"Forcing users to use the App Store instead of Dapps (websites), or IAP instead of crypto payments, reminds me of what Microsoft did back in the day (forcing users to use IE if you were on Windows) which led to all their antitrust issues," Armstrongs says.
Fucking idiot. Microsoft were telling outside computer manufacturers making their own hardware and forcing its will on them.
Apple sells to no one and makes the entire widget so what Apple wants to do on its own hardware and software is no one else's business. If this clown really believes it's the same thing then I would love to sell a bridge to him.
These whiners are really coming out of the woodwork.
What these people are realizing is that the Android model makes them little to no money, so they're going after the closed system with loyal users that actually spend money.
Assholes.
If you sold this idiot a bridge to him he would want to pay you with cryptocurrencies haha
'"Forcing users to use the App Store instead of Dapps (websites), or IAP instead of crypto payments, reminds me of what Microsoft did back in the day (forcing users to use IE if you were on Windows) which led to all their antitrust issues," Armstrongs says. '
No Mr. Armstrong. Windows had a monopoly (okay an overwhelmingly dominant market position) in desk/laptop OSes. iPhone doesn't even have a majority of the smartphone market. Your analogy doesn't apply. Complaining that Apple is a monopoly because it is the sole seller of Apple iPhones is like accusing Audi of monopolizing the market for Audi cars. It's stupid talk.
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
I still don't fully comprehend how Bitcoin works let-alone "cryptocurrencies".
I have a feeling I'm going to get flamed for this but IDGAS. I have looked into them. I do understand them. I saw them appear over a decade ago and watched them grow. I stayed well clear from them because they are a scam. Basically a bitcoin is an imaginary bag of nothing. It is worth what the other people with these bags of nothing to pay, but there is in fact nothing there. People who mine them with other people's electricity might come out ahead. The people who set up this scam did great, because they set it up so the nothings were easy to mine early on. The people who come later find it much harder to mine them, so they pay real money for these nothings. The people who set these schemes collected their money and got out. People who put real money into them are likely going to lose everything. Can you say Ponzi Scheme? So I'm very happy with Apple not allowing Coinbase to keep doing their racket.
Let me clue you in, you should be flamed. The ignorance and limitation you have placed on yourself doesn't say too much positive for you n this topic ... Any currency not backed by a physical asset is, as you put it, "a bag of nothing." This would include the USD, GBP, Euro, Yen and all of them. It's the ability to exchange that "bag of nothing" for goods and services that makes a currency viable. Crypto currency is no more a scam than they are.
The strong, well backed crypto currencies are strengthening. The various groups, organizations, etc. building the systems are working very hard to create that environment and are having some success however minimal it may be at this stage.
A scam can be created around any asset with weak infrastructure and systems, whether it is a physical asset, paper or virtual. Of course that was exploited in the frenzy. The weak ones will fail and those who speculated in them will lose.
It is far more than a scam. It is highly speculative at this stage of its evolution and a speculative environment invites deception, schemes, dishonesty, etc. Why do you think there is a SEC and other regulatory bodies for securities and established currencies? If you went a little more beyond what seems to be very limited vision and trying to impress with your sarcasm and flippant attitude and learned more about blockchain and the infrastructure being built, you would understand that while there are scammers and schemes, the product/exchange medium has strong potential benefits . You also know nothing about the capital commitment and large institutional funding the building of these infrastructures and security systems.
It's also clear you know nothing about blockchain other than the one or two articles you may read. Miners support the blockchain transaction system at a cost that is very, very low as compared to traditional financial transaction costs.
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
This is my biggest objection to crypto currencies. There may be legitimate investors and speculators, but there are very places that actually use them as payment for goods and services (I.e. a currency’s primary purpose.) Their main use appears to be to allow a save transaction for ransomware, terrorist organizations, etc.
As for being an illusion, all currency is an illusion to a certain extent. The difference is dollars, euros, etc are backed by a government. Crypto currencies are backed by nothing.
The US dollar used to be backed by the gold reserve. It’s backed by nothing now. Did you know that the value of a dollar has fallen by 98% since the Federal Reserve was created? Part of that is the planned inflation which is part of the mission of the Federal Reserve, but much of that has happened due to the manipulation of the currency to achieve political ends, such as minimizing unemployment (a completely insane goal, IMO). The USD will eventually collapse because of its valuelessness, never mind the alleged value of the backing of the US government.
In the case of Bitcoin and other competing cryptos holders have determined are valuable, they’re not “backed by nothing” they are backed by the public ledger, the blockchain. They are scarce resources. Federal Reserve notes are not a scarce resource. They may be increased at any time for any reason.
The blockchain is an accounting, not a backing. As for being a ‘scarce resource,’ I could come up with something more scarce than bitcoin, but that wouldn’t make it worth anything.
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
This is my biggest objection to crypto currencies. There may be legitimate investors and speculators, but there are very places that actually use them as payment for goods and services (I.e. a currency’s primary purpose.) Their main use appears to be to allow a save transaction for ransomware, terrorist organizations, etc.
As for being an illusion, all currency is an illusion to a certain extent. The difference is dollars, euros, etc are backed by a government. Crypto currencies are backed by nothing.
The US dollar used to be backed by the gold reserve. It’s backed by nothing now. Did you know that the value of a dollar has fallen by 98% since the Federal Reserve was created? Part of that is the planned inflation which is part of the mission of the Federal Reserve, but much of that has happened due to the manipulation of the currency to achieve political ends, such as minimizing unemployment (a completely insane goal, IMO). The USD will eventually collapse because of its valuelessness, never mind the alleged value of the backing of the US government.
In the case of Bitcoin and other competing cryptos holders have determined are valuable, they’re not “backed by nothing” they are backed by the public ledger, the blockchain. They are scarce resources. Federal Reserve notes are not a scarce resource. They may be increased at any time for any reason.
The blockchain is an accounting, not a backing. As for being a ‘scarce resource,’ I could come up with something more scarce than bitcoin, but that wouldn’t make it worth anything.
Everyone is a skeptic until they aren’t. If you don’t do your own homework it’s very easy to continue to criticize without being fully informed.
