4N process for their Blackwell series? From everything I've read, 3N is mature and is already in full production, yet Nvidia chose to just reuse 4N. It seems very much unlike Nvidia to leave performance on the table.
N3 is mature and is already in full production for smallMobile SoC only.
The Blackwell goes up to ~750mm2 it is a completely different beast. And Nvidia is already having trouble trying to fill up their Blackwell on a higher capacity, relatively mature N4 Node. Imagine doing it on an expensive N3, and then charge $4999 only to get outrage as rip off on HN and reddit.
Generally speaking the larger die size, high performance chip tends to be a node behind simply because all the leading edge node and tools aren't even designed for them but are specifically aiming at Mobile SoC. Then you add in cost issue and yield.
Surely you don't believe that large chips like Apple's M3 Max and M4 Max shipped while yields were still immature. So do you think that the wafers per month that TSMC is now cranking out over a year after N3B chips started landing in consumers hands still don't qualify as "full production"? How many fabs need to be fully devoted to 3nm before it is enough volume for you to consider it "full production"?
"Disabling bad memory" as in DRAM isn't a thing that happens, to anybody. DRAM is made in its own fabs and goes through QA before being packaged. So whether it lands onto DIMMs or in a SoC package, it's known-good dies that are being used.
And you cannot look at the number of SKUs without also taking into account how many different die designs are being manufactured and binned to produce that product line. Intel and AMD CPUs have far more bins per die, and usually fewer different die sizes as a starting point. Apple isn't manufacturing a M3 Max and sometimes binning that down to a M3 Pro, or a M3 Pro down to a M3. You're really just seeing about two choices for enabled core count from each die, which is not any kind of red flag.
Disabling cache as a binning strategy isn't too common these days, unless it's a cache slice associated with a CPU or GPU core that's being disabled. Large SRAMs are manufactured usually with some spare cache lines so that they can tolerate a few defects while still operating with the nominal capacity. SRAM defects are usually not the driving force behind a binning decision.
Back when Intel was stagnant at 4 cores for the bulk of their consumer CPU product line, they did stuff like sell i7 parts with 8MB L3 cache and i5 parts with 6MB cache, more as a product segmentation strategy than to improve yields (they once infamously sold a CPU with 3MB last level cache and later offered a software update to increase it to 4MB, meaning all chips of that model had passed binning for 4MB). Nowadays Intel's cache capacities are pretty well correlated with the number of enabled cores. AMD usually doesn't vary L3 cache sizes even between parts with a different number of enabled cores: you get 32MB per 8-core chiplet, whether you have 8 cores or 6 cores enabled.
I don't know to what extent the cache sizes on Apple's chips vary between bins, but it probably follows the pattern of losing only cache that's tied to some other structure that gets disabled.
I'm not familiar with the process enough to even know what to search here, do you have some recommended reading materials about how IP becomes available for different processes and what the engineering difficulties / process is, especially for different types of IP?
I'm sorry I don't have that. It's partly supply and demand and looking at what the early adopters (Apple, these days) need. And then there's interplay with specs and related roadmaps (i.e. nobody develops their HBM PHY IP until the spec is mature enough). HPC traditionally requires specialist memory IP (e.g. CAM) and more SRAM varieties, so that comes later. Serdes also comes later since it pushes the process limits, both analogue and digital, and also is tied into ethernet standards. You might find public marketing material from Synopsys/Cadence?
N3B is used by Intel for its Lunar Lake, Arrow Lake S and Arrow Lake H CPUs and GPUs, so it is also in full production for high-power non-small and non-mobile chips.
Of course, even if N3B is fine for desktop CPUs and for smaller GPUs, it may still have too low yields for chips of the size of the top models of NVIDIA GPUs.
I think yields is the main reason, although I'm not an expert in that area. If its a standard deviation difference than it will increase their manufacturing costs. Nvidia got around this from Ada--> Blackwell by simply increasing TDP for their high-end cards and adding more cores. Their is no IPC/efficiency/node improvement, if I'm not mistaken, for the first time gen-to-gen.
The answer is probably profit margin. It's also not unusual at all for Nvidia to leave performance on the table in terms of production nodes. I mean just look at the RTX 3000 series which was made with Samsung 8LPH, categorized as a "10nm node". Even at the time, for a late 2020 launch, TSMC already had several generations which were better, in both the "7nm" an "5nm" categories.
US push for local manufacturing might play into that a bit since TSMC's Arizona fab only just started producing 4nm. Nvidia is planning to provide GPUs for major US datacenter expansion, so using locally produced chips should help significantly (especially if the chip tariffs end up becoming a reality).
My guess is it's related to yield and/or large die sizes making them more susceptible to defects. I expect architectural changes in the Blackwell series matter more than performance improvements from process node.
That’s my understanding, more or less. It’s not like Apple pays to have capacity sitting idle, they just outbid everyone else to buy (and use) 100% of capacity.
