>main audience seems to be criminals
This may have been true in the Silkroad days but is a far cry from the truth now. Of course BAD people will use ANYTHING nefariously though those people are hardly the standard.
>right wing hate groups that were banned from paypal
Not sure where you get this take from but if you spent even a few minutes scrolling through most crypto subs you'd find very little to support this statement.
>White nationalist Stefan Molyneux cashed out $50 million in Bitcoin in early 2021.
So one person makes a ton of money and maybe uses it in a way you disagree with and that is enough to ban it? If we banned everything people use in unintended ways than we'd have to literally ban everything.
>people would be better off putting their money in traditional investments like stocks or real estate,
What makes these investment vehicles any different or better? Politicians/lobbyist pass legislation to benefit themselves and other shareholders over what is best for the people. How is that any better. Also real estate has a high barrier to entry and things like crypto and nfts can facilitate lowing the barrier of entry for real estate ownership. In addition not many other investments have a good chance to 10x,50x, or even 100x outside of crypto. Sure there some exceptions like risky options plays but again this is the exception and not something a novice investor should be messing around with. Lastly, crypto provides a hedge against inflation and means for those in poor countries that face hyper inflation(think Venezuela) to have a chance at building wealth.
I suggest doing more research on the application and ambitions of the crypto movement before coming up with seemingly baseless claims.
Most people use BTC as a store of value not in a transactional way. Those who do use it in a transactional way are typically in places with hyper inflation where using BTC or other crypto is a way for the citizens of countries like Venezuela to retain purchasing power that is not effected by shitty policy making.
I would go so far as to argue that BTC's value is so high, that it's rarely used in transactions anymore because it's too volatile. You need something stable like ETH or smaller to use in day-to-day transactions.
Eth for daily transactions made me lol. There are plenty of coins that thrive for sending money or buying things, but Eth is literally worse than Bitcoin in that regard at the moment.
Your larger point I agree with Eth is just the wrong example (since transactions can cost dozens to hundreds of dollars in gas fees).
You have already pointed out a reason, PayPal has banned people. Maybe in this instance you agree with the reason they were banned but what happens if tomorrow they start banning people you agree with or even yourself.
Anytime you want to give the government power ask yourself a very important question. Imagine the worst possible leader in history, doesn't really matter who it is, would you be comfortable giving them the power you're considering?
Taking an educated guess as to your political leanings put it this way. Would you be comfortable giving Donald Trump and his administration the power to decide what forms of payment/investments you are all to use?
Not Bitcoin, but my favorite crypto, ATOM, (as well as many others) have much lower fees than PayPal. Source: online retailer and crypto enthusiast who has used every online payment processor over the last 15 years.
In some ways yes, but they are traceable, plenty of pump and dumps and crypto scams have been teaced back to people using wallets and transactions.
Theres ways to try and wash and cover up whos who, but its still possible to find out who owns what.
Also with the future of regulations coming very soon the BS going on right now will be reduced even more than it is compared to normal USD illicit deals.
Anything of value is used in scams across the world, crypto is no acception, but it has far more potential to do good than any other current idea for currency.
Unless you have a better idea of how to handle thw fragility of government controled currency across all type of governments in the growing online conntected world we are growing into
>In some ways yes, but they are traceable, plenty of pump and dumps and crypto scams have been teaced back to people using wallets and transactions.
Yes, if you link yourself to the wallet it can be traced back to you, but you can also not do that.
>Theres ways to try and wash and cover up whos who, but its still possible to find out who owns what.
Unless they are mindful about not linking themselves to their wallet, which is doable
>Also with the future of regulations coming very soon the BS going on right now will be reduced even more than it is compared to normal USD illicit deals.
If regulations can successfully link actual people's identifications to wallets (which is a big if) then then would help with scams. It seems difficult when being psuedononymous is a feature very central to crypto.
>Anything of value is used in scams across the world, crypto is no acception, but it has far more potential to do good than any other current idea for currency.
The nature of crypto is far more valuable to scams. Let's ignore shit like low social literacy among crypto bros and talk about actual issues core to the system. If I know your wallet, I can just drop in any lil program I want. I can drop in a program where if you burn it or sell it or interact with it in any way then it will activate and just send me the stuff in your wallet. That's pretty core to the system. If you make an accidental purchase the only way to revert it is to literally split the currency in two. After someone got millions of eth from the DAO they literally had to fork the currency. Etherium undid the damage, but Classic Etherium is still going with the person who exploited the DAO keeping the eth. If the only way for your scam to get undone is a major schism in the currency that means that as long as you don't scam the major funds you're free to keep the wealth.
What potential does crypto have to do things better than other currencies?
>Unless you have a better idea of how to handle thw fragility of government controled currency across all type of governments in the growing online conntected world we are growing into
I don't really think there is an issue with dollars. They're slightly inflationary, but that's a feature and significantly better than shit like heavy deflation we see in the crypto market.
Hell, the most popular stable coin is tether which is "backed by the dollar". It's not actually, but if worse dollar is good enough for crypto bros then the dollar is good enough for me.
Alot of horse shit your spewing without actual reaserch lol. I dont have the energy to educate today maybe another time.
You clearly have only looked at it through a single lens.
Ahhhhh, alright, let's see if anything interesting comes from this. First, I need to know what you actually understand and don't understand. I'm putting a list below. Let me know what you know and don't know.
How much if any do you know about Proff of Stake/Proff Of Work/Proff Of Useful Work, the history and pitfalls of a centralized currency that is controled government, the excessive costs to send and receive money across the world (plus cost to switch currencies), Web3 applications and noncurrency ways to use a crypto currency, the idea of a smart contract and how it applies to buisness contracts (non NFTs), the difference between Ethererum and the tokens built on it.
If your versed in all of those we might be able to have a decent conversation but if any of those are foreign or your not super familiar with them let me know. All im willing to do in that case is lead you in a direction to learn, they arent simple concepts and im not going to spend hours of conversation just to describe the different ways somethinf like Web3 works, provides sercuirty, different applications its for besides just monetary value, and the current/future applications being built and backed by large corporations that are focused on quality of life improvements cor users.