Cryptocurrencies are the biggest delusions on planet today.
One might counter argue that fiat currencies are the biggest delusion on the planet. All paper money not backed by something of value or subject to “printing” at the whim of a government authorities is less valuable than assets backed by the public ledger that is the blockchain and the more established cryptos cannot simply be “minted” at will. They rely on math for their scarcity and stability.
Cryptocurrencies are based on nothing more than pure speculative fantasy. Want to print more cryptocurrency? Just start a new "coin". Math is easily manipulated.
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
This is my biggest objection to crypto currencies. There may be legitimate investors and speculators, but there are very places that actually use them as payment for goods and services (I.e. a currency’s primary purpose.) Their main use appears to be to allow a save transaction for ransomware, terrorist organizations, etc.
As for being an illusion, all currency is an illusion to a certain extent. The difference is dollars, euros, etc are backed by a government. Crypto currencies are backed by nothing.
The US dollar used to be backed by the gold reserve. It’s backed by nothing now. Did you know that the value of a dollar has fallen by 98% since the Federal Reserve was created? Part of that is the planned inflation which is part of the mission of the Federal Reserve, but much of that has happened due to the manipulation of the currency to achieve political ends, such as minimizing unemployment (a completely insane goal, IMO). The USD will eventually collapse because of its valuelessness, never mind the alleged value of the backing of the US government.
In the case of Bitcoin and other competing cryptos holders have determined are valuable, they’re not “backed by nothing” they are backed by the public ledger, the blockchain. They are scarce resources. Federal Reserve notes are not a scarce resource. They may be increased at any time for any reason.
The blockchain is an accounting, not a backing. As for being a ‘scarce resource,’ I could come up with something more scarce than bitcoin, but that wouldn’t make it worth anything.
Everyone is a skeptic until they aren’t. If you don’t do your own homework it’s very easy to continue to criticize without being fully informed.
I was a skeptic until I attended a number of online seminars. I'm no longer a skeptic; it's pure BS.
I find it hilarious the repeated term “stifles innovation”...so what exactly is your business model that it hinges on an “open” App Store?! I mean is Facebook, Instagram, Fortnite, and others really unable to improve their products due to the App Store as it has been for more than a decade?
(and let’s be honest, Facebook and Instagram are only pissed cuz Apple is giving the users an option to get rid of ads in their apps...an innovative feature!)
The only thing I wished on the iOS 14 privacy thing is that it felt to me that Cook and Co. caved in to Zuck’s incessant whining. What I do find funny about all of this App Store hatred is that for some reason google has remained under the radar and they have the same 30% fee as Apple. No one is forcing them to have an App Store account let alone develop apps for iOS. Everyone claims how great android is so why not stay with that platform?
'"Forcing users to use the App Store instead of Dapps (websites), or IAP instead of crypto payments, reminds me of what Microsoft did back in the day (forcing users to use IE if you were on Windows) which led to all their antitrust issues," Armstrongs says. '
No Mr. Armstrong. Windows had a monopoly (okay an overwhelmingly dominant market position) in desk/laptop OSes. iPhone doesn't even have a majority of the smartphone market. Your analogy doesn't apply. Complaining that Apple is a monopoly because it is the sole seller of Apple iPhones is like accusing Audi of monopolizing the market for Audi cars. It's stupid talk.
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
I still don't fully comprehend how Bitcoin works let-alone "cryptocurrencies".
I have a feeling I'm going to get flamed for this but IDGAS. I have looked into them. I do understand them. I saw them appear over a decade ago and watched them grow. I stayed well clear from them because they are a scam. Basically a bitcoin is an imaginary bag of nothing. It is worth what the other people with these bags of nothing to pay, but there is in fact nothing there. People who mine them with other people's electricity might come out ahead. The people who set up this scam did great, because they set it up so the nothings were easy to mine early on. The people who come later find it much harder to mine them, so they pay real money for these nothings. The people who set these schemes collected their money and got out. People who put real money into them are likely going to lose everything. Can you say Ponzi Scheme? So I'm very happy with Apple not allowing Coinbase to keep doing their racket.
Let me clue you in, you should be flamed.The ignorance and limitation you have placed on yourself doesn't say too much positive for you n this topic ... Any currency not backed by a physical asset is, as you put it, "a bag of nothing." This would include the UDS, GBP, Euro, Yen and all of them. It's the ability to exchange that "bag of nothing" for goods and services that makes a currency viable. Crypto currency is no more a scam than they are.
The strong, well backed crypto currencies are strengthening. The various groups, organizations, etc. building the systems are working very hard to create that environment and are having some success however minimal it may be at this stage.
A scam can be created around any asset with weak infrastructure and systems, whether it is a physical asset, paper or virtual. Of course that was exploited in the frenzy. The weak ones will fail and those who speculated in them will lose.
It is far more than a scam. It is highly speculative at this stage of its evolution and a speculative environment invites deception, schemes, dishonesty, etc. Why do you think there is a SEC and other regulatory bodies for securities and established currencies? If you went a little more beyond what seems to be very limited vision and trying to impress with your sarcasm and flippant attitude and learned more about blockchain and the infrastructure being built, you would understand that while there are scammers and schemes, the product/exchange medium has strong potential benefits . You also know nothing about the capital commitment and large institutional funding the building of these infrastructures and security systems.
It's also clear you know nothing about blockchain other than the one or two articles you may read. Miners support the blockchain transaction system at a cost that is very, very low as compared to traditional financial transaction costs.
Blockchain ≠ Cryptocurrency
One is a technology and the other has become a speculative pyramid scheme for people who are "investing" in a get rich quick scheme. Cryptocurrency is so unstable that hardly anyone uses it as currency except criminals. In fact, to use it as currency you have to convert it back to real money.
News flash, money is already digital! Take a traditional currency and apply blockchain technology (cryptography) and it suddenly becomes just as secure.
The entire concept that traditional currencies are not backed by anything is plain false. If the US government for example had to pay its debts, it owns millions of square miles of public land (offshore areas) with natural resources that could be sold off. Those public lands are vast and well worth more than any debts that are owed.