Americans are desperate. May not be felt among the HN crowd, but standards of living in the US have been declining consistently for a long time [1]. Remember that Trump was not re-elected to a second term initially specifically because he failed to deliver on his promise of "MAGA". He instead did a Jeb Bush presidency, complete with Wall Street (Mnuchin) and the CIA (Pompeo) running the country exactly as would have occurred had Bush won. So Americans tried Biden, in the hopes of a return to Obama era America. This obviously didn't happen, as standard of living continued to decline. So they tried Trump again, in sheer desperation.
I don't see a positive future for the US, as it is so clearly a declining empire, exhibiting every textbook symptom. The startup/tech crowd loves talking about cheap phones and "services", but the reality is bleak outside of this narrow tech bubble.
Not a mention of 'COVID' anywhere on this page (thank you Ctrl+F). Surely, it had a role in how we got here, at least inflation-wise?
Has it slipped so easily from the face of History? Let's just hope its not a new pandemic that provides that final false-flag style push into fascism, as an excuse for suspending democracy. Those Republicans who will say one final time that we aren't a democracy ("we're a republic!") will be sorry for the seeds they have sown.
Nah. You cant explain fascism just by them being desperate economically. That is not how it works. They did not had to have Trump to be representant of the republican party again. If they were bothered by economics, they would pick someone else even if they wanted to change parties.
They wanted to cause harm for reasons unrelated to economics.
It rings a bit hollow when the single most popular president in recent history was Obama. If the US can cope with him what is the problem with women supposed to be? Harris was an unusually weak candidate; the primary system is supposed to shake people like that out and the Democrats were left in a disadvantageous place after bypassing it.
One of the reasons Trump is getting all these historic wins is because the US Democrats refuse point blank to do some introspection and ask if their policy positions are effective. Name-calling and shaming tactics turned out to not be good enough to stop Trump, so there is an interesting question of who they could stop and under what circumstances they could be politically successful.
Indeed. If the DNC had allowed Bernie Sanders to run against Trump, Sanders would very likely have beaten him and Trump would have remained a reality TV star. Instead, they pushed Clinton on Democrats just like they pushed Harris this cycle. The corruption within the DNC is very much to blame for Trump.
I refuse to accept the childish assertion that the majority of American voters are card carrying members of a radical political system that was defeated last century. This is just an emotional response to a reality that one does not want to accept.
Obama was black man president that broke republican minds. They really got more extreme, refused to cooperate in any way so center "work across the aisle" politics became impossible.
And then they voted for Trump. Ta-Nehisi comment with name "trum is first white president" makes the point better then I would do.
> It rings a bit hollow when the single most popular president in recent history was Obama
Does it? It was when Obama got elected that Republicans started freaking out. Take a look at the 2008 Republican party platform [1]. On energy they talk about wanting an energy supply that is diverse, reliable, and cleaner.
They say "In the long run, American production should move to zero-emission sources, and our nation's fossil fuel resources are the bridge to that emissions-free future". They wanted more domestic oil to reduce foreign dependance, more nuclear (specifically calling out that it is zero-carbon. They also said
> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.
> Republicans support measures to modernize the nation's electricity grid to provide American consumers and businesses with more affordable, reliable power. We will work to unleash innovation so entrepreneurs can develop technologies for a more advanced and robust United States transmission system that meets our growing energy demands
Read that to a Republican today without telling them where it is from and they will probably guess it was from Biden.
They also pushed conservation:
> Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less. Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better. We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases. Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel. The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.
Here's what they said about cars:
> We must continue to develop alternative fuels, such as biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol, and hasten their technological advances to next-generation production. As America develops energy technology for the 21st century, policy makers must consider the burden that rising food prices and energy costs create for the poor and developing nations around the world. Because alternative fuels are useless if vehicles cannot use them, we must move quickly to flexible fuel vehicles; we cannot expect necessary investments in alternative fuels if this flexibility does not become standard. We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.
> Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry.
They had a big section on environmental protection which leads of with saying how the aforementioned energy policies will put the US in a good position to address climate change. They go on to spend 7 paragraphs explain a market and technology approach to addressing this.
Compare to the 2012 platform [2] and the 2016 platform [3].
Who is "they"? And yes, you can absolutely explain it with desperation, and arrogance and in-fighting on behalf of the non-fascists.
The issues on the minds of American issues were mostly things like housing, healthcare; economics. Trump at least pretended to be also angry and willing to do something about it, while saying the Democrats were lukewarm would be flattering them.
What is the point of saying "people wanted this"? To legitimize not fighting it? I don't even care what I wanted yesterday, what do I care what someone else wanted last November?
No they weren't. There was huge focus on trans and immigration and vaccinationa. Economic is distant third.
They have continuing quest to make abortions as illegal as possible, the quest for male supremacy, the climate denial ... This was not hold your nose for economics. This was I don't care about economics, I hate others too much.
> What is the point of saying "people wanted this"? To legitimize not fighting it?
I am sick of excessive benefits of the doubt constantly given to the conservatives and their voters. Of sympathetic portraits of poor then while people they harm never get that. Of them lying, knowingly throwing false accusations and then centrists or left being blamed for not being nice to then.