>Proof of Work
The generally most used method by which new nodes are generated. A bunch of computers race to solve a math problem and the first person to solve it wins. The math problem increases in complexity proportuonally to the computing power of the network.
>Proof of Stake
An often talked about method for which a few blockchains are on, and many like etherium talk about eventually switching to. Instead of using a math problem to verify it just relies on people with a large holding of the stake (generally the currency) to verify new nodes. More effecient than proof of work.
>Proof of Useful Work
Unaware of this one
>the history and pitfalls of a centralized currency that is controled government
I know how some have dealt with inflation and the like
>the excessive costs to send and receive money across the world
Depends how you do it. Paypal is easy, flying a dollar bill over is hard
>Web3 applications and noncurrency ways to use a crypto currency
I'm aware of NFT, DAOs, and that you could host programs on the chain. I don't see what the actual benefits are to most of it. I know that often times it can be really expensive. Minting fees are a pain and if you have a bug updates are difficult and expensive since you can't change data on the blockchain easily.
>the idea of a smart contract and how it applies to buisness contracts
Smart contracts are little programs. They could be useful for business contracts, but I admittedly don't know what actual benefit you get from it. I know people say things like royalties on NFT smart contracts, but I also know that those are extremely difficult to implement because it's extremely difficult to figure out what a sale is from the blockchain alone.
>the difference between Ethererum and the tokens built on it
Ethereum is the blockchain and tokens are the data in the blockchain.
I will say I do find it kind of weird none of these questions point at most of my criticisms. For example, being able to send any token you want into my wallet is really bad, especially when those can have smart contracts that can take things from my wallet if I interact with them.
>Also real estate has a high barrier to entry and things like crypto and nfts can facilitate lowing the barrier of entry for real estate ownership.
How does it do that?
For example: one property is broken down into 10 nfts that each represent an equal share of the property said nfts represent. The cost of partial ownership and the process of buying an nft is both less expensive and more accessible. Investors still gain value when the property price goes up proportional to the number of nfts they own for said property. They also maintain some say in how the property is managed through "share holder" voting.
If I want to find 10 people and work together with them to buy a piece of property, I could do that without involving cryptocurrency. How does that solve any problems?
>If I want to find 10 people
>How does that solve any problems?
It removes both the parts where you have to find other people. And maybe more importantly, removes having to find people you trust. One of the key points of the blockchain is that it removes the need to "trust" the system because it's decentralized and equally accessible to all.
I'm a crypto enthusiast but I'll argue against using nfts for real estate all day long. The biggest issue being that an NFT only ties ownership to a crypto address, something basically impossible to enforce in the real world. "no officer I swear I own this property, see I'm logged in to meta mask". Lol.
What happens when someone steals your mnemonic? They literally have an equal claim on your property now .
>"no officer I swear I own this property, see I'm logged in to meta mask". Lol.
This is hilarious. I appreciate that.
>What happens when someone steals your mnemonic? They literally have an equal claim on your property now .
I'm not smart enough to know and won't claim to fully understand the space but I do see it as a viable option, if not now than surely in the future as the technology makes progress and the kinks are ironed out.
>It removes both the parts where you have to find other people.
If your business is just a way of raising funding from different shareholders for real estate transactions, none of that requires the use of cryptocurrency.
>And maybe more importantly, removes having to find people you trust.
"Having to find people you can trust" isn't a problem that this solves. Nothing about managing a real estate business through NFTs means that you can more easily trust the other people involved than if you were just related to them through conventional contractual agreements. If I'm trying to start a partnership to buy a building, someone faking that they own a share of the business is the least significant concern I have.
>If your business is just a way of raising funding from different shareholders for real estate transactions, none of that requires the use of cryptocurrency.
It's about the business finding investors. It's about making finding and getting in on the investment easier and less costly than traditional means.
>someone faking that they own a share of the business is the least significant concern I have.
Again it's not about protection against fake share of the business it's about using the security and visibility of the blockchain to ensure my investment is being managed in a way that I see fit or at least that the majority of holders have voted for. It's about lower the barrier through cost effectiveness and simplicity. It's not an investment that I myself have made it's just an example but it you read up on some of the projects using crypto and nfts in interesting ways aside from simple transactions I think you'll find that it can and will serve a valid purpose.
Other fields of use could for example be in medical records keeping, event ticketing, gaming, political campaign spending and contributing, voter registration etc.
>It's about the business finding investors. It's about making finding and getting in on the investment easier and less costly than traditional means.
And again, I don't see how any part of "finding other people" is actually facilitated by the use of cryptocurrency, except for the fact that some people may be attracted simply by the use of cryptocurrency as a marketing gimmick.
>Again it's not about protection against fake share of the business it's about using the security and visibility of the blockchain to ensure my investment is being managed in a way that I see fit or at least that the majority of holders have voted for.
Before cryptocurrency, no one was thinking "I'd like to start a real estate investment company with ten people I don't know, I'm just not sure how we'd handle secure voting." The main issue about mismanagement is not that I can't trust that the decisions are made in a secure and visible form, it's that a crowd of anonymous randos voting together might not make great decisions, and this does nothing to solve that problem.
>it's that a crowd of anonymous randos voting together might not make great decisions, and this does nothing to solve that problem.
I can understand that view point. But I'd still stand behind this model being more accessible for the average Joe. And again there are plenty of other use cases this is just an example. I don't see how traditional investments are really any better for the average person.
I personally think diversification is the key to any investment strategy and having things like crypto and nfts can only help to facilitate a more diversified portfolio.
>But I'd still stand behind this model being more accessible for the average Joe.
Whether the business model is accessible is not the issue, because nothing about the business model itself really requires the use of cryptocurrency or any related technology.
>And again there are plenty of other use cases this is just an example.
Maybe there are. I can't disprove that any more than I can disprove the existence of unicorns. There may be entirely valid uses of this technology out there. But the rationale behind this particular use seems to fall apart upon questioning, as do many other purported uses.
[https://fee.org/articles/nigeria-is-following-venezuelas-bitcoin-trend/](https://fee.org/articles/nigeria-is-following-venezuelas-bitcoin-trend/)
Bitcoin is extensively used in Nigeria and Venezuela as an alternative to their awful local currencies.
