There is LITERALLY NO REASON BitCoin would force YouTube to change _anything_ about their business model. They just have customers pay $15/mo for YouTube RED via BitCoin. I would still have _absolutely no idea_ who watched my channel.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @FallowWing and
Bitcoin’s mere existence forces the use of Bitcoin globally, once it reaches a tipping point. It provides herd immunity against systemic corruption.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @grumpygiant @FallowWing and
Again, that is just a statement. It doesn't have any actual technical content in it explaining _why_. I still haven't heard any explanation of why any current company has to change their business model in any way because of BitCoin - they can all just literally switch currencies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @grumpygiant and
The business model remains identical, and the entire world could keep doing precisely what it's doing right now. You get somewhat more information, perhaps, than you do with SEC filings, but not that much.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @grumpygiant and
Doesn't crypto makes it harder for a government or individual to forcibly change ownership or access of someone's financial possessions? Something that is comparable easy with fiat money?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rob_robby @grumpygiant and
No, it does not. Ownership does not have anything to do with record-keeping. A government can simply declare by law that you do not own a thing, and then you don't, because it is the police force that determines ownership, and by transitive property, the court.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @rob_robby and
Much like today, you can have a piece of paper that clearly says you are the owner of a car. The State can still just go ahead and impound your car, and you have to go to court to get it back. Records mean nothing. Police power is everything.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @rob_robby and
But laws are generally decided by money and voting, and if that money's bitcoin and the voting is by the people (whom are using bitcoin) then the laws will be in favour of bitcoin presumably?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @grumpygiant @rob_robby and
Is that a joke? The current money is credit cards. Do you consider the current raft of laws around credit cards to be particularly friendly to "the people" who vote?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @grumpygiant and
Like, in your world, you think the US government would pass laws requiring corporations to use BitCoin microtransactions for everything, never pool transactions, never go off-chain etc., for full disclosure? You think that is a likely outcome of the modern US political process?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
And you think that despite the fact that they could do that _today_, for _today's_ currencies, because all of that information could be made available. You think they've just chosen never to require that level of disclosure because, you know, they were waiting for BitCoin?
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @rob_robby and
Why would they have done it before? They'd lose all their money. Likely? No. Inevitable? Yes.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.