Yes it should be fought. But it is not true that republican voters were victims of something when eventually Musks actions harm some of them. They wanted to cause harm and will cause more harm to people not like them.
All well and good, but Commonwealth Fusion and Tokamak Energy are building large test reactors are we speak in hopes of answering these exact questions. These aren't science projects, but tech demonstrators designed as a stepping stone to commercial fusion. The points raised in the article are valid, but can only be tested by building reactors, which is currently happening in the above companies.
Agreed, but the problem isn't about funding fusion research - which isn't a bad thing IMO - more that the UK government seem to believe that it's "coming soon". The concern is that they're basing future energy policy on a technology that may not be a practical power source for generations (or ever).
See also their recent commitment to using AI. Funding AI research and supporting AI startups: sure. Basing policy on the fact that AI can replace civil servants and other workers: there should probably be some evidence of that first.
Worth noting that the author of this letter works at Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, where JET is located. 'Abingdon' was a clue but they could have filled in the detail.
No one is disrupting banks because the mega banks have the sole power of creating credit out of thin air, and no upstart fintech company has this power. To gain this power requires the creation of a bank, which as you can imagine, is probably the most gate-kept activity on earth.
Andreesen talked about this in his Rogan appearance. The banks and gov brought the hammer down on crypto because it was a legitimate threat to the banking cabal which runs the American Empire.
Yes and crypto doesn’t have any inherent risk like a sitting President creating a crypto currency where he has 80% of the currency, will probably make a half billion dollars and then do a rug pull.
That’s the thing I can’t ever come to understand about crypto. It’s purely about perception of value. At least with some precious metal, it has a floor value as a function of its practical uses and abundance.
Which leads me to believe that the only thing that could be honestly said is that a crypto is purely about winners and suckers and timing.
> At least with some precious metal, it has a floor value as a function of its practical uses and abundance.
I don't really give this argument much credence any more. If the value of, say, gold or diamonds were to drop their practical-use-floor-value, they'd be valued at probably less than 1% (maybe much less) of current value. I mean, how much gold is actually consumed by industry? And we even have industrial diamonds now.
A friend argued to me that crypto is "A Terrible Thing" because its just used to fuel the (illegal) narcotics industry. At this point, I'm doubting that too - the market cap of all crpyto, and the value being transacted e.g. daily volume, has increased massively recently. Are we to believe that narcotics have caused that? I can't imagine so - more likely to me it's around 90-99% speculation which, you might well argue, is "Another Terrible Thing."
I think the main thing precious metals have going for them is tradition. That’s no small thing. They’ve been considered valuable for millennia, and that’s likely to continue. Bitcoin might be replaced by some other fad in a decade.
It’s like if you’re betting on a religion, Christianity is more likely to last than Scientology. They might both be equally made up, but one has demonstrated staying power.
It's of course not the criminal use of crypto that has caused the price to increase so much lately, but the use of it for criminal activity is one of its main real use cases (apart from speculation which is not a real use case).
> I mean, how much gold is actually consumed by industry?
[0] indicates there's a demand of about 5000 tonnes of gold per year, with about 560 tonnes going into technology and electronics (the vast majority still going to jewellery). The total amount of gold in the world is about 212.500 tonnes according to [1], which is a cube of only 22x22 meters. [2] says about 3600 tonnes are mined per year and about 1200 tonnes is recycled/reused.
> A friend argued to me that crypto is "A Terrible Thing" because its just used to fuel the (illegal) narcotics industry.
That's a good thing, though.
Jokes aside, as a person who loves crypto technologically and agrees with the more cipherpunk roots of bitcoin, I have not seen anyone serious use crypto for anything other than drugs or small transactions, just for the sake of it. People usually just seems to hoard the stuff, which is incredibly stupid since the main value proposition of crypto is being able to transact it. I almost respect the people buying drugs with it more, since they at least use cryptocurrency, rather than just speculating in its value to fuel their gambling addiction.
> a person who loves crypto technologically and agrees with the more cipherpunk roots of bitcoin
Yep, that'd be me too. What gets my blood pressure rising is the sheer amount of coins & tokens available now all of which, bar perhaps a tiny fraction, seem to have no value proposition other than "number go up". To me, NFTs are the nadir of this concept. I struggle to imagine a legitimate use case for any crypto that doesn't involve rapid, frictionless transacting.
For example, there are a couple of fantastic services, like "Cauldron DEX" or "BCHBull" (no affiliation) - smart contracts which allow for trustless swapping of tokens. The concept is genius and the execution here seems very good (to me, non cryptographer) but, again, what can I do with these tokens or coins I've traded except trade them later for some other token or coin?
BCHBull seems to allow exposure to commodities and some fiat currencies - that makes it comparable I suppose to actual currency or commodity speculation which has been going on for centuries. One might still argue "what can I do with all this gold except trade it later for oil?" but, well, that seems to be a weaker criticism.