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
This is my biggest objection to crypto currencies. There may be legitimate investors and speculators, but there are very places that actually use them as payment for goods and services (I.e. a currency’s primary purpose.) Their main use appears to be to allow a save transaction for ransomware, terrorist organizations, etc.
As for being an illusion, all currency is an illusion to a certain extent. The difference is dollars, euros, etc are backed by a government. Crypto currencies are backed by nothing.
The US dollar used to be backed by the gold reserve. It’s backed by nothing now. Did you know that the value of a dollar has fallen by 98% since the Federal Reserve was created? Part of that is the planned inflation which is part of the mission of the Federal Reserve, but much of that has happened due to the manipulation of the currency to achieve political ends, such as minimizing unemployment (a completely insane goal, IMO). The USD will eventually collapse because of its valuelessness, never mind the alleged value of the backing of the US government.
In the case of Bitcoin and other competing cryptos holders have determined are valuable, they’re not “backed by nothing” they are backed by the public ledger, the blockchain. They are scarce resources. Federal Reserve notes are not a scarce resource. They may be increased at any time for any reason.
The blockchain is an accounting, not a backing. As for being a ‘scarce resource,’ I could come up with something more scarce than bitcoin, but that wouldn’t make it worth anything.
Everyone is a skeptic until they aren’t. If you don’t do your own homework it’s very easy to continue to criticize without being fully informed.
I was a skeptic until I attended a number of online seminars. I'm no longer a skeptic; it's pure BS.
Have it your way Larry. Wallow in your ignorance with no effort to understand beyond your victimhood. and angry stance. We get it.
How much did they hook you for to attend those "seminars?" Were you looking to get rich quick and they promised you a way to do it?
Your seminars and crypto currencies probably have very little in common. One is an evolving payment and currency system and the other is the BS scam. Your seminars are probably geared to taking advantage of attendees financially. They could do that with swampland or any other medium for separating fools from their money. Seminars and separating fools from their money is a sport that goes back to the beginning of time. The fact you fell for it for a while doesn't say much for you.
If you attended some "seminars" I have no doubt they probably were BS. Were they selling something? Trying to get you to trade or invest? Asking you to risk your money in some way other than simply buying a crypto for risky investment? Was it some pyramid type scam? How much did they get from you?
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
This is my biggest objection to crypto currencies. There may be legitimate investors and speculators, but there are very places that actually use them as payment for goods and services (I.e. a currency’s primary purpose.) Their main use appears to be to allow a save transaction for ransomware, terrorist organizations, etc.
As for being an illusion, all currency is an illusion to a certain extent. The difference is dollars, euros, etc are backed by a government. Crypto currencies are backed by nothing.
The US dollar used to be backed by the gold reserve. It’s backed by nothing now. Did you know that the value of a dollar has fallen by 98% since the Federal Reserve was created? Part of that is the planned inflation which is part of the mission of the Federal Reserve, but much of that has happened due to the manipulation of the currency to achieve political ends, such as minimizing unemployment (a completely insane goal, IMO). The USD will eventually collapse because of its valuelessness, never mind the alleged value of the backing of the US government.
In the case of Bitcoin and other competing cryptos holders have determined are valuable, they’re not “backed by nothing” they are backed by the public ledger, the blockchain. They are scarce resources. Federal Reserve notes are not a scarce resource. They may be increased at any time for any reason.
Fiat currencies are backed by the resources they are used to pay for including labor, products and services. Backing currency with fixed reserves of things like gold doesn't work because the population changes and GDP along with it. The supply of currency has to sync with the GDP.
If you have a money supply of $100 and someone grows 100 oranges for $1 each, people can buy all the available oranges. If the population doubles along with the supply of oranges, there's not enough money in circulation to allow everyone to buy oranges at the same price so they have to split/double the money supply, devaluing it. This is the devaluing you are talking about but it's a re-evaluation of what the currency represents in a transaction and happens over a long period of time, people get paid more when products cost more. Where it goes wrong is when things don't adjust together like income isn't increased with living costs because it produces a generation of renters and borrowers paying the previous generation that owns everything.
Cryptocurrency is currently being backed by fiat currency. The main way people buy crypto is with fiat currency, which determines its value. Every time people refer to the value of a cryptocurrency (market cap, coin value), it's measured in dollars ( https://coinmarketcap.com ). Nobody says a house is worth x bitcoins because that doesn't mean anything in a market where nothing else is valued in bitcoins, they say a house is worth x dollars, which is equivalent to y bitcoins because y is based on how many dollars people want to spend to have bitcoins. It's a proxy currency (this term usually means 1:1 value but I'm using it to mean a substitute or intermediary).
The limited supply of crypto coins makes it not fit for purpose because it requires splitting the coin value to allow more people to use the available supply. To go back to the oranges, if there are 100 oranges and 100 bitcoins, 1 bitcoin per orange and the population and orange supply doubles, they have to split the coins in half to allow people to buy them all. This splitting devalues some part of the transaction, either the value of the oranges or the value of the currency just like fiat currency. These value changes happen much more quickly with some crypto because of the small supply vs fiat currency.
Let's say someone was selling a house for 100 bitcoins in 2019 and between 2019-2020 the crypto market needed to address more people, they have to split the coins and say they manage to sell 0.5 bitcoin for the same as 1 bitcoin in fiat. It appears that the coin has doubled in value. This has now doubled the price of the house to someone who doesn't already own cryptocurrency. To allow that person to buy, the home owner would need to half the value of the property in bitcoins because the potential buyer certainly isn't going to pay double. Changing the value of products by half in a year is a crazy level of instability. Great for trading games but not for the real world.
The ultimate fantasy of cryptocurrency proponents is to replace fiat currency entirely so let's consider that scenario where everyone is getting their salaries in bitcoins, buying groceries in bitcoins and fiat currency died and governments either allowed paying taxes in bitcoins or there was no government and no taxes. How do banks allow people to buy houses, buy cars, start businesses? They can't offer loans with interest because there's no additional supply of money. Of course, in this fantasy world everyone just buys things without a loan but what actually happens is only the rich buy things, everyone else is homeless and Jeff Bezos hoards all the bitcoins.