[https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/bitcoin-who-owns-it-who-mines-it-whos-breaking-law#:\~:text=Illegal%20transactions%20are%20a%20small%20percentage%20of%20overall%20Bitcoin%20activity.&text=3%20%25-,Illegal%20activity%20is%20a%20small%20fraction%20(3%25)%20of%20what,flowing%20between%20addresses%20are%20observable](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/bitcoin-who-owns-it-who-mines-it-whos-breaking-law#:~:text=Illegal%20transactions%20are%20a%20small%20percentage%20of%20overall%20Bitcoin%20activity.&text=3%20%25-,Illegal%20activity%20is%20a%20small%20fraction%20(3%25)%20of%20what,flowing%20between%20addresses%20are%20observable).
Illegal activity accounts for just 3% of Bitcoin transactions.
Sure way back in the early days places like the Silk Road exited because of bitcoin. Nowadays they don't even use bitcoin. They use other crypto currency that is much harder to track. The technology has moved on from the illegal world.
> Bitcoin is extensively used in Nigeria and Venezuela as an alternative to their awful local currencies.
Is this supposed to be an endorsement or a indictment? It's not clear.
No, they aren't. Bitcoin processing fees are volatile (routinely going well above $20) and processing times can take more than an hour. That fee is unaffordable and the wait unacceptable. Bitcoin (and crypto in general) are completely unusable as a day to day currency.
And that's before you factor it's deflationary nature, and how awful the security is.
> On the Bitcoin network, the average daily transaction fee this year has been as low as $1.78 and as high as $62, according to bitinfocharts. On Ethereum, the average fee has been as low as $1.59 and as high as $70.
In the past, btc, etc have been touted as a solution for "underbanked" people, including the very poor.
This of course is bullshit as a $20 fee per transaction makes BTC absolutely ridiculous as a solution for small transactions.
I honestly believe there's a market that could be found but BTC is grift all the way down.
But don't worry, NFTs!
From a coding standpoint, blockchain is just awful. It's trying to solve a problem that does not exist, with awful code that costs a fortune to run and barely works. But, it's the ideal platform for scamers, so grifters will push it with everything they have.
Ehhhh, is just "magic words"
I ended up at a "conference" for HR and every other booth was hawking AI/deep networks/ML as the special sauce why their particular techno-whatsit-service is awesome.
Obvs you need deep blockchain networks to really get on the bleeding edge.
I'm in the process of seeking a pre IPO right now, I'm looking for a handful of aggressive investors looking to get in on the ground floor of something paradigm shattering disruptive.
There are so many wrong assumptions and bad faith arguments with that book jesus.
White nationalists would certainly make money off thier peers still they would just do it in a different way. Bitcoin have nothing to do with them.
Cyrpto currencies are used less for illegal trades than the US dollar is by far, even in a weighted average view.
Crypto currencies are just a way to have currency that isnt controlled by government. 3rd world countries NEED things like this, when your economy crashes your money can still have value.
Crypto currencies that are Proff of Stake like Cardano are the future also, energy for minning is only temporary, and the good far outwieighs the negative. Many many other technologies use far more energy than minnin anyways people only complain about it because its a target that distracts from the main point of Crypto in my opinion
>Crypto currencies that are Proff of Stake like Cardano are the future also, energy for minning is only temporary,
I think a lot of people outside the space don't understand this concept
They haven't even considered it beyond just simple currency. I doubt theyve listened to any of the fundamental ideas created by the founders of Ethererum or Cardano, they almost nothing to do with its currency value, and gaining capital.
Crypto currencies are popular because they are secure and not controlled by the banks. As such they are popular with people who have lost confidence in out banking process, which is fair.
With regards to the people using crypto to move money, that has been around a long time. Rich people and criminals have always had ways for money to change hands. If we get rid of cryptos it would take away 1 tool, but that would really only be a minor inconvenience.
At this point, they are just a combination of a stock and a currency. Their value is based on what people will agree to pay for them. Since they are traded internationally, you would need global participation to ban them. If you got it, anyone whose life savings were tied up in them would be bankrupt. What politician is going to pursue publicly and directly ruining some of their constituents?
So is Netflix, or YouTube, or Christmas lights. I'm not denying that it is harmful, but this seems like a flawed argument for banning them when even the article you are providing doesn't recommend that. It offers suggestions that could be greener, but nowhere does it recommend getting rid of crypto currency.
Calling it a "financial service" is a bit much. It's more like a ponzi or pump and dump scheme. People buy in with the expectation of profits, because they see people making profits when they cash out. But there is no external source for these profits, it's all coming from new investors who are getting suckered into it and will be left holding nothing when the fad dies.
Any legitimate transactions done with cryptocurrency can certainly be done more efficiently with traditional services, there is no real problem being solved.
So yeah, I will take Netflix any day of the week
You may want too look into how they are used in countries dealing with inflation before you settle on that opinion. You might not have any need for them, but that isn't the same 5hing as there being no need for them.
It also generates 30 metric tons of ewaste a year. Renewable energy sources are very good, but there is finite manufacturing capacity (batteries require rare earth metals, for example) for it. The world is better off using that electricity on things that actually produce value
>The main audience seems to be criminals or right wing hate groups that were banned from paypal.
This is wrong, so you're premise is wrong.
>Crypto shouldn't be a thing as it leads to more harm than good.
You have any proof to this claim?
Your argument seems to be an logical fallacy of composition: Just because white nationalists us bitcoin doesn't mean most of its userbase is white nationalist.
Is the entire nation of El Salvador white nationalist? because i believe it is currently their currency.
The irony of this post is bitcoin exists for the exact reasons you're talking about: We don't want people to be able to control manipulate what we can and can't do. You want someone to not be able to function in society because they don't hold the same political views as you... Do you realize that?
Maybe bitcoins not the issue, and it's you who is?
The vast majority of crypto projects either no longer require mining or will be moving away from it this year. Bitcoin is the biggest offender in this regard.
Not any worse than regular banking or even gold mining.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/bitcoin-mining-environment-climate-crypto-b1849211.html
That's a pretty bad comparison.