Agreed, but unironically. US tobacco consumption is at a historic low, while people are dying from an opioid epidemic and fentanyl contamination, and somehow the War on Drugs is nearly unquestioned as good policy? Prosecuting people for making poor health choices is such an extreme and frankly insane idea.
Let's go back to selling Bayer Heroin™ at pharmacies, with sensible regulations. That would better position us to minimize narcotic use over the long term, while also making it safer, and defunding the cartels while we're at it. In the meantime, if someone is going to do drugs, I'm all for them using cryptocurrency to make the process as safe as it can be given the circumstances.
The actual market value of diamonds is pretty low. You can pay a jeweler a lot of money for a shiny diamond, but good luck reselling it for a similar amount of money.
Gold, OTOH, is fungible. You can melt it, mold it into different shapes bars, resell it, etc.
With diamond jewelry, you pay mostly for the manual work of jeweler since folks don't go to jewelry shops to buy a diamond stone alone. If we talk about gold bars, no sophisticated manual work involved, just pouring molten gold into some mold on semi-industrial automated scale.
If you buy sophisticated golden jewelry, you also pay ton for work that nobody else may appreciate. Sure you can get it smelted into something else, but you burn most of the original value, and some more on the change itself.
Diamond value went through the window already (as it should), if gold came down to use value, we'd see it used more for electronics and electrochemistry.
That's true of everything we use as money, including precious metals. You can't eat them, live in them, use them as weapons, walk down the street in them. They have value bacause we all agree that they do and we all agree to use them as a means to exchange that value. Also, and this is important and I should have said it first, they have value because their supply is restricted.
The same is true for crypto. It's fungible, private, and limited in supply. It's also independent of governments although they are doing their level best to correct that.
> That's true of everything we use as money, including precious metals.
To exploit this chance for quote Terry Pratchett, on a book that does happen to be about currency and banking:
> ‘The world is full of things worth more than gold. But we dig the damn stuff up and then bury it in a different hole. Where’s the sense in that? What are we, magpies? Is it all about the gleam? Good heavens, potatoes are worth more than gold!’
> ‘Surely not!’
> ‘If you were shipwrecked on a desert island, what would you prefer, a bag of potatoes or a bag of gold?’
> ‘Yes, but a desert island isn’t [the city of] Ankh-Morpork!’
> ‘And that proves gold is only valuable because we agree it is, right? It’s just a dream. But a potato is always worth a potato, anywhere. A knob of butter and a pinch of salt and you’ve got a meal, anywhere. Bury gold in the ground and you’ll be worrying about thieves for ever. Bury a potato and in due season you could be looking at a dividend of a thousand per cent.’
Government fiat currencies have fundamental value because their taxes are denominated in their fiat currency, while their fiat currency is used to compensate the public sector for their labor. If you, as a private citizen, want to avoid the consequences of not paying your taxes (e.g. prison), you best find a way to get your hands on some of the fiat currency that has entered the economy via the public sector workers.
For a cryptocoin to have fundamental value, someone must be willing to accept it as payment. The only entities willing to do so currently are criminal enterprises and perhaps the El Salvadoran government (to pay taxes). All the other uses (like cross-border payments) rely on speculators on both ends providing liquidity for the exchange to fiat currency.
It's mostly correct except it's just the governments that agree to take gold and silver to settle debts (no, going off "gold standard" did not change this, gold and silver are still accepted as bank reserves around the world). And governments have the power to take your property to settle your debts with them. So for anyone, who is a subject of a government assigned debt (via taxation usually), gold has very practical value as it allows to keep one's property.
The same is not generally true for crypto, perhaps in El Salvador they really take crypto to settle taxes but in any other country crypto only has value because of speculators.
> the governments that agree to take gold and silver to settle debts (no, going off "gold standard" did not change this, gold and silver are still accepted as bank reserves around the world)
Really? Can you point us, or perhaps just me, to something that explains that and which countries this applies to? I think that I'd have a hard time paying the Norwegian tax authorities with gold or silver. In fact even paying them in cash would be difficult.
What are you talking about? We can wear gold, make weapons out of iron, cups out of copper… coins have both a fiat face value and real tangible value (the “floor”).
Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. It’s entirely belief.
That’s not a bad thing. MLMs can be very profitable, some turn into multi-generational institutions of faith.
I own bitcoin because it’s like buying a share of the Mormon church early on. Absolutely, do it! But comparing it with gold? Come on, be real.
Bitcoin physical value is that, one way or the other, billions of humans got atoms in their brains, arrange in such a way that they recognize bitcoins, and have a certain understanding of it's setup... this is a lot of atoms, and is no small fit.
> And fiat currency isn't purely about perception of value?
Of course not. I don't know the laws of the country you live in, but in the US, the dollar is always acceptable as the payment of a court judgement and for the payment of taxes. That's not perception of value, that's value.
All money is just IOUs, but getting an IOU from your landlord is different than getting an IOU from a stranger. You will have to pay your landlord in the future, or the landlord will send someone to physically throw you into the streets, and might be given license from the government to just take arbitrary possessions from you. An IOU from the landlord will automatically offset that.
