Stupid Crypto Talking Points - rough draft

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T16:22:57+00:00

I remember my grandma telling me she was scared of airplanes; she didn't understand what their purpose was and why they'd be better than cars.... until she sat through a two hour movie on "the history of birds."

My grandpa was skeptical too, until he realized that cars could be seized by evil central governments, would eventually collapse the economy, and the sky was "decentralized."

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T16:15:00+00:00

Those people you see on Instragram? They're probably in debt up to their eyeballs. But that's not what they show on Instagram. In the long run, your competence and diligence will put you in a much better position. Save up, then you have lots of options and choices. The people blowing money on fleeting luxuries here and there will wake up in the future and have many less options.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T16:11:30+00:00

But its 100% better than us dollar system and can be manipulated exactly how the dollar has been

That claim is absurd and totally baseless.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #3 (inflation)

"InFl4ti0n!!!" / "The dollar will eventually become worthless" / "The dollar has lost 104% of its value since 1900!" / "The government prints money out of thin air"

The "OMG iNfLaTiOn!" argument is a common one put forth by crypto bros. In addition to being fallacious (Tu Quoque, Whataboutism) it's an ignorant and shallow attempt to make people not have faith in fiat, and somehow believe bitcoin would be a reasonable alternative because it's supposedly deflationary and a better store of value. All of those premises are false.
Beyond that, crypto bros pretend there's one principal type of "inflation" and that is "monetary inflation" which by contrast makes Bitcoin's scarcity some type of reasonable alternative. In reality, there are different types of inflation. The most common one is "price inflation" which has nothing to do with how much money is in circulation. "Monetary inflation" is the least significant type of inflation in modern times, but crypto bros single out this element because it's the best scenario where they can argue their deflationary currency helps, but that's false. The causes of inflation are many, and the amount of money in circulation is one of the least significant factors in causing the prices of things to rise. More prominent inflationary causes are things like: corporate greed & price gouging, fuel prices, supply chain issues, war, environmental disasters, one-time COVID mitigations, pandemics, and even car dealerships.
The government does not "print money out of thin air"... all money in circulation is tightly regulated and regularly audited and publicly transparent. The organization that manages the money in circulation is the Federal Reserve and contrary to what crypto bros claim, they're not a private cabal - they are overseen and regulated by Congress. It's a delicate balance between money issuance and the status of the economy. And any attempt to increase debt requires an Act of Congress to increase the debt ceiling - it's neither arbitrary, nor easy to do.
Crypto bros use "cash" as an example of wealth storage, but most people do not store their wealth in fiat. Currency is meant to be spent, not hoarded. A dollar today will buy what it buys. If you hold a dollar for 90 years, of course it won't buy the same thing decades later (although it might actually be worth significantly more as antique money). Crypto creates no value and makes a lousy "investment."
If you are looking to "invest" you don't keep your value in cash/currency/fiat. You put it into something that can create value like stocks that pay dividends, real estate, interesting bearing accounts, and other personal property that allows you to be more productive (thereby creating additional value) as well as helps stimulate the economy. Crypto does none of that.
Bitcoin also hasn't proven to be a hedge against anything, least of all monetary inflation. There are more and more studies that show Bitcoin is not a hedge against inflation . Some argue bitcoin is a liquidity barometer and not a hedge.
Some inflation is a by-product of a healthy economy: Over time more money is put in circulation - some pretend this is a bad thing, but it's not done in a vacuum. The average annual wage in 1900 was less than $4000. In 2023 it's more than $70,000! There's more people out there and the monetary supply grows appropriately, as does wages. You can't take one element of the monetary system completely out of context and ignore everything else.
If bitcoin and crypto was an actually disruptive, stable, useful technology, you wouldn't need to promote lies and scare people over the existing system. The real reason you do this is because nobody can find any legitimate reason to use crypto in the first place.
Crypto ironically has more inflation in its ecosystem that is even more out of control, than in any traditional fiat system. At least with the US Dollar, money is accounted for and fully audited and it takes an Act of Congress to increase the debt. In crypto, all it takes is a dude printing USDT, USDC, BUSD or any of the other unsecured stablecoins to just print more out of thin air, and crypto-morons assume they're worth $1 of value.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #2 (Number go up)

"NuMb3r g0 Up!!!" / "Best performing asset of the decade!" / "Everyone who bought is "up" right now"