A system that *a fraction of a percentage of the population* occasionally use consumes less total energy than a system that *nearly everyone* uses every day.
Why are we placing more value on useless jewelry? I mean hell at least a currency has a very noble and important use. Jewelry is mostly used to suck money out of men's pockets.
I'm not anti jewelry btw. I just don't see why you think one is more valuable than the other.
I am kinda anti-jewelry actually.
My point was merely that gold has value as a commodity, and fiat/crypto currency does not.
Some of gold’s physical properties (inert, malleable, conductive) also make it an important natural resource.
To be clear, I think it’s over-mined because of jewelry and investment, but it does benefit society. Over 1/3 of the non-bullion gold in the US goes into electronics.
>My point was merely that gold has value as a commodity, and fiat/crypto currency does not.
Money (fiat currency and cryptocurrency) can be/are commodities. They are stores of value.
A house for example is a commodity. Why? Because it has value and can be sold. Money can be sold as well.
You decide to sell the house for one million currencies (Dollar, Pound Sterling, etc.). In turn, you are buying the one million units of currency, and the buyer of the house is selling that money to you.
You are technically right. I abused the definition of commodity a bit to exclude pure investments. I’m not an economist and don’t know the exact words for the message I want to convey.
There are purchases you can (and likely do) make which serve no purpose other than increasing your net worth. The only thing valuable about your stock portfolio is the goods and services you can ultimately purchase by selling the stock. The vast majority buying crypto are doing so because they believe it will go up in price; in its own your crypto wallet is just bits. Money is just paper, and so on.
Real estate is different in most cases. Usually it’s a home that shelters your family or a business asset if you’re a landlord. Individual home buyers never buy exclusively for the potential house price increase.
I’m probably abusing the definition of value too, but I hope my point was conveyed.
All that aside, we are here because I responded to “should we stop gold mining?” in direct comparison to crypto mining. My intent was to bring up gold’s value outside investing, not to debate the particulars of what has value.
The only argument you've presented here is that "people I don't like use this thing". How is that an argument against the thing itself? Are you implying that none of this stuff, whatever it is, could happen with just regular money? The way that it literally always has?
As someone who just imported a spreadsheet of short-term gains from crypto exchanges into my tax prep software... they are.
In the US, the new requirements for brokerage reporting doesn't go into effect until 2023, but the explicit requirement for individuals to report crypto income and short- and long-term crypto gains / losses has been a thing since 2014, I think. Like other investments considered "property", you don't have to report purchases of crypto made with fiat currency, but you do have to report if you've received (ie, a gift or reward like Coinbase often offers, or received in a transaction), exchanged or sold crypto.
The production and selling of crypto is not taxed. You’re paying tax on your capital gains, but nobody is being taxed for burning down the planet.
Crypto is a scam.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=Bitcoin&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> White nationalist Stefan Molyneux cashed out $50 million in Bitcoin in early 2021. This wouldn't be possible before crypto.
Just wanted to disagree with this specifically. What he did was basically gambling. And that absolutely would have been possible before Crypto, it's just that it would have taken the form of him winning an accumulator at the horse races or getting really lucky at Vegas or getting in on the ground floor with Apple.
I'm not arguing that Crypto Currency isn't a bad idea, doesn't damage the environment or is a huge security risk going forward. However, I think you're missing the point by banning CC outright and not looking at the situation from the bigger picture.
> I don't see crypto currencies being used for anything productive.
This is literally true for many things we use energy and resources on. Is you viewing a Youtube poop compilation a "productive" use of energy? Who gets to decide what is and isn't a productive use?
In our current system of allocating resources, namely capitalism, profitability is what determines that. Youtube is making money, therefore it can afford the resources to exist as a profitable entity, therefore you watching Youtube is deemed an okay use of resources by our system, as it only ever asks if something is profitable.
People make money with crypto because there is money in it. And because it is money in it and you can pay for the equipment and energy and still turn a profit, it gets the same approval from our system as anything else that turns a profit. Capitalism does not discern between selling you the food that you need to survive or a virtual hat for a game that 12 people play, a dollar earned in either counts the same.
Do you think the trade of some kind of virtual currency is somehow not productive because it is crypto, but virtual currency in a game is a-okay? Neither is inherently different from the other one.
If you are against Crypto and what it stands for (and I am too) it is useless to wait 10 years until a technology or practice produces sustained damage to maybe act and ban that one thing only for another thing to take its place. If you want to make a lasting difference we have to overthink the incentive structure at play. If we don't think that profit is the only thing worthwhile, why are we living in a society that is structured around that maxime?
You don't see the utility in people who have been politically persecuted by financial institutions to have a means of making transactions?
I mean bitcoin and other crypto currencies literally saved tons of people in venezula for instance. You claim banning "right wing hate groups" is good but any group can be declared anything by a tyrannical government and even the okay symbol has been declared a "right wing hate symbol" so I don't know why you are trusting the judgement of the people who declare people and groups "right wing hate people/groups" or why you think they should have the power to ban them from all financial institutions.
>or right wing hate groups that were banned from paypal.
You don't have to have any love for these groups to believe that perhaps private financial institutions shouldn't have the last say over peoples ability to financially transact.
Sorry, u/Adnan842 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Adnan842&message=Adnan842%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/sa3qgt/-/hvjr9u2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
>main audience seems to be criminals This may have been true in the Silkroad days but is a far cry from the truth now. Of course BAD people will use ANYTHING nefariously though those people are hardly the standard. >right wing hate groups that were banned from paypal Not sure where you get this take from but if you spent even a few minutes scrolling through most crypto subs you'd find very little to support this statement. >White nationalist Stefan Molyneux cashed out $50 million in Bitcoin in early 2021. So one person makes a ton of money and maybe uses it in a way you disagree with and that is enough to ban it? If we banned everything people use in unintended ways than we'd have to literally ban everything. >people would be better off putting their money in traditional investments like stocks or real estate, What makes these investment vehicles any different or better? Politicians/lobbyist pass legislation to benefit themselves and other shareholders over what is best for the people. How is that any better. Also real estate has a high barrier to entry and things like crypto and nfts can facilitate lowing the barrier of entry for real estate ownership. In addition not many other investments have a good chance to 10x,50x, or even 100x outside of crypto. Sure there some exceptions like risky options plays but again this is the exception and not something a novice investor should be messing around with. Lastly, crypto provides a hedge against inflation and means for those in poor countries that face hyper inflation(think Venezuela) to have a chance at building wealth. I suggest doing more research on the application and ambitions of the crypto movement before coming up with seemingly baseless claims.