When you get IOUs from entities you don't have a ongoing financial relationship with, you need buyers who either 1) have an ongoing relationship with or are willing and able to transact with that entity, or 2) trust that they can find someone who has a relationship with that entity who will buy the IOU.
1) is value, 2) is the perception of value. Crypto has 3), in which there is no entity issuing or accepting the currency against a real debt (such as taxes or legal liabilities, which if not paid result in men in uniform hitting you with sticks, chaining you up, and locking you in a room), and no place to dump the currency other than other speculators.
You can find people who believe in bitcoin, so bitcoin is liquid. But bitcoin support relies on a constant and enormous amount of marketing and lobbying, in the exact same way as "hawktwa." Crypto (thus far) only has value in that it can aid in criminal transactions (semi-privacy), and that enough wealthy people own it that they're now convincing weak governments to subsidize it. Dodging law enforcement and government handouts to the wealthy on one hand; maintaining preexisting legal obligations and paying taxes already owed on the other. Both fiat and crypto rely on government, but crypto is government subverting itself. Crypto only has value to the degree that governments allow or encourage lawbreaking and corruption. Crypto (as it is, not a hypothetically) is parasitic.
> Zimbabwean dollar isn't remotely like the Swiss frank
The Zim dollar is exactly like the Swiss franc, except it's harder to find people who pay Zim taxes and court judgements than people who pay Swiss taxes and court judgements. Just as hawktwa is exactly like bitcoin, except they lack the lobbyists, and the marketing is focused around a viral youtube clip. The big difference between the two classes is that you don't have to be convinced that government fiat is worth something, you know it is. The reach of crypto, outside of fraud and government graft (which is real value) is simply the reach of crypto marketing.
Moving your money into a non-local currency or store-of-value has a cost and its own risks.
If you trust an untrustable government, you lose when they betray you. If you don't trust a trustable government, you lose when you spend years and decades hedging against their betrayal and it never comes.
All money has always been about perception, whether we used paper, shiny rocks, or sea shells as money, it’s always been about perception. Is it real or counterfeit, do you trust the person you’re transacting with, are enough people you know using it, and will people with weapons show up to protect your money if someone else tries to steal it?
The “people with weapons” part turns out to be a key component. The novel thing about crypto is that you are less reliant on the “people with weapons” to protect you and tell you what you’re allowed to do with your money, and more reliant on the “people with encryption”.
Fiat is backed by tax base.
US has more assets than debt.
Additionally US is the largest economy in the world, how much would the right to tax it be worth? A lot.
It's not at all just perception and influence as you claim.
I don't know where that site is pulling their data from, but not even the Chinese government claims their GDP is as high as that. And our GDP is higher than that site claims
This is Purchase Power Parity GDP (as indicated by the subtitle "This data is adjusted for inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries.")
> That’s the thing I can’t ever come to understand about crypto. It’s purely about perception of value.
It's not though. It became about that, in general, but there are crypto projects out there which don't focus on hype or valuation.
It is functional and useful to be able to move value worldwide for 10% of the energy of a credit card transaction, decentralized, at sub-second speed, with no fees, even when just moving tiny fractions of a cent.
There are a lot of maxis and bag holders trying to prevent people from figuring that out, but sooner or later a crisis will hit and everyone will remember what crypto was about in the first place.
> At least with some precious metal, it has a floor value as a function of its practical uses and abundance.
Suppose the price of gold is 80% perception of value and 20% utility for making electronics etc. Then if you buy it, 80% of what you buy is perception of value. You could get the same result by buying 80% Bitcoin and 20% commodity rock salt. Is someone who buys the latter any more of a sucker? What about somebody who then decides to divest the rock salt because it has a below-market rate of return when they have no direct use for it?
Precious metal floor value is not immune either, since (1) it is dependent on supply and (2) specific technologies/industries that require their use may become diminished or obsoleted. Definitely a lot less volatile than something not bound by reality though.
Are you proposing that "value" is meaningful in the absence of some perceiver? All value is the perception of value. The only difference is that it's easier to find people who value precious metals, but that sort of thing always depends on where you look. One can easily imagine situations where a position at the front of a queue is more valuable to the people nearby than a gold coin. Finding value in a blockchain is no different.
It's just that none of the blockchains have yet managed to situate themselves such that people are likely to value their effects. Instead they're focusing on scarcity, which is kind of silly because all of the competition is equally empowered to create artificial scarcities. I think they'll figure it out eventually.
> Are you proposing that "value" is meaningful in the absence of some perceiver
Yes.
Gold conducts electricity.
Bitcoin has no physically useful properties. However, I will admit a public ledger is actually probably very good for the USA so we can see all the grifting easily.
But it isn’t just the military and the taxes, it is the labor of all the people who are willing to work for US dollars that give it value. While the majority of people paid in dollars are hard working and generally honest, it seems that the majority of people paid in cryptocurrencies are scammers or criminals in one way or the other, or else financial operators. So till more people are getting paid in bitcoin or whatever I don’t see why anyone will find it something other than a speculative asset for dollar owners.