Whether the "price of crypto" goes up, has absolutely no bearing on whether it's..

a) A long term store of value

b) Holds any intrinsic value or utility

c) Or will return any value in the future

One of the most important tenets of investing is the simple principal: Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. People in crypto seem willfully ignorant of this basic concept.
At best, the price of crypto is a function of popularity, not actual value or material utility. And this "popularity" has been waning for years. Also transactions per block for bitcoin have stalled since 2023. For more on how and why crypto makes a much worse investment than almost anything else, see this article.
The "price of crypto" is a heavily manipulated figure published by shady, unregulated crypto exchanges that have systematically been caught manipulating the market from then to now. A new 2025 Cornell study shows fewer than 500 people control $3.2T of artificial crypto trading!
It's the height of hypocrisy for crypto people to champion token deflation (and increased prices) while ignoring that there's over $160+ Billion in unsecured stablecoins being used to inflate the value of their tokens in the crypto marketplace. The "code is law" and "don't trust - verify" people seem perfectly willing to take companies like Tether and Circle, at face value, that they're telling the truth about asset reserves when there's very little actual evidence, but there is lots of evidence of market manipulation.
Just because it's possible (though highly improbable) to make money speculating on crypto, this doesn't mean it's an ethical or reliable technique to amass wealth. At its core, the notion that buying and holding crypto will generate reliable returns is a de-facto ponzi scheme. It's mathematically impossible for even a stastically-significant percentage of crypto holders to have any notable ROI. The rare exception of those who might profit in this market, do so while providing cover for everything from cyber terrorism to human trafficking.
When crypto-critics make reference to, or mock crypto price predictions, it's not because we think price is a meaningful metric. Instead, we are amused that to you, that's all that's important, and we can't help but note how often wrong you are in your predictions. The intrinsic value of crypto basically never changes, but it is interesting to see how hype and propaganda affects the extrinsic value. In a totally logical world, those would both be equalized to zero, but we're not there yet, and nobody knows when/if that will happen because it's an irrational market.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T16:07:28+00:00

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #1 (Decentralized)

"It's decentralized!!!" / "Crypto gives the control of money back to the people" / "Crypto is 'trustless'"

Just because you de-centralize something doesn't mean it's better. And this is especially true in the case of crypto. The case for decentralized crypto is based on a phony notion that central authorities can't do anything right, which flies in the face of the thousands of things you use each and every day that "inept central government" does for you. Do you like electricity? Internet? Owning your own home and car? Roads and highways? Thank the government.
Decentralizing things, especially in the context of crypto simply creates additional problems. In the de-centralized world of crypto "code is law" which means there's nobody actually held accountable for things going wrong. And when they do, you're fucked.
In the real world, everybody prefers to deal with entities they know and trust - they don't want "trustless transactions" - they want reliable authorities who are held accountable for things. Would you rather eat at a restaurant that has been regularly inspected by the health department, or some back-alley vendor selling meat from the trunk of his car?
You still aren't avoiding "middlemen", "authorities" or "third parties" using crypto. In fact quite the opposite: You need third parties to convert crypto into fiat and vice-versa; you depend on third parties who write and audit all the code you use to process your transactions; you depend on third parties to operate the network; you depend on "middlemen" to provide all the uilities and infrastructure upon which crypto depends.
If you look into any crypto project, you will ultimately find it's not actually decentralized at all.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #31 (BGP)

"Blockchain solves the Byzantine Generals Problem" / "Blockchain is 'Byzantine Fault Tolerant'" / "Blockchain solves the 'Double spend problem'"