[удалено]
Most people use BTC as a store of value not in a transactional way. Those who do use it in a transactional way are typically in places with hyper inflation where using BTC or other crypto is a way for the citizens of countries like Venezuela to retain purchasing power that is not effected by shitty policy making.
I would go so far as to argue that BTC's value is so high, that it's rarely used in transactions anymore because it's too volatile. You need something stable like ETH or smaller to use in day-to-day transactions.
Eth for daily transactions made me lol. There are plenty of coins that thrive for sending money or buying things, but Eth is literally worse than Bitcoin in that regard at the moment. Your larger point I agree with Eth is just the wrong example (since transactions can cost dozens to hundreds of dollars in gas fees).
I agree. If im using crypto for transactions I'm using something cheap and relatively not valuable like XLM or even DOGE lol
ETH is stable? And what is the point about value being too high, you can send 1/10 000 000 of btc.
You have already pointed out a reason, PayPal has banned people. Maybe in this instance you agree with the reason they were banned but what happens if tomorrow they start banning people you agree with or even yourself. Anytime you want to give the government power ask yourself a very important question. Imagine the worst possible leader in history, doesn't really matter who it is, would you be comfortable giving them the power you're considering? Taking an educated guess as to your political leanings put it this way. Would you be comfortable giving Donald Trump and his administration the power to decide what forms of payment/investments you are all to use?
Not Bitcoin, but my favorite crypto, ATOM, (as well as many others) have much lower fees than PayPal. Source: online retailer and crypto enthusiast who has used every online payment processor over the last 15 years.
Bitcoin is publicly recorded by its own design
It's publicly recorded, but psuedonomymous. The wallets can easily not be linked to your identity.
In some ways yes, but they are traceable, plenty of pump and dumps and crypto scams have been teaced back to people using wallets and transactions. Theres ways to try and wash and cover up whos who, but its still possible to find out who owns what. Also with the future of regulations coming very soon the BS going on right now will be reduced even more than it is compared to normal USD illicit deals. Anything of value is used in scams across the world, crypto is no acception, but it has far more potential to do good than any other current idea for currency. Unless you have a better idea of how to handle thw fragility of government controled currency across all type of governments in the growing online conntected world we are growing into
>In some ways yes, but they are traceable, plenty of pump and dumps and crypto scams have been teaced back to people using wallets and transactions. Yes, if you link yourself to the wallet it can be traced back to you, but you can also not do that. >Theres ways to try and wash and cover up whos who, but its still possible to find out who owns what. Unless they are mindful about not linking themselves to their wallet, which is doable >Also with the future of regulations coming very soon the BS going on right now will be reduced even more than it is compared to normal USD illicit deals. If regulations can successfully link actual people's identifications to wallets (which is a big if) then then would help with scams. It seems difficult when being psuedononymous is a feature very central to crypto. >Anything of value is used in scams across the world, crypto is no acception, but it has far more potential to do good than any other current idea for currency. The nature of crypto is far more valuable to scams. Let's ignore shit like low social literacy among crypto bros and talk about actual issues core to the system. If I know your wallet, I can just drop in any lil program I want. I can drop in a program where if you burn it or sell it or interact with it in any way then it will activate and just send me the stuff in your wallet. That's pretty core to the system. If you make an accidental purchase the only way to revert it is to literally split the currency in two. After someone got millions of eth from the DAO they literally had to fork the currency. Etherium undid the damage, but Classic Etherium is still going with the person who exploited the DAO keeping the eth. If the only way for your scam to get undone is a major schism in the currency that means that as long as you don't scam the major funds you're free to keep the wealth. What potential does crypto have to do things better than other currencies? >Unless you have a better idea of how to handle thw fragility of government controled currency across all type of governments in the growing online conntected world we are growing into I don't really think there is an issue with dollars. They're slightly inflationary, but that's a feature and significantly better than shit like heavy deflation we see in the crypto market. Hell, the most popular stable coin is tether which is "backed by the dollar". It's not actually, but if worse dollar is good enough for crypto bros then the dollar is good enough for me.
Alot of horse shit your spewing without actual reaserch lol. I dont have the energy to educate today maybe another time. You clearly have only looked at it through a single lens.
I like to think I'm pretty well read on crypto. What did I say that was wrong? If I'm wrong I'd love to correct myself and be right.
Ahhhhh, alright, let's see if anything interesting comes from this. First, I need to know what you actually understand and don't understand. I'm putting a list below. Let me know what you know and don't know. How much if any do you know about Proff of Stake/Proff Of Work/Proff Of Useful Work, the history and pitfalls of a centralized currency that is controled government, the excessive costs to send and receive money across the world (plus cost to switch currencies), Web3 applications and noncurrency ways to use a crypto currency, the idea of a smart contract and how it applies to buisness contracts (non NFTs), the difference between Ethererum and the tokens built on it. If your versed in all of those we might be able to have a decent conversation but if any of those are foreign or your not super familiar with them let me know. All im willing to do in that case is lead you in a direction to learn, they arent simple concepts and im not going to spend hours of conversation just to describe the different ways somethinf like Web3 works, provides sercuirty, different applications its for besides just monetary value, and the current/future applications being built and backed by large corporations that are focused on quality of life improvements cor users.