Even the scarcity is artificial, and based something between a contract and a gentleman's agreement, not any physical reality.
That is, the bitcoin software can be changed if enough people want to, to make more of it. And you can create infinite copies of bitcoin software and call it bitcoin or something else.
That's simply not true for the scarcity of gold.
Finally, insofar as there are uses for the blockchain, the ostensible finite volume of bitcoin has no bearing on anything, as you don't need 'one of 21 million bitcoin' for its blockchain functionality, you can use 0.1 or 0.0001 bitcoin. It's infinitely divisible, and a small unit of bitcoin can get you blockchain functionality.
And yet I've begun to put 5% of my monthly savings into it, as it seems to have become the long-term speculative asset. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere. But it really appears like an utterly ridiculous proposition, a self-fulling prophecy.
You're mixing up a bit everything. Bitcoin is totally different from Ethereum or Solana and these 2 networks are different from all the NFTs and meme coins launched on these Ethereum and Solana.
By the way, if you thought that Trump was doing something illegal, which certainly sounds suspicious, well it isn't. This guy gives a good overview of the why https://x.com/wassielawyer/status/1881995797245600248
This administration is also creating a sovereign wealth fund, which trump will exercise significant control over, I would be shocked if crypto and his coins specifically are not included.
We are paying for it all one way or another, either with taxes or more likely higher inflation.
You and I are free to not buy it, but that doesn't mean Russia or b
Saudi's or China or Zuckerberg isn't going to buy a bunch to influence our president
A sitting president profiting off the presidency is a hall mark of a corrupt state. Doing it so openly suggests there's nothing stopping from doing so in much subtler ways too.
Doing it openly demonstrates that he thinks a lot of people (namely, people who voted for him) won't have any problem with it. In that case a corrupt state is not the biggest problem.
Everyone has the power to create credit out of thin air.
What the banks have (now, due to long history) is a regularly regime where we expect the government to fix that credit when the bank gets those credit decisions wrong. In trade for that extraordinary treatment governments demand banks comply with a variety of regulations.
I’ve worked for a long time in the banking and credit space, no one I know in that industry thinks Andreeson did a credible job explaining modern banking. To knowledgeable people he came off as either fundamentally ignorant or extremely deceptive depending on your cynicism levels.
Thank you, this is something I think people really misunderstand about "money" in our system. Every time I create a "loan" for a family member I've technically created (i.e. debt) I've done the equivalent as to what a bank does to create "money". The question becomes if I can take the IOU I have from my brother, and trade that to another individual when I need to acquire goods.
The fact we have a mechanism to create trust in trading debut is about assigning and managing risk in the payment of that debt, and transferring/holding that risk over time, which is a separate aspect to the raw creation of money concern (managing total debt loads).
Can your corner store credit be used to pay taxes? How long will your corner store survive if the IRS found out you were processing transactions in your own currency?
No to paying taxes, mostly because the asset you'd have is an apple... The corner store at least has a receivable, but the IRS still won't accept that from them.
But, at least in the US, before the national bank acts in the 1800's, various taxing entities specified which bank notes (or other assets) they'd accept and not accept. It was basically whichever bank notes circulated the most with no/little discount, some gold/silver coins, some government bonds. Ie acceptance by a taxing entity isn't really a clear line on "is/is not" money.
Trading receivables has been going on forever, happens today, is totally legal. The corner store could sell the receivable, and many businesses to sell their receivables.
>How long will your corner store survive if the IRS found out you were processing transactions in your own currency?
Offering someone credit in USD isn't making your own currency. The closest widespread version of that are community currencies[0], which the US doesn't seem to particularly care about -- I'm guessing because they're generally pegged to the dollar and promote local economies.
You didn’t say currency, you said credit. But it doesn’t matter, lots of non-US chartered institutions historically create US dollars. There are some treaties around it now but in the beginning English banks created the Eurodollar system with no control by the US government.
Sure, but because of fintech not as many need to get created. Fintech has made it relatively easy for new entrants to work with partner banks through BaaS platforms.
Sure it is. In fact, it's fractional banking where the fraction is 0.
Consider how much business can be done on credit, and what constrains it. Infinite, and nothing. My corner store is not required to hold reserves against it's receivable. Apple (or a telco) is not required to hold reserves against it's receivable for a phone on credit. Their suppliers aren't required to hold reserves against credit on them. And so on all the way back to the folks digging stuff out of the ground.
If I need financing of 100 pesos for buying a house, and I go to a commercial bank which has a 10% fractional reserve requirement, they'll give me 100 pesos, 90 of which will be newly created broad money. As I buy the house, and pay the 100 pesos to the seller, the 90 newly created pesos just entered the economy.
If I go to your corner store and buy an Iphone on credit, you're not getting any new pesos right away, and neither am I. I could turn around, and sell the Iphone to someone, but again, that person will pay me with pesos that already exist in the system.