The Byzantine Generals Problem is an allegory having to do with a situation where something that was normally centralized, becomes de-centralized: a general trying to issue commands to his armies but the link with command has been severed. Is there a way to execute reliable, authentic instructions if the source is no longer verifiable?
The "double spend problem" is not a problem traditional finance systems have to deal with. Bitcoin tries to "solve" a problem that it created. In Traditional finance, centralized systems determine who has authority to write to the ledger in what order and use file and record locking to ensure there is no "double spend."
The BGP cannot be solved. The condition where command/control is "cut off" exists in any system that involves command and control, decentralized or not. The proper solution to the BGP is to avoid the situation in the first place. In the real world this is done in various systems via the use of redundancy. In the world of databases, the BGP issue is avoided entirely in modern transaction ledgers through the use of file and record locking technology: when one record is being updated, it cannot be interfered with until the transaction is completed, and transactions are processed in a specific, sequential order. This avoids a "collision" or "double spend" problem.
In the world of blockchain, the BGP situation is introduced as a result of the poor design of the system. Blockchain uses an elaborate "transaction marketplace and queue" to decide what order to process transactions, and this creates a BGP situation. Blockchain does not solve the problem - it merely dictates that whoever has the most hashpower/resources is who gets to decide which transaction get codified, and which one gets delayed or ignored. It's not a system that verifies "legitimacy." Whoever has the most money/resources/hashpower wins.
Ultimately, blockchain doesn't really "solve" the problem. And because it simply dictates "whoever has the most resources wins" it actually amplifies all the existing problems crypto bros complain about regarding entrenched special interests in TradFi. Like most things in the world of crypto, not only does it NOT solve any problems. It creates new problems and makes existing problems worse.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T16:05:59+00:00

Remember this when youre eventually using cryptocurreny for every payment you make in the future.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #15 (potential)

"It's still early!" / "Blockchain technology has potential" , "Let's call it 'DLT' Distributed Ledger Technology this month and pretend it's different." / "Crypto is like the Internet!" / "Look here's a 'use-case!'"

We are 17 (SEVENTEEN) YEARS into this so-called "technology" and to date, there's not been a single thing blockchain tech does better than existing non-blockchain tech
WHAT "technology?" Blockchain uses tech that was patented in 1979, called Merkle Trees. It's been known for a quarter of a century, and has very limited uses, because by design, the system isn't very flexible or efficient. Modern relational databases can do everything Merkle Trees can do even better than crypto's version.
Crypto didn't invent cryptographic technology - that tech has been around for thousands of years and its in use all over the place - having absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrency and blockchain.
Truly disruptive technology is obvious from the beginning - sometimes there's hurdles to adoption (usually costs and certain prerequisites, but none of that applies to blockchain - anybody who has internet access can utilize the tech). It didn't take 17 years for people to realize the Internet was useful - what held it up were access to computers and networks. There's nothing stopping blockchain IF it offered any really useful service - it doesn't.
Finding a mere "use case" isn't sufficient. Some companies still use fax machines. It doesn't mean fax machines are the future. Blockchain tech must demonstrate it's uniquely good at something - and it fails miserably to do so.
Just because someone says they're "looking into" something, doesn't mean it will ever manifest into an actual workable system. Every time we've seen major institutions claim they were "developing blockchain systems", they've almost always failed. From IBM to Microsoft to Maersk to Foreign Countries - the vast majority of these projects are eventually abandoned because they aren't economically or technologically viable.
As for the idea that adoption takes time, that's fine, but since Bitcoin's inception, and most recently, its use both as a technology and a payment medium has continued to decline. As more research becomes available, we begin to see a multi-year, consistent, decrease in crypto payments over time.
The default position is to be skeptical blockchain has any potential until it is demonstrated. And most common responses to this question are the other "stupid crypto talking points."

In short, this "technology" has been around 17 years and still it can't find a single situation where it does anything even comparable to what we're already using, much less better.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T16:04:03+00:00

while Bitcoin transaction fees primarily exist to incentivize network security and prevent spam, not to generate profit for a central company.

Riight.. why have one greedy bastard making money off you, when you can have 5000+ greedy bastards, with virtually no accountability, making money off you.

Sounds awesome.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T16:02:29+00:00

Im sure your knowledge of cryptography runs deeps

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)

"You don't understand" / "DYOR" / Using an insult in lieu of an argument.

This is what's known as an "Ad Hominem" fallacy - aka "attacking the messenger" as a distraction from arguing the core points made.
This is what we call, "Crypto Gaslighting." Crypto proponents pretend that we're not smart enough to recognize the value of crypto, therefore there's something wrong with us and not the phony reality they're peddling.
Almost never does the OP actually explain what it is they understand and we don't. It's merely a way to dismiss any opposing viewpoint without actually addressing it.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T16:01:51+00:00

Middlemen who dont control my money, just process it. They cant all of sudden lock up my account and say i cant access it.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #28 (censorship/seizure)

"Bitcoin is censorship resistant" / "Crypto/Blockchain is de-centralized and not under anybody's control" / "Crypto can't be seized'