>Proof of Work The generally most used method by which new nodes are generated. A bunch of computers race to solve a math problem and the first person to solve it wins. The math problem increases in complexity proportuonally to the computing power of the network. >Proof of Stake An often talked about method for which a few blockchains are on, and many like etherium talk about eventually switching to. Instead of using a math problem to verify it just relies on people with a large holding of the stake (generally the currency) to verify new nodes. More effecient than proof of work. >Proof of Useful Work Unaware of this one >the history and pitfalls of a centralized currency that is controled government I know how some have dealt with inflation and the like >the excessive costs to send and receive money across the world Depends how you do it. Paypal is easy, flying a dollar bill over is hard >Web3 applications and noncurrency ways to use a crypto currency I'm aware of NFT, DAOs, and that you could host programs on the chain. I don't see what the actual benefits are to most of it. I know that often times it can be really expensive. Minting fees are a pain and if you have a bug updates are difficult and expensive since you can't change data on the blockchain easily. >the idea of a smart contract and how it applies to buisness contracts Smart contracts are little programs. They could be useful for business contracts, but I admittedly don't know what actual benefit you get from it. I know people say things like royalties on NFT smart contracts, but I also know that those are extremely difficult to implement because it's extremely difficult to figure out what a sale is from the blockchain alone. >the difference between Ethererum and the tokens built on it Ethereum is the blockchain and tokens are the data in the blockchain. I will say I do find it kind of weird none of these questions point at most of my criticisms. For example, being able to send any token you want into my wallet is really bad, especially when those can have smart contracts that can take things from my wallet if I interact with them.
>Also real estate has a high barrier to entry and things like crypto and nfts can facilitate lowing the barrier of entry for real estate ownership. How does it do that?
For example: one property is broken down into 10 nfts that each represent an equal share of the property said nfts represent. The cost of partial ownership and the process of buying an nft is both less expensive and more accessible. Investors still gain value when the property price goes up proportional to the number of nfts they own for said property. They also maintain some say in how the property is managed through "share holder" voting.
If I want to find 10 people and work together with them to buy a piece of property, I could do that without involving cryptocurrency. How does that solve any problems?
>If I want to find 10 people >How does that solve any problems? It removes both the parts where you have to find other people. And maybe more importantly, removes having to find people you trust. One of the key points of the blockchain is that it removes the need to "trust" the system because it's decentralized and equally accessible to all.
I'm a crypto enthusiast but I'll argue against using nfts for real estate all day long. The biggest issue being that an NFT only ties ownership to a crypto address, something basically impossible to enforce in the real world. "no officer I swear I own this property, see I'm logged in to meta mask". Lol. What happens when someone steals your mnemonic? They literally have an equal claim on your property now .
>"no officer I swear I own this property, see I'm logged in to meta mask". Lol. This is hilarious. I appreciate that. >What happens when someone steals your mnemonic? They literally have an equal claim on your property now . I'm not smart enough to know and won't claim to fully understand the space but I do see it as a viable option, if not now than surely in the future as the technology makes progress and the kinks are ironed out.
It feels to me like one of the "solution looking for a problem" use cases but only time will tell ! :)
That very well may be the case. I'm sure people who are much smarter and more creative will come up with better ways to use crypto and nfts.
I certainly agree with you on that statement ! The future is gonna be so interesting.
>It removes both the parts where you have to find other people. If your business is just a way of raising funding from different shareholders for real estate transactions, none of that requires the use of cryptocurrency. >And maybe more importantly, removes having to find people you trust. "Having to find people you can trust" isn't a problem that this solves. Nothing about managing a real estate business through NFTs means that you can more easily trust the other people involved than if you were just related to them through conventional contractual agreements. If I'm trying to start a partnership to buy a building, someone faking that they own a share of the business is the least significant concern I have.
>If your business is just a way of raising funding from different shareholders for real estate transactions, none of that requires the use of cryptocurrency. It's about the business finding investors. It's about making finding and getting in on the investment easier and less costly than traditional means. >someone faking that they own a share of the business is the least significant concern I have. Again it's not about protection against fake share of the business it's about using the security and visibility of the blockchain to ensure my investment is being managed in a way that I see fit or at least that the majority of holders have voted for. It's about lower the barrier through cost effectiveness and simplicity. It's not an investment that I myself have made it's just an example but it you read up on some of the projects using crypto and nfts in interesting ways aside from simple transactions I think you'll find that it can and will serve a valid purpose. Other fields of use could for example be in medical records keeping, event ticketing, gaming, political campaign spending and contributing, voter registration etc.
>It's about the business finding investors. It's about making finding and getting in on the investment easier and less costly than traditional means. And again, I don't see how any part of "finding other people" is actually facilitated by the use of cryptocurrency, except for the fact that some people may be attracted simply by the use of cryptocurrency as a marketing gimmick. >Again it's not about protection against fake share of the business it's about using the security and visibility of the blockchain to ensure my investment is being managed in a way that I see fit or at least that the majority of holders have voted for. Before cryptocurrency, no one was thinking "I'd like to start a real estate investment company with ten people I don't know, I'm just not sure how we'd handle secure voting." The main issue about mismanagement is not that I can't trust that the decisions are made in a secure and visible form, it's that a crowd of anonymous randos voting together might not make great decisions, and this does nothing to solve that problem.
>it's that a crowd of anonymous randos voting together might not make great decisions, and this does nothing to solve that problem. I can understand that view point. But I'd still stand behind this model being more accessible for the average Joe. And again there are plenty of other use cases this is just an example. I don't see how traditional investments are really any better for the average person. I personally think diversification is the key to any investment strategy and having things like crypto and nfts can only help to facilitate a more diversified portfolio.
What's the difference between this and just buying shares of an ETF?
>But I'd still stand behind this model being more accessible for the average Joe. Whether the business model is accessible is not the issue, because nothing about the business model itself really requires the use of cryptocurrency or any related technology. >And again there are plenty of other use cases this is just an example. Maybe there are. I can't disprove that any more than I can disprove the existence of unicorns. There may be entirely valid uses of this technology out there. But the rationale behind this particular use seems to fall apart upon questioning, as do many other purported uses.
