Probably the major cause of deaths in the world is the US Dollar, and BTW Bill is totally outdated everyone doing something fishy as moved to Monero by now.
You could still pay the military with any other currency, including crypto. You cannot buy drugs online or easily finance terrorism anonymously without cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency enables new illicit transactions and marketplaces.
There's a great TV show on Comedy Central called "Corporate". (It reminds me of Better Off Ted if any of you liked that series.) There is an episode titled, The Powerpoint of Death, where the main character creates a PowerPoint presentation to win a govt contract for a war.
Most folks would argue that the value people have derived from Windows and PowerPoint far outweigh any such downsides. Whether we can say the same about cryptocurrencies is much more easily debatable.
I’m fairly certain in a reply someone mentioned this, and Bill said that cash does lead to deaths, but with it comes actual Person-to-Person contact to exchange, making the anonymity of cryptocurrencies more appealing.
>Yes - anonymous cash is used for these kinds of things but you have to be physically present to transfer it which makes things like kidnapping payments more difficult.
Many cryptocurrencies are well-tested vehicles for laundering money and conducting illicit business. Also, the speculative wave around ICOs does introduce volatility and jeopardize long-term value. Speculative waves have always acted like a double-edged swords when it comes to long-term investing. They bring in capital and generate excitement, but they can also create turbid markets dominated by people who don't care about fundamentals or first principles.
> Bill needs to stick with what he actually knows about.
In the four years you've been on this site, you haven't exactly dazzled us with any insight. Maybe you can break your 2 sentence limit today and explain why Bill is out of his element.
Seriously??.. ROFL.. Sorry to burst your bubble there steeeeego with your pointing out of what's already obvious, but I have no need to dazzle anyone. Get a grip & get outside once in a while. Fresh air might do you well.
> Sorry to burst your bubble there steeeeego with your pointing out of what's already obvious
Some may even say condescendingly obvious
> I have no need to dazzle anyone.
I may have overstated things a bit for dramatic effect, but writing a short, cogent paragraph that shares your point of view will most likely not dazzle anyone. If anything, people will most likely simply read it like it was written by a regular user who uses the discussion board to discuss things.
I think we all understand that it's not the cause of death, but a facilitating component.
Had Bill known people were going to seize on the wording of one answer in a Reddit AMA, I'm sure he would have chosen his words a little more carefully.
> But at least he knows malaria kills far more people than those three combined. He should probably get back to solving that.
Good news he is :)
Honestly, some of the responses in this article are a bit defensive-- he was asked what he thinks of crypto currencies, and he answered that he doesn't think the social impact of anonymous cash is good. There's a sense in this thread that he is going around attacking crypto currency, when he is in fact expressing his view of how anonymous decentralized currencies can enable/facilitate dangerous things to happen.
The cryptocoin crowd is ridiculously defensive by nature. They have to be, the value of their funbux relies significantly on speculation so negative press is threatening to their pocket book.
To be fair, he's not really saying crypto-currencies cause deaths. He's saying anonymous currencies can cause death. It sounds like he could be in favor of a regulated crypto-currency.
Couldn't traceable currencies cause death too? Let's say the government knows you bought XYZ, and later a fascist regime comes to power and they have access to your spending history.
I feel like his case would be stronger if he'd said they all cause deaths. If the oft-touted figures for how much power generation goes in to mining is to be believed anyway.
Says the billionaire who hasn't had to worry about political repression or a natural disaster or anything else bad for that matter. Regular people need cash and anonymous currencies for all kinds of low-tech reasons. Arguments abound for why thing X is bad no matter what X happens to be. Just look at all the hatred the media has for Internet!
Even if you're not a fan of cash, you should be a little concerned that without it the Fed can pump the money supply even harder and screw regular people with inflation and negative interest rates with no exit door in sight.
> He's saying anonymous currencies can cause death.
To be more precise, his point was that the ability to transfer large amounts of cash anonymously without any control or oversight is something that favours all sorts of illicit activities.
And cryptocurrencies in general and bitcoin in particular do just that.
Bill can solve it by investing billions to build private quantum computer and then solve and disclose all private keys. Thus driving value of all bitcoins to zero.
Ohhh by then I guess quantum secure coins will pop up!
I'm trying to figure out just a single comment on this thread to point out the idiocy of but so far I'm unable to pick any one in particular. Hopefully there will be some rational comments here at some point.
I can't see any justifiable reason for needing to hide crypto assets from the government in a developed country, other than wanting to hide them. If you need to hide your assets, please move to a 3rd world country where the government doesn't spend large amounts of money to stop your neighbor from running into your house with a gun and stealing your possessions
It was clear. I thought it would be interesting to answer it so we could demarcate the freedom to organize politically and the freedom to hide potentially illegal assets and business operations.
Do you apply the same logic to cash? Should that be phased out?
The biggest appeals of phasing out cash are the possibility of negative interest rates along with the erosion of privacy. But those are appealing to governments not citizens.
Cash has been relatively phasing out of developed countries for the past half century - it might not be here in a 200 years from organic technological advancement and usage. Most people, when paying with their smartphones, do not stop themselves and ask "gee, now that I don't use cash anymore am I contributing to a hypothetical eventuality of a cashless society that encourages an Orwellian state? What should I have for supper tonight?" Deliberately removing legal tender from circulation is a large endeavor as well; there no simple "this is beneficial for us, let's get rid of it". I'm also trying to picture the US intentionally renouncing its hegemony and announcing to the world that the physical US dollar is no longer in circulation and finding that slightly comical.
Providing any analogy from cash to crypto in ANY regard is simply never going to be bijective, so I would never apply the same logic. The entire point is that if I'm trying to hide "value" or "accrued value" from the government, crypto is and has been a considerably better option over other stores, including cash.