By no means is fiat currency an ideal system but proxy currencies like cryptocurrencies are not a better system and not a replacement. All they'll ever be is an intermediate to help anonymous transactions the way cash allows for, no better than:
person A buys an IOU note (bitcoin) for $100 from person B person A buys a product (likely nefarious) from person C using IOU person C sells IOU to person B for $100
That's all cryptocurrencies are for, getting $100 from person A to person C and the IOU can be anything. The reason for cryptocurrency at all is guaranteeing the IOU's value independently via the blockchain ledger so that person B doesn't have to be at both ends of the transaction. Enterprising people found a way to make IOUs have independent value but that part is irrelevant as things like the hashgraph show. There's no need to generate coins via complex computing, the important part is the ledger. You can just generate unique coins at once or when needed. Tether (stablecoins) for example.
I wouldn't say cryptocurrency is a scam, a digital cash equivalent is useful, just as useful as services like Paypal but it's little more than an intermediary for fiat currency.
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
This is my biggest objection to crypto currencies. There may be legitimate investors and speculators, but there are very places that actually use them as payment for goods and services (I.e. a currency’s primary purpose.) Their main use appears to be to allow a save transaction for ransomware, terrorist organizations, etc.
As for being an illusion, all currency is an illusion to a certain extent. The difference is dollars, euros, etc are backed by a government. Crypto currencies are backed by nothing.
The US dollar used to be backed by the gold reserve. It’s backed by nothing now. Did you know that the value of a dollar has fallen by 98% since the Federal Reserve was created? Part of that is the planned inflation which is part of the mission of the Federal Reserve, but much of that has happened due to the manipulation of the currency to achieve political ends, such as minimizing unemployment (a completely insane goal, IMO). The USD will eventually collapse because of its valuelessness, never mind the alleged value of the backing of the US government.
In the case of Bitcoin and other competing cryptos holders have determined are valuable, they’re not “backed by nothing” they are backed by the public ledger, the blockchain. They are scarce resources. Federal Reserve notes are not a scarce resource. They may be increased at any time for any reason.
The blockchain is an accounting, not a backing. As for being a ‘scarce resource,’ I could come up with something more scarce than bitcoin, but that wouldn’t make it worth anything.
Everyone is a skeptic until they aren’t. If you don’t do your own homework it’s very easy to continue to criticize without being fully informed.
I was a skeptic until I attended a number of online seminars. I'm no longer a skeptic; it's pure BS.
Have it your way Larry. Wallow in your ignorance with no effort to understand beyond your victimhood. and angry stance. We get it.
How much did they hook you for to attend those "seminars?" Were you looking to get rich quick and they promised you a way to do it?
Your seminars and crypto currencies probably have very little in common. One is an evolving payment and currency system and the other is the BS scam. Your seminars are probably geared to taking advantage of attendees financially. They could do that with swampland or any other medium for separating fools from their money. Seminars and separating fools from their money is a sport that goes back to the beginning of time. The fact you fell for it for a while doesn't say much for you.
If you attended some "seminars" I have no doubt they probably were BS. Were they selling something? Trying to get you to trade or invest? Asking you to risk your money in some way other than simply buying a crypto for risky investment? Was it some pyramid type scam? How much did they get from you?
They were seminars promoted by the ACM, the professional computing profession organization -- I've been a member since 1974. Great organization. Those pushing cryptocurrencies (BitCoin) were making outlandish claims. But they also confirmed the basic critical issues with its implementation: each data mining system requires the energy of a small city, and the number of transactions per second is around 7.
Those two characteristics alone make BitCoin a non-starter.
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
This is my biggest objection to crypto currencies. There may be legitimate investors and speculators, but there are very places that actually use them as payment for goods and services (I.e. a currency’s primary purpose.) Their main use appears to be to allow a save transaction for ransomware, terrorist organizations, etc.
As for being an illusion, all currency is an illusion to a certain extent. The difference is dollars, euros, etc are backed by a government. Crypto currencies are backed by nothing.
The US dollar used to be backed by the gold reserve. It’s backed by nothing now. Did you know that the value of a dollar has fallen by 98% since the Federal Reserve was created? Part of that is the planned inflation which is part of the mission of the Federal Reserve, but much of that has happened due to the manipulation of the currency to achieve political ends, such as minimizing unemployment (a completely insane goal, IMO). The USD will eventually collapse because of its valuelessness, never mind the alleged value of the backing of the US government.
In the case of Bitcoin and other competing cryptos holders have determined are valuable, they’re not “backed by nothing” they are backed by the public ledger, the blockchain. They are scarce resources. Federal Reserve notes are not a scarce resource. They may be increased at any time for any reason.
Fiat currencies are backed by the resources they are used to pay for including labor, products and services. Backing currency with fixed reserves of things like gold doesn't work because the population changes and GDP along with it. The supply of currency has to sync with the GDP.
If you have a money supply of $100 and someone grows 100 oranges for $1 each, people can buy all the available oranges. If the population doubles along with the supply of oranges, there's not enough money in circulation to allow everyone to buy oranges at the same price so they have to split/double the money supply, devaluing it. This is the devaluing you are talking about but it's a re-evaluation of what the currency represents in a transaction and happens over a long period of time, people get paid more when products cost more. Where it goes wrong is when things don't adjust together like income isn't increased with living costs because it produces a generation of renters and borrowers paying the previous generation that owns everything.
Cryptocurrency is currently being backed by fiat currency. The main way people buy crypto is with fiat currency, which determines its value. Every time people refer to the value of a cryptocurrency (market cap, coin value), it's measured in dollars ( https://coinmarketcap.com ). Nobody says a house is worth x bitcoins because that doesn't mean anything in a market where nothing else is valued in bitcoins, they say a house is worth x dollars, which is equivalent to y bitcoins because y is based on how many dollars people want to spend to have bitcoins. It's a proxy currency (this term usually means 1:1 value but I'm using it to mean a substitute or intermediary).