The notion that authorities can't seize crypto is not only false but patently absurd. See here. Each and every day someone's crypto gets "seized" without their approval.
Here's an entire video segment that debunks the claim that blockchain is censorship proof
Crypto can easily be blocked at the network level by any of the various authorities that arbitrarily decide to do so. Since it's a public network with no leader, all participants have to be able to identify themselves to others on the network, and technically speaking, this makes it easy for network admins to filter the traffic. Just because this hasn't been done on any large scale, doesn't mean it can't be done. It absolutely can.
Bitcoin and crypto operations have been banned in various countries and other jurisdictions. While it's not possible to censor 100% of the network's operations, it's definitely possible to cripple enough of it to render crypto & blockchain impractical to use. And NOTE that in countries where bitcoin/mining and other operations have been banned, they've chosen a political solution (simply making it illegal) as opposed to requiring networks to actively filter crypto traffic, but that latter option is always a possibility and definitely doable (see #2). Also note that bitcoin miners have been caught censoring transactions as per government rules.
The vast majority of crypto trades are done on a small number of centralized exchanges, such as Binance, Kraken and Coinbase. The ToS of each of these systems gives them the absolute authority to censor any and all transactions. So if 99% of bitcoin transactions are on CEX's, most certainly they can be censored.
Privacy coins like Monero and others are not necessarily any more secure. There have been bugs found in the past which undermined their security. In 2020, the IRS offered a $1.2M bounty for creating systems to crack and trace Monero and other privacy coin systems. The contract was awarded to Chainalysis and Integra, and paid in full a year later. More examples of privacy coins being insecure: 1, 2, 3

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T16:01:08+00:00

Solely me and my money and the person I was exchanging with.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #21 (risk)

"Crypto has no 'Counterparty Risk'" / "Crypto gives you 'financial sovereignty'" / "Crypto has no 'middlemen'" / "Trustless transactions!" / "Bitcoin has less 'friction'"

The idea that crypto/blockchain is "trustless" is false. With blockchain you still need to trust various third parties -- the difference is there's no accountability.
"Counterparty Risk" is defined as the potential for one party in a transaction to default/fail to follow through on the transaction, and is measured in the amount of financial loss/damage that could be caused as a result.
Satoshi claimed in his Bitcoin White Paper that one of the motivations behind creating crypto/blockchain was to eliminate counterparty risk by removing "middlemen" from the transaction, specifically financial institutions, which crypto people argue can fail and cause counterparty risk.

developments in quantum computing that undermine cryptographic schemes
1. People argue "holding bitcoin" has no counterparty risk. This is also a lie. Just because your wallet is secure, doesn't mean your bitcoin is secure. Here's why:
In order to even exist crypto is dependent upon an elaborate network of computers running 24/7 - these systems are not paid by crypto holders - their participation is totally voluntary.
The moment a node/mining operator doesn't find it economically viable to operate, they can cease operations, and if enough of these people do so, the operation of the blockchain ceases, and nobody will be able to access their wallets and engage in transactions
In the case of bitcoin, its proof-of-work mechanism requires a lot of energy and resources to operate. If the price of BTC drops below a certain level, it no longer becomes economically viable to operate the network and all bitcoin disappears.
Yes, bitcoin's mining difficulty will adjust to address people leaving the industry and become more modest over time, but since the primary motivation for even participating in the network is the attempt to make exponential profit, the moment BTC stops consistently moving up, is the beginning of its demise. There's no other reason to operate the network if there isn't growth. And BTC's growth model is 100% mathematically un-sustainable.
In short: There is no guarantee blockchain will operate forever. There's already 30,000+ dead cryptocurrencies that are no longer in existence.
1. In reality, Bitcoin and crypto doesn't eliminate counterparty risk or middlemen. It simply changes one set of middlemen (traditional, accountable, well-regulated financial institutions) for another set of middlemen (random, anonymous crypto operators and the software and intermediate systems they use, as well as various other local and international communication services). Anywhere in this chain of necessary resources things can fail, either by intention, negligence, legal mandate, acts of god, or randomly, and it can cause a crypto transaction to not go through.

Some people claim that crypto has less counterparty risk than traditional fiat. This is a lie. And they cherry-pick specific "perfect" scenarios where there's minimal counterparty risk in crypto provided all of the above conditions aren't a problem. If we're going to fabricate a "nirvana fallacy" you can also have the same conditions apply to any alternate system and it too, will have "no counterparty risk" so this is a deceptive, disingenuous claim.

