> The Harvard Business Review article I linked above goes into some detail about how this happens.
It doesn't make the argument you have just elucidated, which is an interesting one. I'll think about it.
> Because you judge our lives useless, you engage in motivated reasoning to find excuses to sweep us away,
"Bitcoin not useful" != "your life is useless". I think you have invested rather too much of your identity into Bitcoin.
Regarding "Roca", please check my HN bio. My real name is "Robert O'Callahan" and 'roca' is a handle I've used online since 1990. I have never heard of your "Roca" before.
I explained that for years I've been making a living by getting paid in Bitcoin, and that there isn't a better alternative. To argue that Bitcoin's uses are unimportant, you must argue that it is unimportant for me to make a living, much as Roca did with the Native Americans he murdered and enslaved.
1) You could just as fucking well be paid in something that doesn't use as much electricity as Switzerland.
2) Electricity is one of the few things that are about as fungible as money. All your blithering about how "crypto uses only the most environmentally friendly energy!" is bullpucky, since that only means that some actually useful stuff must now run on other, less environmentally friendly energy.
3) You misspelled "I sincerely apologise for my unfounded and calumnious accusation". Please stop being such an egregious arsehole.
① actually there isn't an alternative, except for working for Argentines, who are desperately competing for the available jobs.
② electricity is fungible, but not portable or storable, and is almost all generated within 200km of its point of use (and well under 10 milliseconds). Also, the supply of electrical power is not fixed; it is rapidly expanding in response to demand. So one use of electricity does not imply less electrical power available even for other things in the same location. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27449443 has a much deeper dive on the issues.
WRT "roca", I guess the Author of my story has quite a sense of humor. You clearly didn't create the account or choose the name to argue against measures that limit the powers of the Argentine government to abuse fiat currencies, since you've been using the name on HN since 02014, and I believe you when you say you've been using it online since 01990.
Yet imagine my perception when I find that someone has popped up here to argue against such safeguards, and he's using the name of the guy whose face is on the $100 bill, whose fame primarily derives from commanding genocidal Argentine government abuses against the peoples in Argentina who didn't use the Argentine currency, and who is also the most famous person in the world by that name. The Roca $100 bills are gradually being replaced—all the ones I have here have Eva Perón instead of Roca on them—but it's only been, I think, a couple of days since the last portrait of that white-supremacist rapist visage has been inflicted upon me, when I got my change at the supermarket on Monday.
So, I hope you can forgive my error of assuming that the astounding degree of relevance of your chosen name to the topic at hand, which I take to be the social value of alternatives to the state-imposed currency system in Argentina, was intentional partisan trolling on your part, rather than a sort of absurd coincidence of cosmic proportions. I should have at least checked your HN bio, as you say, before assuming ill intent.
I continue to maintain that your dismissal of the utility of Bitcoin bespeaks either an astonishing degree of willingness to prioritize your own interests, and the interests of people like yourself, over the interests of people like me; or an astonishing degree of confidence in your own judgment of what causal relations obtain in Argentina over the judgment of those of us who live here.
After this exchange, though, I don't blame you if you don't think much of my judgment!