The limited supply of crypto coins makes it not fit for purpose because it requires splitting the coin value to allow more people to use the available supply. To go back to the oranges, if there are 100 oranges and 100 bitcoins, 1 bitcoin per orange and the population and orange supply doubles, they have to split the coins in half to allow people to buy them all. This splitting devalues some part of the transaction, either the value of the oranges or the value of the currency just like fiat currency. These value changes happen much more quickly with some crypto because of the small supply vs fiat currency.
Let's say someone was selling a house for 100 bitcoins in 2019 and between 2019-2020 the crypto market needed to address more people, they have to split the coins and say they manage to sell 0.5 bitcoin for the same as 1 bitcoin in fiat. It appears that the coin has doubled in value. This has now doubled the price of the house to someone who doesn't already own cryptocurrency. To allow that person to buy, the home owner would need to half the value of the property in bitcoins because the potential buyer certainly isn't going to pay double. Changing the value of products by half in a year is a crazy level of instability. Great for trading games but not for the real world.
The ultimate fantasy of cryptocurrency proponents is to replace fiat currency entirely so let's consider that scenario where everyone is getting their salaries in bitcoins, buying groceries in bitcoins and fiat currency died and governments either allowed paying taxes in bitcoins or there was no government and no taxes. How do banks allow people to buy houses, buy cars, start businesses? They can't offer loans with interest because there's no additional supply of money. Of course, in this fantasy world everyone just buys things without a loan but what actually happens is only the rich buy things, everyone else is homeless and Jeff Bezos hoards all the bitcoins.
By no means is fiat currency an ideal system but proxy currencies like cryptocurrencies are not a better system and not a replacement. All they'll ever be is an intermediate to help anonymous transactions the way cash allows for, no better than:
person A buys an IOU note (bitcoin) for $100 from person B person A buys a product (likely nefarious) from person C using IOU person C sells IOU to person B for $100
That's all cryptocurrencies are for, getting $100 from person A to person C and the IOU can be anything. The reason for cryptocurrency at all is guaranteeing the IOU's value independently via the blockchain ledger so that person B doesn't have to be at both ends of the transaction. Enterprising people found a way to make IOUs have independent value but that part is irrelevant as things like the hashgraph show. There's no need to generate coins via complex computing, the important part is the ledger. You can just generate unique coins at once or when needed. Tether (stablecoins) for example.
I wouldn't say cryptocurrency is a scam, a digital cash equivalent is useful, just as useful as services like Paypal but it's little more than an intermediary for fiat currency.
I happen to work on a new crypto currency so let me address some issues - most of your criticism is simply about the specific implementation of bitcoin
I am not bashing BTC by the way, I love it, and I hold it, because it's going up. That's also the problem - you can't have a currency that people want to hoard because it'll always go up.
Our currency will have a supply/demand protocol to keep it stable, backed by CDPs - so the currency will be stable. If someone comes in and buys 3Tn worth, we mint 3Tn. If they then sell 3Tn we burn 3Tn. The system will be set up in a way that whales are not going to be able to technically manipulate the rate (as they can VERY easily with bitcoin and even more easily with other smaller coins) - there's going to be technical blocks for that in place where they just end up losing their other currency if they try. So they won't.
Bitcoin uses too much energy due to the proof of work algorithm - we use proof of stake - problem solved, doesn't use more energy than any other server in a data center. Easy.
Bitcoin goes up because supply will be limited to no more than 23M ever.
Our currency will grow exponentially in the beginning to early investors taking a very big risk by coming in early can profit, but once we reach around $1 we will kick in stable protocol and keep it stable similar to how stable tokens do it like USDT and DAI (MakerDAO)
Why do we even bother to create a new financial system in the first place - here is where your and most of the world's delusion sets in and that is intentional. We have all been sold a delusional system by the system itself which is deeply corrupt. It's so corrupt most people can't comprehend how corrupt it really is - and even those "crazy tinfoil hat" people don't generally even scratch the surface. It is a cartel that is hundreds of years old, that is extremely powerful, and that hides behind many different layers.
And yet when looked at with unbiased eyes, the corruption is so obvious that a 12 year old girl can explain it in 10 minutes.
So it's not that it's very complicated, it's just protected by a powerful system of deception. It is being uncovered right now. Bankers have been on both sides of all wars going back to the 1800s and earlier - that's because in rising productivity and rising monetary supply, value must be destroyed to keep things going - hence wars are a logical cosequence of the corruption of the system - the financial system needs wars to survive - killing millions in the process and causing untold suffering around the world, but that can be used to its benefit as well as people in survival mode don't really have time to check what the bankers are doing.
Powerful banking families, backed by even more powerful families you've never even heard of. If you've heard of someone, they're not on the top - the top knows how to hide, and they hide behind layers of politicians, influencers, rich people, banks, instutions, owners of central banks - behind all that. We used to call this conspiracy theories but by now it's all out there, we can call it conspiracy facts now.
It boils down to while some people can simply print a trillion dollars in a second - it's really just numbers in a computer - others have to work hard all their life to make ends meet. These trillions go to their friends, and they buy power (because who controls the money doesn't need money - they are the money.... they need power).
This system is beyond anyone fixing it - it's very old, very big, very powerful - fighting it is pointless, you'll just get killed... building new systems on the other hand is very simple
If everyone ignored the money system - it would be gone overnight
Same if everyone ignored the politicians - these corrupt clowns could rule each other on some remote island and nobody would have to listen to them
If nobody listens to the media - their lies have no effect
So that's what we're doing, reinventing all system. The money system is at the core of the modern money slave system and it is one of the first to go - leaving us to unlock the near infinite abundance our planet really has to offer. All the games, the propaganda, and the nonsense, can fall by the wayside. We build a new earth based on unity, cooperation, abundance for all, love, care, and unicorns. We will call it heaven on earth, because it will be heaven on earth.
If you ever go into nature and realize how incredibly perfect everything already is, then you know the way there is short. It's already here.