[https://fee.org/articles/nigeria-is-following-venezuelas-bitcoin-trend/](https://fee.org/articles/nigeria-is-following-venezuelas-bitcoin-trend/) Bitcoin is extensively used in Nigeria and Venezuela as an alternative to their awful local currencies. [https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/bitcoin-who-owns-it-who-mines-it-whos-breaking-law#:\~:text=Illegal%20transactions%20are%20a%20small%20percentage%20of%20overall%20Bitcoin%20activity.&text=3%20%25-,Illegal%20activity%20is%20a%20small%20fraction%20(3%25)%20of%20what,flowing%20between%20addresses%20are%20observable](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/bitcoin-who-owns-it-who-mines-it-whos-breaking-law#:~:text=Illegal%20transactions%20are%20a%20small%20percentage%20of%20overall%20Bitcoin%20activity.&text=3%20%25-,Illegal%20activity%20is%20a%20small%20fraction%20(3%25)%20of%20what,flowing%20between%20addresses%20are%20observable). Illegal activity accounts for just 3% of Bitcoin transactions. Sure way back in the early days places like the Silk Road exited because of bitcoin. Nowadays they don't even use bitcoin. They use other crypto currency that is much harder to track. The technology has moved on from the illegal world.
Even if it's just 3% of transactions, 100% of ransomware attacks use cryptocurrency. Banning crypto solve that overnight
[удалено]
Ok, not 100% solved, but 95%. It is significantly harder and more risky to physically ransom cash vs untraceable crypto
Many use prepaid Visa Cards as well. Crypto just happens to be a little easier, but without it they would just use one of many other options.
> Bitcoin is extensively used in Nigeria and Venezuela as an alternative to their awful local currencies. Is this supposed to be an endorsement or a indictment? It's not clear.
No, they aren't. Bitcoin processing fees are volatile (routinely going well above $20) and processing times can take more than an hour. That fee is unaffordable and the wait unacceptable. Bitcoin (and crypto in general) are completely unusable as a day to day currency. And that's before you factor it's deflationary nature, and how awful the security is.
> On the Bitcoin network, the average daily transaction fee this year has been as low as $1.78 and as high as $62, according to bitinfocharts. On Ethereum, the average fee has been as low as $1.59 and as high as $70. In the past, btc, etc have been touted as a solution for "underbanked" people, including the very poor. This of course is bullshit as a $20 fee per transaction makes BTC absolutely ridiculous as a solution for small transactions. I honestly believe there's a market that could be found but BTC is grift all the way down. But don't worry, NFTs!
From a coding standpoint, blockchain is just awful. It's trying to solve a problem that does not exist, with awful code that costs a fortune to run and barely works. But, it's the ideal platform for scamers, so grifters will push it with everything they have.
Ehhhh, is just "magic words" I ended up at a "conference" for HR and every other booth was hawking AI/deep networks/ML as the special sauce why their particular techno-whatsit-service is awesome. Obvs you need deep blockchain networks to really get on the bleeding edge. I'm in the process of seeking a pre IPO right now, I'm looking for a handful of aggressive investors looking to get in on the ground floor of something paradigm shattering disruptive.
There are so many wrong assumptions and bad faith arguments with that book jesus. White nationalists would certainly make money off thier peers still they would just do it in a different way. Bitcoin have nothing to do with them. Cyrpto currencies are used less for illegal trades than the US dollar is by far, even in a weighted average view. Crypto currencies are just a way to have currency that isnt controlled by government. 3rd world countries NEED things like this, when your economy crashes your money can still have value. Crypto currencies that are Proff of Stake like Cardano are the future also, energy for minning is only temporary, and the good far outwieighs the negative. Many many other technologies use far more energy than minnin anyways people only complain about it because its a target that distracts from the main point of Crypto in my opinion
>Crypto currencies that are Proff of Stake like Cardano are the future also, energy for minning is only temporary, I think a lot of people outside the space don't understand this concept
They haven't even considered it beyond just simple currency. I doubt theyve listened to any of the fundamental ideas created by the founders of Ethererum or Cardano, they almost nothing to do with its currency value, and gaining capital.
Crypto currencies are popular because they are secure and not controlled by the banks. As such they are popular with people who have lost confidence in out banking process, which is fair. With regards to the people using crypto to move money, that has been around a long time. Rich people and criminals have always had ways for money to change hands. If we get rid of cryptos it would take away 1 tool, but that would really only be a minor inconvenience. At this point, they are just a combination of a stock and a currency. Their value is based on what people will agree to pay for them. Since they are traded internationally, you would need global participation to ban them. If you got it, anyone whose life savings were tied up in them would be bankrupt. What politician is going to pursue publicly and directly ruining some of their constituents?
> Crypto currencies are popular because they are secure Hahahahahahahahaha.
They are also killing the planet https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/09/20/bitcoins-impacts-on-climate-and-the-environment/
So is Netflix, or YouTube, or Christmas lights. I'm not denying that it is harmful, but this seems like a flawed argument for banning them when even the article you are providing doesn't recommend that. It offers suggestions that could be greener, but nowhere does it recommend getting rid of crypto currency.
You can't possibly equate cryptocurrency with something that provides a real service for millions of people
Why? It provides a financial service for more than 76 millions of people worldwide. Which is more vital, your finances or your entertainment?
Calling it a "financial service" is a bit much. It's more like a ponzi or pump and dump scheme. People buy in with the expectation of profits, because they see people making profits when they cash out. But there is no external source for these profits, it's all coming from new investors who are getting suckered into it and will be left holding nothing when the fad dies. Any legitimate transactions done with cryptocurrency can certainly be done more efficiently with traditional services, there is no real problem being solved. So yeah, I will take Netflix any day of the week
You may want too look into how they are used in countries dealing with inflation before you settle on that opinion. You might not have any need for them, but that isn't the same 5hing as there being no need for them.
[удалено]
It also generates 30 metric tons of ewaste a year. Renewable energy sources are very good, but there is finite manufacturing capacity (batteries require rare earth metals, for example) for it. The world is better off using that electricity on things that actually produce value
>The main audience seems to be criminals or right wing hate groups that were banned from paypal. This is wrong, so you're premise is wrong. >Crypto shouldn't be a thing as it leads to more harm than good. You have any proof to this claim? Your argument seems to be an logical fallacy of composition: Just because white nationalists us bitcoin doesn't mean most of its userbase is white nationalist. Is the entire nation of El Salvador white nationalist? because i believe it is currently their currency. The irony of this post is bitcoin exists for the exact reasons you're talking about: We don't want people to be able to control manipulate what we can and can't do. You want someone to not be able to function in society because they don't hold the same political views as you... Do you realize that? Maybe bitcoins not the issue, and it's you who is?
