• carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Nobody trusts China’s economic stats.

      Except the IMF, World Bank, Moody, Standard and Poor, etc.

      Meanwhile, Bitcoin

      lol

      • makeasnek@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Except the IMF, World Bank, Moody, Standard and Poor, etc.

        They don’t trust it, they just have no other figures to work off. China has a long history of faking numbers or suddenly stopping the publishing of numbers when it can make the party look bad. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-16/china-is-hiding-more-and-more-data-from-the-rest-of-the-world

        lol

        Ok, be mad. A 15 year trend of growth on average no matter how you measure it: market cap, number of nodes, transaction volume, transaction capacity, etc. If you have thought Bitcoin was a scam or a bubble about to burst or whatever, you’ve been wrong 15 years in a row, maybe it’s worth reconsidering. Because it’s not just crypto bros using or investing in it now, it’s national treasures, it’s big banks and finance. But you know, on year 16 you’ll finally be proven correct, right?

        • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          They don’t trust it, they just have no other figures to work off.

          That’s why they publish it. Not like there are (western adaptations of) the Li Keqiang Index

          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-16/china-is-hiding-more-and-more-data-from-the-rest-of-the-world

          1. At least have the decency to post the archive link https://archive.md/sgBQK
          2. Youth unemployment in the article:

          Calculating the actual employment rate is complex and it’s plausible the government decided the changing nature of the economy and labor patterns means their current model isn’t accurately reflecting reality.

          Obtuse way to say that the category 16-24 olds are studying and not part of the labour force

          1. Landsales: Communists don’t like speculation with real estate and land. Shocker. Not like they’ve been announcing a shift away from real estate to EV/Solar Panels/etc.
          2. Currency Reserves, Bond Transactions, Academic Information, Politicians’ Biographies:

          President Xi Jinping’s ideological battle with the US has also motivated Beijing to ringfence data it believes could advantage the Biden administration.

          Based.

          A 15 year trend of growth on average no matter how you measure it: market cap, number of nodes, transaction volume, transaction capacity, etc.

          If you think that’s the critique of bitcoin then you have been blinded by techbros optimizim on the tech. Also it’s funny how you wave away bitcoin using up 1% of global electricity usage lol

        • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          yeah but whats stopping rich people from working together to get 60% of the network and then change things as they deem fit?

          • makeasnek@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Firstly, rich people already do this with our existing currency systems. So that has to be what we’re comparing against. And nobody has done this because there’s zero benefit to doing so.

            The thing you’re talking about is a 51% attack and the answer is:

            • The cost of doing so, which continues to increase and is around a trillion dollars currently. Even if you had the money, there are very significant logistical hurdles which make it difficult and means people would see it coming a mile away. They don’t have to buy coins, they have to buy energy and equipment to turn that energy into mining and they have to keep buying energy as long as they want their attack to continue. That trillion dollar figure is for one block worth of attack (10 minutes). The longer you attack, the more the cost per block goes up too.
            • There is no benefit to doing so. The second your attack ends, the network reverts to the true “main chain”, the system is designed to be really robust

            There are only two things you can do with a 51% attack

            • “double-spend” meaning you spend the same coins twice. But if somebody is going to trade you 1 trillion dollars of stuff, they’re going to wait for more than a few blocks confirmation. The scenarios where this makes any economic sense for anybody to attempt are basically zero.
            • Delay (censor) transactions which will go through the second your attack ends

            Even if you controlled 51% of the network you cannot:

            • Spend money you don’t have the key for
            • Increase the supply beyond 21 million coins
            • Otherwise make invalid transactions

            Because all other nodes would reject your transactions as invalid.

            • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Youre just gonna recreate what we have today with more energy usage. So why not fix the core societal problem?