Sounds like your main feature is that you remove the concept of decentralisation even more, and place the gained stability under your control; basically saying "don't trust the government with your currency, trust us with our new currency instead". So for your new crypto currency to succeed people must trust you more than the government, and you must be able to show a real value in your currency completely free from being backed by something that in turn is backed by a government.
'"Forcing users to use the App Store instead of Dapps (websites), or IAP instead of crypto payments, reminds me of what Microsoft did back in the day (forcing users to use IE if you were on Windows) which led to all their antitrust issues," Armstrongs says. '
No Mr. Armstrong. Windows had a monopoly (okay an overwhelmingly dominant market position) in desk/laptop OSes. iPhone doesn't even have a majority of the smartphone market. Your analogy doesn't apply. Complaining that Apple is a monopoly because it is the sole seller of Apple iPhones is like accusing Audi of monopolizing the market for Audi cars. It's stupid talk.
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
Apple dominance is beyond having a monopoly in cell phone units, combine services, the extremely profitable (for Apple App Store, and you have a true monopoly. The iOS ecosystem needs to come apart, make it a more open and profitable venue for developers before the US Gov insist app creators can sell directly to iPhone owners or via a competitive outlet. Stop thinking about the MS monopoly from the 1990's as what defines monopoly today, a lot has changed since then and in some cases not in favor off competition, invention and cost to the consumer.
Apple is careful to introduce,allow any technology, Apps that is safe for customers and does not create unnecessary issues in public domain. For example, Facebook don't care long as it makes money of people's misery.
Wow, all the whiners are coming out now. Let's gang up on Apple, who created a universe in which all these companies experienced new revenue streams/businesses, and now slam them when they need to continue to pay for that service. Just pathetic. The only way you can lobby for increased profits for your shareholders is to blame the very platform on which you created your business. Why not innovate yourself, the way Apple has for decades? Why not create something that everyone else needs from you so you too can charge for the service/product you provide to them? Why not focus on your own capabilities rather than complain, I mean jump on a bandwagon of complainers, and cry foul...I have to pay for this service (App Store)? That's unfair! Poor me. Jeez, you are all a clear bunch of whiners!
Apple as all corporations of scale didn't get there be developing "new" ideas and technologies. Apple has stated many times how they don't merge but absorb smaller companies to either build into Apple's or in many cases kill off before someone else buys it. That's how you build a mega corporation these days stop thinking Apple is working from a garage near San Jose.
Cryptocurrencies are the biggest delusions on planet today.
One might counter argue that fiat currencies are the biggest delusion on the planet. All paper money not backed by something of value or subject to “printing” at the whim of a government authorities is less valuable than assets backed by the public ledger that is the blockchain and the more established cryptos cannot simply be “minted” at will. They rely on math for their scarcity and stability.
First of all, crypto means cryptozoology, so unless you're talking about Bigfoot, you should write out the full term.
Cryptocurrency tokens are scarce, but scarcity does not equate to value. They have zero utility, and therefore have zero intrinsic value. All that remains is asserted market value, which comes solely from what others are willing to pay for an intrinsically-worthless number. That's a fiat currency minus the stabilizing influence of a single large backer saying it is worth something. That is to say it's all the things people claim to hate about fiat currency and none of the benefits.
Blockchain does solve legitimate problems, but not the problems people think. It's garbage for anonymity, and trivial for a well-resourced entity (such as a government or a large bank) to manipulate by simply building out "mining" capacity and forcing a fork.
Cryptocurrencies are the biggest delusions on planet today.
One might counter argue that fiat currencies are the biggest delusion on the planet. All paper money not backed by something of value or subject to “printing” at the whim of a government authorities is less valuable than assets backed by the public ledger that is the blockchain and the more established cryptos cannot simply be “minted” at will. They rely on math for their scarcity and stability.
First of all, crypto means cryptozoology, so unless you're talking about Bigfoot, you should write out the full term.
Please tell me that that was a lame attempt at trolling; or that you in some other way weren't serious.
Crypto- comes from old greek and means secret or hidden; and that prefix, when used alone like this, simply takes on the format of being short of whatever flavour of crypto-something is being talked about.
Edit: Just to make things very clear, Bigfoot is a "cryptid", not a "crypto".
Coinbase wants legitimate businesses through which their money may be laundered. I don’t blame Apple for keeping them out of the AppStore, in fact, I thank them.
Besides, why would Apple, or any other private company, want to promote a currency and technology that enables drug dealers, cyber criminals, tax evaders, terrorist organizations and all other sorts of nefarious characters? Why should any private company that is not a monopoly or a public utility be compelled to enter into a line of business that it does not want to be in? Why is it a private company's obligation to promote a technology that it doesn't want to be involved in?
Frankly, cryptocurrencies have not proved their value to society. Even on a conceptual basis no one has made a credible case yet on how you can stop criminals from using it to conduct illegal transactions.
This is my biggest objection to crypto currencies. There may be legitimate investors and speculators, but there are very places that actually use them as payment for goods and services (I.e. a currency’s primary purpose.) Their main use appears to be to allow a save transaction for ransomware, terrorist organizations, etc.
As for being an illusion, all currency is an illusion to a certain extent. The difference is dollars, euros, etc are backed by a government. Crypto currencies are backed by nothing.
The US dollar used to be backed by the gold reserve. It’s backed by nothing now. Did you know that the value of a dollar has fallen by 98% since the Federal Reserve was created? Part of that is the planned inflation which is part of the mission of the Federal Reserve, but much of that has happened due to the manipulation of the currency to achieve political ends, such as minimizing unemployment (a completely insane goal, IMO). The USD will eventually collapse because of its valuelessness, never mind the alleged value of the backing of the US government.
In the case of Bitcoin and other competing cryptos holders have determined are valuable, they’re not “backed by nothing” they are backed by the public ledger, the blockchain. They are scarce resources. Federal Reserve notes are not a scarce resource. They may be increased at any time for any reason.
Fiat currencies are backed by the resources they are used to pay for including labor, products and services. Backing currency with fixed reserves of things like gold doesn't work because the population changes and GDP along with it. The supply of currency has to sync with the GDP.