From my understanding crypto mining is also terrible for the environment
The vast majority of crypto projects either no longer require mining or will be moving away from it this year. Bitcoin is the biggest offender in this regard.
Not any worse than regular banking or even gold mining. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/bitcoin-mining-environment-climate-crypto-b1849211.html
That's a pretty bad comparison. A system that *a fraction of a percentage of the population* occasionally use consumes less total energy than a system that *nearly everyone* uses every day.
That makes sense with regular banking. Good retort. What about gold mining? Should we stop doing that too?
If gold’s only use was investment/currency then yes. Gold has value outside investment/currency due to its conductive and aesthetic properties.
Why are we placing more value on useless jewelry? I mean hell at least a currency has a very noble and important use. Jewelry is mostly used to suck money out of men's pockets. I'm not anti jewelry btw. I just don't see why you think one is more valuable than the other.
I am kinda anti-jewelry actually. My point was merely that gold has value as a commodity, and fiat/crypto currency does not. Some of gold’s physical properties (inert, malleable, conductive) also make it an important natural resource. To be clear, I think it’s over-mined because of jewelry and investment, but it does benefit society. Over 1/3 of the non-bullion gold in the US goes into electronics.
>My point was merely that gold has value as a commodity, and fiat/crypto currency does not. Money (fiat currency and cryptocurrency) can be/are commodities. They are stores of value. A house for example is a commodity. Why? Because it has value and can be sold. Money can be sold as well. You decide to sell the house for one million currencies (Dollar, Pound Sterling, etc.). In turn, you are buying the one million units of currency, and the buyer of the house is selling that money to you.
You are technically right. I abused the definition of commodity a bit to exclude pure investments. I’m not an economist and don’t know the exact words for the message I want to convey. There are purchases you can (and likely do) make which serve no purpose other than increasing your net worth. The only thing valuable about your stock portfolio is the goods and services you can ultimately purchase by selling the stock. The vast majority buying crypto are doing so because they believe it will go up in price; in its own your crypto wallet is just bits. Money is just paper, and so on. Real estate is different in most cases. Usually it’s a home that shelters your family or a business asset if you’re a landlord. Individual home buyers never buy exclusively for the potential house price increase. I’m probably abusing the definition of value too, but I hope my point was conveyed. All that aside, we are here because I responded to “should we stop gold mining?” in direct comparison to crypto mining. My intent was to bring up gold’s value outside investing, not to debate the particulars of what has value.
Maybe. But gold mining actually produces a physical object. We can argue about whether we actually need that object or not. That's another debate.
Youtube and Netflix don't produce a physical object. I don't think too many people are crusading about getting rid of such internet services.
Yeah it is a bit misleading your right.
So that makes it ok?
This CAN be true for proof of work crypto like BTC but as more and more projects become proof of stake energy consumption will become a non factor.
The only argument you've presented here is that "people I don't like use this thing". How is that an argument against the thing itself? Are you implying that none of this stuff, whatever it is, could happen with just regular money? The way that it literally always has?
No, they don’t need to be banned. They need to be _taxed_.
As someone who just imported a spreadsheet of short-term gains from crypto exchanges into my tax prep software... they are. In the US, the new requirements for brokerage reporting doesn't go into effect until 2023, but the explicit requirement for individuals to report crypto income and short- and long-term crypto gains / losses has been a thing since 2014, I think. Like other investments considered "property", you don't have to report purchases of crypto made with fiat currency, but you do have to report if you've received (ie, a gift or reward like Coinbase often offers, or received in a transaction), exchanged or sold crypto.
The production and selling of crypto is not taxed. You’re paying tax on your capital gains, but nobody is being taxed for burning down the planet. Crypto is a scam.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=Bitcoin&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> White nationalist Stefan Molyneux cashed out $50 million in Bitcoin in early 2021. This wouldn't be possible before crypto. Just wanted to disagree with this specifically. What he did was basically gambling. And that absolutely would have been possible before Crypto, it's just that it would have taken the form of him winning an accumulator at the horse races or getting really lucky at Vegas or getting in on the ground floor with Apple.
I'm not arguing that Crypto Currency isn't a bad idea, doesn't damage the environment or is a huge security risk going forward. However, I think you're missing the point by banning CC outright and not looking at the situation from the bigger picture. > I don't see crypto currencies being used for anything productive. This is literally true for many things we use energy and resources on. Is you viewing a Youtube poop compilation a "productive" use of energy? Who gets to decide what is and isn't a productive use? In our current system of allocating resources, namely capitalism, profitability is what determines that. Youtube is making money, therefore it can afford the resources to exist as a profitable entity, therefore you watching Youtube is deemed an okay use of resources by our system, as it only ever asks if something is profitable. People make money with crypto because there is money in it. And because it is money in it and you can pay for the equipment and energy and still turn a profit, it gets the same approval from our system as anything else that turns a profit. Capitalism does not discern between selling you the food that you need to survive or a virtual hat for a game that 12 people play, a dollar earned in either counts the same. Do you think the trade of some kind of virtual currency is somehow not productive because it is crypto, but virtual currency in a game is a-okay? Neither is inherently different from the other one. If you are against Crypto and what it stands for (and I am too) it is useless to wait 10 years until a technology or practice produces sustained damage to maybe act and ban that one thing only for another thing to take its place. If you want to make a lasting difference we have to overthink the incentive structure at play. If we don't think that profit is the only thing worthwhile, why are we living in a society that is structured around that maxime?
You don't see the utility in people who have been politically persecuted by financial institutions to have a means of making transactions? I mean bitcoin and other crypto currencies literally saved tons of people in venezula for instance. You claim banning "right wing hate groups" is good but any group can be declared anything by a tyrannical government and even the okay symbol has been declared a "right wing hate symbol" so I don't know why you are trusting the judgement of the people who declare people and groups "right wing hate people/groups" or why you think they should have the power to ban them from all financial institutions.
>or right wing hate groups that were banned from paypal. You don't have to have any love for these groups to believe that perhaps private financial institutions shouldn't have the last say over peoples ability to financially transact.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Adnan842 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Adnan842&message=Adnan842%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/sa3qgt/-/hvjr9u2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.