You could argue that implicitly me wanting to buy an Iphone means that someone somewhere down the line would've used a commercial bank to take a loan and hence my activity indirectly participates in broad money creation. But that doesn't mean that buying an iPhone in a corner store on credit is exactly equivalent to taking out a loan at a commercial bank when it comes to broad money creation.
Continue down the chain on your house example. Imagine in each case instead of transferring money in bank accounts, people do the work on credit. Add up all the credit at the end of the chain. Then go back and add up all the bank account balances in the "pay with money transfer". It'll be the same (except for the fraction). Now, go look at a bunch of public company balance sheets - you'll see payables and receivables all the way down from mining companies to retailers. One long chain of credit. They could have all borrowed money from banks instead and have zero trade receivables throughout the entire chain.
The point of "money creation" is to enable economic activity. Credit does the same thing. In fact, your "money" at the bank is just a receivable from the bank. Ray Dalio has a quarter decent explanation of it here: https://youtu.be/PHe0bXAIuk0
I see. You use "money" in a kind of a metaphysical 'total value' sense. That's fine, but very confusing when talking about "money creation", because that term typically means the particular mechanism by which units of a particular currency come into existence. In particular, M2 money growth, and where that line comes from.
You're right when you say that it's all debt all the way down, but you're very much wrong if you really believe that new fiat units appear in the system just because you took a loan at a non-bank entity.
EDIT: To illustrate my point a bit.
Let's assume that there are no fractional reserve banks, and only cash exists as a form of money. Only government issues cash, in total 10k USD have been issued, and the next issuance will be in 2 years.
Let's say you need 10 USD, and I have a 10 USD banknote. The banknote is debt money in the sense that it's a direct liability on the central bank balance sheet. For me it's a 10 USD worth asset.
Now we sign an agreement that you're going to pay back 11 USD in a year. I give you my banknote. Now I have exchanged one asset (a 10 USD bank note) for another asset (your promise to pay back 11 USD in a year). Depending on your character, history, and point in time between now and in a year my new asset is worth between 0 - 11 USD.
Let's assume you have stellar character, and are a well respected member of the community who always pays their bills. It's likely my new asset is now worth 10.5 USD, and someone would be willing to buy your debt from me.
By issuing a loan to you, we haven't created additional 50 cents in the system. The system only has 10k in it, and the next issuance is in 2 years. Anyone who would be willing to buy your debt from me would need to already have 10.5 USD.
Now the government decides that fractional reserve banking is pretty nifty, and is made legal. The fractional reserve requirement is set at 10%.
A neobank that has 3 USD cash (central bank liability) in their vaults approaches me and buys your debt from me by opening a 10.5 USD deposit in my name. Now the bank has a liability of 10.5 USD (my deposit), a 3 USD asset (cash), and an asset worth approximately 10.5 USD (your debt).
Congratulations, we have now all together created 7.5 USD of additional money in the system. The theoretical M2 money maximum in our system is now 100k USD. How much is actually in circulation depends on how much debt people are taking on. At the moment we're the only ones having done this, so amount of M2 money in the system is 10 007.5 USD.
M1 (and thus M2) money includes checking accounts - a checking account is literally credit. You have lent the bank money and you have a receivable.
I never said "fiat" - you seem to be conflating things. In my example you call out "no new fiat" (which is true) and in your example you say "more M2!"(which is true). Make a valid comparison. The best way is by comparing the total assets and liabilities in the system and the total amount of economic activity driven by those.
In the end, a receivable is a receivable. The only difference is that we've created a very neat system to trade bank receivables, and tend to call them "money". When you hear someone say "money was created" mentally translate it to "receivables were created". "M1", "M2", "fractional" etc make it all sound so sophisticated when it's just ideas from 100,000 years ago, and you and I can create receivables too.
Yeah, that "banking cabal" includes a heap of checks and balances that at least on paper stop financial crimes like scams, money laundering, market manipulation, insider trading, and they add guarantees like the relative stability of value, interest rates, and compensation if your bank does end up going bankrupt.
You get none of those protections with cryptocurrency, which is exactly what scammers, criminal organizations, and financial libertarians want.
Most of the cryptocurrency companies prove that this statement isn't entirely true though, unless I don't get it. That is, they generate cryptocurrencies out of thin air (credit) and say it has a certain value, then people pay them fiat money for those. They just generated value out of thin air and some compute cycles.
> mega banks have the sole power of creating credit out of thin air
Amazing that more people don't know this. Most people will insist until their face is red that bank credit is a "loan" with equal debits and credits on both sides of the balance sheet. Wrong. The borrower's bank account goes up. And the bank's balance sheet goes up (the loan is an asset). Viola, new money.
Alice gets a 400k mortgage at bank A, so she gets 400k in credit at her (new?) account at the bank. Alice then pays to Bob for the house by transfering the 400k to Bob's account at bank B. No real money or gold is moved. Alice owes bank A 400k with money slave interest rate (e.g. 7%), bank A owes bank B 400k + interbank interest rate (e.g. 4%), and bank B owes Bob 400k (but they phrase it as "he has credit").
Both Alice and Bob's salaries are just credit at banks in the same system. If they sell their cars they get money from the same system. There's no way out.