If you have a money supply of $100 and someone grows 100 oranges for $1 each, people can buy all the available oranges. If the population doubles along with the supply of oranges, there's not enough money in circulation to allow everyone to buy oranges at the same price so they have to split/double the money supply, devaluing it. This is the devaluing you are talking about but it's a re-evaluation of what the currency represents in a transaction and happens over a long period of time, people get paid more when products cost more. Where it goes wrong is when things don't adjust together like income isn't increased with living costs because it produces a generation of renters and borrowers paying the previous generation that owns everything.
Cryptocurrency is currently being backed by fiat currency. The main way people buy crypto is with fiat currency, which determines its value. Every time people refer to the value of a cryptocurrency (market cap, coin value), it's measured in dollars ( https://coinmarketcap.com ). Nobody says a house is worth x bitcoins because that doesn't mean anything in a market where nothing else is valued in bitcoins, they say a house is worth x dollars, which is equivalent to y bitcoins because y is based on how many dollars people want to spend to have bitcoins. It's a proxy currency (this term usually means 1:1 value but I'm using it to mean a substitute or intermediary).
The limited supply of crypto coins makes it not fit for purpose because it requires splitting the coin value to allow more people to use the available supply. To go back to the oranges, if there are 100 oranges and 100 bitcoins, 1 bitcoin per orange and the population and orange supply doubles, they have to split the coins in half to allow people to buy them all. This splitting devalues some part of the transaction, either the value of the oranges or the value of the currency just like fiat currency. These value changes happen much more quickly with some crypto because of the small supply vs fiat currency.
Let's say someone was selling a house for 100 bitcoins in 2019 and between 2019-2020 the crypto market needed to address more people, they have to split the coins and say they manage to sell 0.5 bitcoin for the same as 1 bitcoin in fiat. It appears that the coin has doubled in value. This has now doubled the price of the house to someone who doesn't already own cryptocurrency. To allow that person to buy, the home owner would need to half the value of the property in bitcoins because the potential buyer certainly isn't going to pay double. Changing the value of products by half in a year is a crazy level of instability. Great for trading games but not for the real world.
The ultimate fantasy of cryptocurrency proponents is to replace fiat currency entirely so let's consider that scenario where everyone is getting their salaries in bitcoins, buying groceries in bitcoins and fiat currency died and governments either allowed paying taxes in bitcoins or there was no government and no taxes. How do banks allow people to buy houses, buy cars, start businesses? They can't offer loans with interest because there's no additional supply of money. Of course, in this fantasy world everyone just buys things without a loan but what actually happens is only the rich buy things, everyone else is homeless and Jeff Bezos hoards all the bitcoins.
By no means is fiat currency an ideal system but proxy currencies like cryptocurrencies are not a better system and not a replacement. All they'll ever be is an intermediate to help anonymous transactions the way cash allows for, no better than:
person A buys an IOU note (bitcoin) for $100 from person B person A buys a product (likely nefarious) from person C using IOU person C sells IOU to person B for $100
That's all cryptocurrencies are for, getting $100 from person A to person C and the IOU can be anything. The reason for cryptocurrency at all is guaranteeing the IOU's value independently via the blockchain ledger so that person B doesn't have to be at both ends of the transaction. Enterprising people found a way to make IOUs have independent value but that part is irrelevant as things like the hashgraph show. There's no need to generate coins via complex computing, the important part is the ledger. You can just generate unique coins at once or when needed. Tether (stablecoins) for example.
I wouldn't say cryptocurrency is a scam, a digital cash equivalent is useful, just as useful as services like Paypal but it's little more than an intermediary for fiat currency.
There are a lot of incorrect and misleading assertions in that post, but I’m on a phone here, so I’ll address only a few.
”Fiat currencies are backed by the resources they are used to pay for including labor, products and services.”
If we’re talking about the US Dollar, it’s backed solely by the Federal Reserve, no labor, commodities, or services are involved. You cannot redeem a Federal Reserve Note from the Federal Reserve for it’s equivalent in gold, silver or anything else. It’s a shared fantasy. As long as people continue to believe in the monetary fantasy, it continues to exist. Bitcoin (as one example) is a scarce resource. It has a measurable value based on consensus, not based on the manipulations of central banking authorities.
Let’s face it, opinions about what is or isn’t valuable remain relative, despite some things being called money and other things being called commodities.
Comments
If you sold this idiot a bridge to him he would want to pay you with cryptocurrencies haha
The strong, well backed crypto currencies are strengthening. The various groups, organizations, etc. building the systems are working very hard to create that environment and are having some success however minimal it may be at this stage.
A scam can be created around any asset with weak infrastructure and systems, whether it is a physical asset, paper or virtual. Of course that was exploited in the frenzy. The weak ones will fail and those who speculated in them will lose.
It is far more than a scam. It is highly speculative at this stage of its evolution and a speculative environment invites deception, schemes, dishonesty, etc. Why do you think there is a SEC and other regulatory bodies for securities and established currencies? If you went a little more beyond what seems to be very limited vision and trying to impress with your sarcasm and flippant attitude and learned more about blockchain and the infrastructure being built, you would understand that while there are scammers and schemes, the product/exchange medium has strong potential benefits . You also know nothing about the capital commitment and large institutional funding the building of these infrastructures and security systems.
It's also clear you know nothing about blockchain other than the one or two articles you may read. Miners support the blockchain transaction system at a cost that is very, very low as compared to traditional financial transaction costs.
One is a technology and the other has become a speculative pyramid scheme for people who are "investing" in a get rich quick scheme. Cryptocurrency is so unstable that hardly anyone uses it as currency except criminals. In fact, to use it as currency you have to convert it back to real money.
News flash, money is already digital! Take a traditional currency and apply blockchain technology (cryptography) and it suddenly becomes just as secure.
The entire concept that traditional currencies are not backed by anything is plain false. If the US government for example had to pay its debts, it owns millions of square miles of public land (offshore areas) with natural resources that could be sold off. Those public lands are vast and well worth more than any debts that are owed.
How much did they hook you for to attend those "seminars?" Were you looking to get rich quick and they promised you a way to do it?
