I think it's a matter of perspective. You and I are Europeans: our currency is pretty stable and our countries will not default anytime soon. So, for us, the € is a valid way to preserve our savings.
The same cannot be said about other countries (ie the defaulting Venezuela) where the money can become worthless in minutes. You can end up "losing" your life savings in just a snap.
Cryptocurrencies become then a way to safeguard savings: as long as the cryptocurrency is not traceable to a person no "state" can rob you of it. Also cryptocurrencies are not linked to the fate of singular states (to an extent of course).
That's why cryptocurrencies are so popular in underdeveloped countries.
Another reason is the ability to send money with no/few fees. Many emigrants work hard to sustain their family back home. Right now they have to send money with outrageous fees and/or terrible exchange rates. Cryptocurrencies are unconstrained (meaning there is no way to "block" its access in a country) so they solve that problem too.
Last but not least not everybody has access to credit/debit cards. Cryptocurrencies can solve that role as well: you can transfer money without carrying cash.
TL;DR
I do not think the cryptocurrencies are ahead of time. It might be for rich, stable countries where there is no need for anything else. But poor, unstable countries can and will leverage the freedom of cryptocurrencies.
It's incorrect to think a state can't rob you of your money in a blockchain. Unless the number of participants in a blockchain is overwhelming, with respect to a nation state's budget, they can take it over.
It's not out of reach for a government to assign a million nodes to do a takeover of a network. But looking at bitcoin it seems like just 10K nodes might be enough to takeover, or at lest for a schism (which would completely break the system).
Yes you are right of course, I stand corrected.
I meant to say no one can forcibly alienate your cryptocoins via purely "legal" means: a state can do that if you have a bank account for example. And there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
A government can also take possession of your other assets such as stocks, foreign money, land, enterprise, etc... but cryptocoins have to be sent from a wallet.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think it's a matter of perspective. You and I are Europeans: our currency is pretty stable and our countries will not default anytime soon. So, for us, the € is a valid way to preserve our savings.
The same cannot be said about other countries (ie the defaulting Venezuela) where the money can become worthless in minutes. You can end up "losing" your life savings in just a snap.
Cryptocurrencies become then a way to safeguard savings: as long as the cryptocurrency is not traceable to a person no "state" can rob you of it. Also cryptocurrencies are not linked to the fate of singular states (to an extent of course).
That's why cryptocurrencies are so popular in underdeveloped countries.
Another reason is the ability to send money with no/few fees. Many emigrants work hard to sustain their family back home. Right now they have to send money with outrageous fees and/or terrible exchange rates. Cryptocurrencies are unconstrained (meaning there is no way to "block" its access in a country) so they solve that problem too.
Last but not least not everybody has access to credit/debit cards. Cryptocurrencies can solve that role as well: you can transfer money without carrying cash.
TL;DR
I do not think the cryptocurrencies are ahead of time. It might be for rich, stable countries where there is no need for anything else. But poor, unstable countries can and will leverage the freedom of cryptocurrencies.
Great point, the trust you have in your country's currency changes the opinion you have on any alternatives.
It's incorrect to think a state can't rob you of your money in a blockchain. Unless the number of participants in a blockchain is overwhelming, with respect to a nation state's budget, they can take it over.
It's not out of reach for a government to assign a million nodes to do a takeover of a network. But looking at bitcoin it seems like just 10K nodes might be enough to takeover, or at lest for a schism (which would completely break the system).
Yes you are right of course, I stand corrected.
I meant to say no one can forcibly alienate your cryptocoins via purely "legal" means: a state can do that if you have a bank account for example. And there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
A government can also take possession of your other assets such as stocks, foreign money, land, enterprise, etc... but cryptocoins have to be sent from a wallet.