I agree. Ultimately all currencies have been themselves exchanges. For example: corn notes, tobacco notes were first paper currencies used to represent shares of a commodity. Bitcoin represents energy spent not energy stored. Thus it's technically a liability not an asset....
It's what they want you to think, the reality is properties similar to metals. But because it's digital it's easier to acquire, and hold, and it's easy to divide into smaller pieces.
The reason metals doesn't increase in value as they should with their limited supply, is because they sell fake paper metals to a whole bunch of idiots, today even via internet which is just fiat 2.0, or digital fake metals not backed by real metals.
The regulatory with crypto only applies if you try to convert it to fiat, which would ruin the whole point of it anyway. Just use it as bartering and nobody could stop you.
As for quantum computers, that's fear mongering. If quantum computers ever successfully cracked certain encryption algorithms within a reasonable time, it would of course effect all encryption.
With crypto it's easy to upgrade to a quantum secure algorithm through a fork from a snapshot of the chain just before the hack occurred. It's not a loss, as it would be if all of your other secrets where revealed and stolen. Not all cryptocurrencies use the same algorithms either, plenty of coins are safer than Bitcoin in terms of quantum proof algorithms.
The "vulnerability" does not exist yet. Current algorithms and key length is quantum secure for at least another 10 years.
The common way to improve security within encryption is to simply double the key length. This typically provides sufficient security for another decades.
Better security also means that the software will be slower, more data to store and transmit, but most importantly more data to process. For already existing machines we're talking exponential growth in time complexity.
Now this will have a much lower impact on decentralized networks such as cryptocurrency, but still noticeable, so you don't implement that until it's needed. That's the policy of Bitcoin however, many other coins already use quantum secure algorithms, so if you're smart you just avoid Bitcoin and go for the coins that are secure.
Whatever you do, avoid centralized digital systems. Your bank for instance would have to exponentially grow the amount of servers to catch up with the new more secure algorithms, which is gonna be a costly process. Fakebook, twatter etc would have to build new data centers.
Sucks though I still think they're better than stocks or crypto. Crypto has massive black swan regulatory and quantum risks imo
I agree. Ultimately all currencies have been themselves exchanges. For example: corn notes, tobacco notes were first paper currencies used to represent shares of a commodity. Bitcoin represents energy spent not energy stored. Thus it's technically a liability not an asset....
It's what they want you to think, the reality is properties similar to metals. But because it's digital it's easier to acquire, and hold, and it's easy to divide into smaller pieces.
The reason metals doesn't increase in value as they should with their limited supply, is because they sell fake paper metals to a whole bunch of idiots, today even via internet which is just fiat 2.0, or digital fake metals not backed by real metals.
The regulatory with crypto only applies if you try to convert it to fiat, which would ruin the whole point of it anyway. Just use it as bartering and nobody could stop you.
As for quantum computers, that's fear mongering. If quantum computers ever successfully cracked certain encryption algorithms within a reasonable time, it would of course effect all encryption.
With crypto it's easy to upgrade to a quantum secure algorithm through a fork from a snapshot of the chain just before the hack occurred. It's not a loss, as it would be if all of your other secrets where revealed and stolen. Not all cryptocurrencies use the same algorithms either, plenty of coins are safer than Bitcoin in terms of quantum proof algorithms.
If they could just instantly fix this known vulnerability then why haven't they done so
Two reasons:
Better security also means that the software will be slower, more data to store and transmit, but most importantly more data to process. For already existing machines we're talking exponential growth in time complexity.
Now this will have a much lower impact on decentralized networks such as cryptocurrency, but still noticeable, so you don't implement that until it's needed. That's the policy of Bitcoin however, many other coins already use quantum secure algorithms, so if you're smart you just avoid Bitcoin and go for the coins that are secure.
Whatever you do, avoid centralized digital systems. Your bank for instance would have to exponentially grow the amount of servers to catch up with the new more secure algorithms, which is gonna be a costly process. Fakebook, twatter etc would have to build new data centers.
Banks have failsafes for fraud. Bank ledger also aren't public. I'm not necessarily "pro bankster" or "anti crypto" but I'm tracking the risks.