Your seminars and crypto currencies probably have very little in common. One is an evolving payment and currency system and the other is the BS scam. Your seminars are probably geared to taking advantage of attendees financially. They could do that with swampland or any other medium for separating fools from their money. Seminars and separating fools from their money is a sport that goes back to the beginning of time. The fact you fell for it for a while doesn't say much for you.
If you attended some "seminars" I have no doubt they probably were BS. Were they selling something? Trying to get you to trade or invest? Asking you to risk your money in some way other than simply buying a crypto for risky investment? Was it some pyramid type scam? How much did they get from you?
If you have a money supply of $100 and someone grows 100 oranges for $1 each, people can buy all the available oranges. If the population doubles along with the supply of oranges, there's not enough money in circulation to allow everyone to buy oranges at the same price so they have to split/double the money supply, devaluing it. This is the devaluing you are talking about but it's a re-evaluation of what the currency represents in a transaction and happens over a long period of time, people get paid more when products cost more. Where it goes wrong is when things don't adjust together like income isn't increased with living costs because it produces a generation of renters and borrowers paying the previous generation that owns everything.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081415/understanding-how-federal-reserve-creates-money.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/070615/what-correlation-between-money-supply-and-gdp.asp
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/default.htm
Cryptocurrency is currently being backed by fiat currency. The main way people buy crypto is with fiat currency, which determines its value. Every time people refer to the value of a cryptocurrency (market cap, coin value), it's measured in dollars ( https://coinmarketcap.com ). Nobody says a house is worth x bitcoins because that doesn't mean anything in a market where nothing else is valued in bitcoins, they say a house is worth x dollars, which is equivalent to y bitcoins because y is based on how many dollars people want to spend to have bitcoins. It's a proxy currency (this term usually means 1:1 value but I'm using it to mean a substitute or intermediary).
The limited supply of crypto coins makes it not fit for purpose because it requires splitting the coin value to allow more people to use the available supply. To go back to the oranges, if there are 100 oranges and 100 bitcoins, 1 bitcoin per orange and the population and orange supply doubles, they have to split the coins in half to allow people to buy them all. This splitting devalues some part of the transaction, either the value of the oranges or the value of the currency just like fiat currency. These value changes happen much more quickly with some crypto because of the small supply vs fiat currency.
Let's say someone was selling a house for 100 bitcoins in 2019 and between 2019-2020 the crypto market needed to address more people, they have to split the coins and say they manage to sell 0.5 bitcoin for the same as 1 bitcoin in fiat. It appears that the coin has doubled in value. This has now doubled the price of the house to someone who doesn't already own cryptocurrency. To allow that person to buy, the home owner would need to half the value of the property in bitcoins because the potential buyer certainly isn't going to pay double. Changing the value of products by half in a year is a crazy level of instability. Great for trading games but not for the real world.
The ultimate fantasy of cryptocurrency proponents is to replace fiat currency entirely so let's consider that scenario where everyone is getting their salaries in bitcoins, buying groceries in bitcoins and fiat currency died and governments either allowed paying taxes in bitcoins or there was no government and no taxes. How do banks allow people to buy houses, buy cars, start businesses? They can't offer loans with interest because there's no additional supply of money. Of course, in this fantasy world everyone just buys things without a loan but what actually happens is only the rich buy things, everyone else is homeless and Jeff Bezos hoards all the bitcoins.
By no means is fiat currency an ideal system but proxy currencies like cryptocurrencies are not a better system and not a replacement. All they'll ever be is an intermediate to help anonymous transactions the way cash allows for, no better than:
person A buys an IOU note (bitcoin) for $100 from person B
person A buys a product (likely nefarious) from person C using IOU
person C sells IOU to person B for $100
That's all cryptocurrencies are for, getting $100 from person A to person C and the IOU can be anything. The reason for cryptocurrency at all is guaranteeing the IOU's value independently via the blockchain ledger so that person B doesn't have to be at both ends of the transaction. Enterprising people found a way to make IOUs have independent value but that part is irrelevant as things like the hashgraph show. There's no need to generate coins via complex computing, the important part is the ledger. You can just generate unique coins at once or when needed. Tether (stablecoins) for example.
I wouldn't say cryptocurrency is a scam, a digital cash equivalent is useful, just as useful as services like Paypal but it's little more than an intermediary for fiat currency.
So says Apple and you.
Apple as all corporations of scale didn't get there be developing "new" ideas and technologies. Apple has stated many times how they don't merge but absorb smaller companies to either build into Apple's or in many cases kill off before someone else buys it. That's how you build a mega corporation these days stop thinking Apple is working from a garage near San Jose.
Cryptocurrency tokens are scarce, but scarcity does not equate to value. They have zero utility, and therefore have zero intrinsic value. All that remains is asserted market value, which comes solely from what others are willing to pay for an intrinsically-worthless number. That's a fiat currency minus the stabilizing influence of a single large backer saying it is worth something. That is to say it's all the things people claim to hate about fiat currency and none of the benefits.
Blockchain does solve legitimate problems, but not the problems people think. It's garbage for anonymity, and trivial for a well-resourced entity (such as a government or a large bank) to manipulate by simply building out "mining" capacity and forcing a fork.
Crypto- comes from old greek and means secret or hidden; and that prefix, when used alone like this, simply takes on the format of being short of whatever flavour of crypto-something is being talked about.
Edit: Just to make things very clear, Bigfoot is a "cryptid", not a "crypto".
”Fiat currencies are backed by the resources they are used to pay for including labor, products and services.”
If we’re talking about the US Dollar, it’s backed solely by the Federal Reserve, no labor, commodities, or services are involved. You cannot redeem a Federal Reserve Note from the Federal Reserve for it’s equivalent in gold, silver or anything else. It’s a shared fantasy. As long as people continue to believe in the monetary fantasy, it continues to exist. Bitcoin (as one example) is a scarce resource. It has a measurable value based on consensus, not based on the manipulations of central banking authorities.
Let’s face it, opinions about what is or isn’t valuable remain relative, despite some things being called money and other things being called commodities.