The banking system's accounting trick to create money was proven by prof Richard Werner.
The limits on cash transactions are growing. To pay for something like a car you'd need a bag of papers as higher denominations to match inflation would never be printed. Cops can seize cash without much of an excuse. Customs can seize cash over 10k without much of an excuse.
A small bank can only go down if other banks don't trust them. Like SBV a couple of years ago. But their assets are taken by a bigger bank. Lehman Brothers was a rare exception and it looks like Goldman wanted them to go down for some petty reason. But the AIGs will always be bailed out.
More small banks going belly up and more bailouts are coming. The world is reducing exposure to dollar. Central banks are selling US treasuries and buying gold. The US dollar's empire is crashing down and the Western banking cartel is getting desperate. They'll try to drag the world into war or some other old trick.
You missed an important bit... the banks (A & B) accounts at the federal reserve are updated (bank A down, bank B up) for the transfer. And that's where the rubber meets the road. If bank A doesn't have the assets, it all stops. Banks don't just give each other endless credit to solve payments...
There is no magic in banking. If you describe something and it sounds magical, a piece is missing. If you were running bank B, you'd never agree to what you described. You'd want the assets, or you'd want some kind of collateral even if you were willing to do an interbank credit, you'd limit it, you'd do all kinds of credit analysis on your bank counterparties... And what I just described is how trading of securities tends to work between banks. But even then, it's not how payments are solved...
If you count the loan as an asset, surely you have to count it as a liability for the borrower. And the bank has to actually give the money, so they're down that money.
It's not net zero because you collect all the interest on money you didn't have to begin with and created out of thin air via an accounting trick.
Now obviously the liability will get zeroed out in the end, but in the meantime you get to keep all that accumulated sweet interest for ... uh... "managing risk"... it's a very beautiful thing!
So you have in fact created money out thin air, it's in the interest payments! You pay interest for basically "nothing!" (cough, cough, "managing risk"). And that interest does not get zeroed out! It's "pure" profit from an accounting trick.
The transaction is balanced in isolation, but the initial part (actually giving the money) is allowed to be negative for the bank as long as they're within their leverage ratio.
So yes, as a whole the bank gives money from thin air.
You can't do this indefinitely. There a lot of risk management rules and capital requirement ratios which dictate how much money you can make of "the thin air". Also you should have enough liquidity to let the customer transfer the borrowed amount outside to actually use it.
I used them during their beta phase and they were my primary bank until I left the UK. Exceptional service, and the only app from a UK bank that wouldn’t have made you want to cry with how awful it was.
Crypto has never posed a credible threat to any aspect of the establishment, and it never will. Need proof? You don't have to go through an arduous screening process to acquire and deploy compute. The finance industry saw a pool of dumb money forming and predictably decided they'd like a slice of the action.
> an arduous screening process to acquire and deploy compute
That right there is more unlikely than crypto becoming a credible threat to the banking establishment.
If you want to see a lot of dead bodies of rich people in the street, tell the rest of the world they can't have their smartphone and laptop and Xbox and Playstation.
If there isn’t sufficient competition for commercial banks, I think they should just be regulated as privately owned utilities for the public good or just be made into a public agency. What is the point of outsourcing this service to private industry if there is no working market dynamic?
Exactly. Bankers are modern-day royalty. Banks are granted special, exclusive powers by the state to issue/counterfeit the nation's currency as loans. Banking executives are anointed by decree.
The idea of 'disrupting banks' is gaslighting because it pretends that they operate within a 'free market'.
On this point, I too have a really difficult time understanding how there is supposedly >$50 billion in treasury bonds backing Tether USDC sitting at Cantor Fitzgerald. It really does seem like the bonds backing tether just came out of thin air, unless tether was sponsored by an entity that gave them the wherewithal to obtain the bonds, for the sole purpose of moving money without KYC with tether.
100% - even a few years ago, Tether claimed that they were receiving USD deposits approaching $5B per week. That amount of income is at the Saudi Aramco and others level.
Of course, it was all supposedly being deposited into Deltec Bank, whose website was a Wordpress site, whose "Deputy CEO" couldn't remember the name of the country's two banking licenses, and which one Deltec held, or whether they held both.
I guess it's hard to track all of those things when you go from getting your Masters in Science at HEC Lausanne at 15, and immediately being appointed a Professor of Finance at a Lebanese university, all while running your own hedge fund, "Indepedance (sic) Weath (sic) Management" from Jacksonville FL...
Crypto fans and gold bugs miss a very important point - if their favourite currency were to get big, banks would hold it as an asset, and issue loans in exactly the same way as any other currency.
Do you want interest and the conviniance and security of a real bank? Give it to a bank to look after. There are maybe some risks, but there's also risks with a bitcoin wallet or physical bullion (theft, losing it).
Do you want money now, and can pay it back later? The bank will loan it.
Are the banks in trouble? The government can regulate, and even rescue them. A run can happen, but as long as the government and banks say the money is there, who cares about conversion to a bitcoin or bullion?