No, the classic, a government is justified in trying to prevent money laundering and I don't care about my neighbor's right to circumvent capital gains taxes under a false facade of a libertarian shield
Forget drugs, I wonder how many people have been killed by the additional emissions from all the extra electricity being generated to power Bitcoin alone.
It's virtually impossible to measure something like that of course, but the WHO estimates about seven million premature deaths occur per year due to air pollution, and certainly some portion of that pollution comes from electricity generation. With the enormous amount of power being sucked up by cryptocurrencies, it's not unreasonable to think that they're directly causing some non-insignificant amount of sickness and death.
Bill Gates, the philanthropist and former chief executive of Microsoft, is concerned about the craze for cryptocurrency, saying that the anonymity offered by the new technology has "caused deaths in a fairly direct way."
In the group interview, Gates had harsh words for other speculative technologies. Elon Musk's Hyperloop concept of using a railgun to pull a passenger compartment in a low pressure tube at several hundred kilometers per hour was rejected: "I'm not sure that the Hyperloop concept makes sense ", he said. . "Make security is difficult."
But Gates was optimistic about the general direction of technology, dismissing fears that increasing automation could have negative consequences for the economy in general, and citing natural language understanding as the most promising technology for the next decade. To learn more about this type of cryptocurrency news just visit https://cryptonewstrends.com/
51 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadI speculate that the net result scaled for size is much bigger in Bitcoin :)
How did you come to this conclusion? At least Bill Gates gave his reasoning for his statement.
Also: Whataboutism.
.... ....
If we follow Bill logic, the guns that are used in school shootings were bought using US dollars so the US dollar is responsible for the deaths.
I thought it was so self-evident that no explanation was needed.
Tangent:
There's a great TV show on Comedy Central called "Corporate". (It reminds me of Better Off Ted if any of you liked that series.) There is an episode titled, The Powerpoint of Death, where the main character creates a PowerPoint presentation to win a govt contract for a war.
So I suppose cash causes death in Bill's world view then?
>Yes - anonymous cash is used for these kinds of things but you have to be physically present to transfer it which makes things like kidnapping payments more difficult.
Link to the reddit conversation: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/80ow6w/im_bill_gates_...
Many cryptocurrencies are well-tested vehicles for laundering money and conducting illicit business. Also, the speculative wave around ICOs does introduce volatility and jeopardize long-term value. Speculative waves have always acted like a double-edged swords when it comes to long-term investing. They bring in capital and generate excitement, but they can also create turbid markets dominated by people who don't care about fundamentals or first principles.
> Bill needs to stick with what he actually knows about.
In the four years you've been on this site, you haven't exactly dazzled us with any insight. Maybe you can break your 2 sentence limit today and explain why Bill is out of his element.
Some may even say condescendingly obvious
> I have no need to dazzle anyone.
I may have overstated things a bit for dramatic effect, but writing a short, cogent paragraph that shares your point of view will most likely not dazzle anyone. If anything, people will most likely simply read it like it was written by a regular user who uses the discussion board to discuss things.
Had Bill known people were going to seize on the wording of one answer in a Reddit AMA, I'm sure he would have chosen his words a little more carefully.
anonymity of digital currencies meant they were linked to terrorist funding and money laundering
It sounds like he means drug overdoses, black market violence, and terrorists attacks kill people.
But at least he knows malaria kills far more people than those three combined. He should probably get back to solving that.
Good news he is :)
Honestly, some of the responses in this article are a bit defensive-- he was asked what he thinks of crypto currencies, and he answered that he doesn't think the social impact of anonymous cash is good. There's a sense in this thread that he is going around attacking crypto currency, when he is in fact expressing his view of how anonymous decentralized currencies can enable/facilitate dangerous things to happen.
Is it really that surprising the Bill Gates's solution would be to surveil everyone, considering what Windows 10 is like?
Even if you're not a fan of cash, you should be a little concerned that without it the Fed can pump the money supply even harder and screw regular people with inflation and negative interest rates with no exit door in sight.
To be more precise, his point was that the ability to transfer large amounts of cash anonymously without any control or oversight is something that favours all sorts of illicit activities.
And cryptocurrencies in general and bitcoin in particular do just that.
Ohhh by then I guess quantum secure coins will pop up!
Never mind ....
I can't see any justifiable reason for needing to hide crypto assets from the government in a developed country, other than wanting to hide them. If you need to hide your assets, please move to a 3rd world country where the government doesn't spend large amounts of money to stop your neighbor from running into your house with a gun and stealing your possessions
The biggest appeals of phasing out cash are the possibility of negative interest rates along with the erosion of privacy. But those are appealing to governments not citizens.
Providing any analogy from cash to crypto in ANY regard is simply never going to be bijective, so I would never apply the same logic. The entire point is that if I'm trying to hide "value" or "accrued value" from the government, crypto is and has been a considerably better option over other stores, including cash.
It's virtually impossible to measure something like that of course, but the WHO estimates about seven million premature deaths occur per year due to air pollution, and certainly some portion of that pollution comes from electricity generation. With the enormous amount of power being sucked up by cryptocurrencies, it's not unreasonable to think that they're directly causing some non-insignificant amount of sickness and death.
In the group interview, Gates had harsh words for other speculative technologies. Elon Musk's Hyperloop concept of using a railgun to pull a passenger compartment in a low pressure tube at several hundred kilometers per hour was rejected: "I'm not sure that the Hyperloop concept makes sense ", he said. . "Make security is difficult."
But Gates was optimistic about the general direction of technology, dismissing fears that increasing automation could have negative consequences for the economy in general, and citing natural language understanding as the most promising technology for the next decade. To learn more about this type of cryptocurrency news just visit https://cryptonewstrends.com/