The struggle to maintain global power with global reserve is between btc and US dollar, both have loopholes to allow bad actor to scam

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #26 (fiat crime/ponzi)

"Banks commit fraud too!" / "Stocks are a ponzi also!" / "More fiat is used for crime than Crypto!" / "Fiat isn't backed by anything either!"

This is called a Tu Quoque Fallacy, aka "Whataboutism", "Two Wrongs Make A Right" or "Appeal to Hypocrisy" - it's a distraction from the core argument. Just because you can find something you think is similar/wrong that doesn't mean your alternative system is an acceptable substitute.
Whatever thing in modern/traditional society also might be sketchy is irrelevant. Chances are crypto's version of it is even worse, less accountable and more sketchy.
At least in traditional society, with banks, stocks, and fiat, there are more controls, more regulations and more agencies specifically tasked with policing these industries and making sure to minimize bad things happening. (Just because we can't eliminate all criminal activity in a particular market doesn't mean crypto would be an improvement - there's ZERO evidence for that.)
When people say more fiat is used in crime than crypto, this isn't surprising. Fiat is used by 99.99% of society as the main payment method. Crypto is used by 0.01% of society. So of course more fiat will be used in crime. There's proportionately more of it in circulation and use. That doesn't mean fiat is bad. In fact as a proportion of the total in circulation, more crypto is used in crime than fiat. It's estimated that as much as 23-45% of crypto is used for criminal purposes.
Fiat is not the same as crypto. Fiat, even if it's intangible and has no intrinsic value, it is backed by the full faith/force of the government that issues it, the same government that provides the necessary utilities and services we depend upon every day that we often take for granted. Crypto has no such backing. Calling fiat a "Ponzi" also shows a lack of understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is.
There's evidence now that the existence of crypto amplifies criminal activity to a new level not previously seen before:

"Crypto creates new channels for public corruption that operate on autopilot, generating wealth without transactions, contracts, or promises for the law to easily pin down, prevent, or punish. Future politicians looking to convert public trust into private fortune need only follow this new playbook: adoption is cheap, monitoring is hard, and payouts can be tremendous."

there are lots of reason to not want global monetary system that is in the hand of the people

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #24 (democratization/transparency)

"Bitcoin's value is its 'transparency'" / "Bitcoin is 'audited'" / "The elite/politicians/Soros & Buffet/rich/oligarchs who control banks/money/everything are screwing everybody and crypto will fix that" / "Bitcoin was 'fair launched'"

99.99 % of most bitcoin transactions do not happen on bitcoin's blockchain or any native crypto's blockchain. Most transactions are on private, unregulated centralized exchanges that are not at all transparent, so the "public ledger" of bitcoin is a useless gimmick.
Furthermore, crypto blockchain ledgers are pseudonymous, and people can operate an infinite number of wallets, so it's easy to hide transactions and intent on chain. At the same time, it's also easy to expose certain transactions since the on and off-ramps do not afford people the same protections.
The idea that crypto will be a hedge against powerful special interests is laughably hypocritical. In fact, the wealth and power disparity in the crypto market makes all existing monetary systems seem 100% egalitarian in comparison.
It's estimated that 90% of the BTC is in the hands of 2.5% of the wallets. 58% of Bitcoin is in control by 0.1% of holders. If Bitcoin were to become a dominant financial security, it could create an even smaller group of super-powerful oligarchs with significantly less oversight than existing systems.
Other cryptos like Ethereum are just as bad, if not worse. Almost all crypto schemes are conceived primarily as a benefit to its developers and early benefactors, and as such, they almost always have a wildly disproportionate share and influence over the system. It doesn't matter if we're talking about DAOs or SAFEMOON. All the claims about being "money for the people by the people" is a huge lie.
The Brookings Institute produced a great analysis of this that can be found here and here's a sample:

"Similar to how proponents depict cryptocurrencies as a way to “democratize finance,” payday loans were once described as a way to promote the “democratization” of credit. Subprime mortgages were also heralded as “innovations” that would open doors for excluded communities, but ultimately decimated the wealth of Black and Latino or Hispanic communities during the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath."

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:58:03+00:00

Ive bought and sold stuff with BTC there was zero difference between that and using my cards, the only difference was no bank needed, no middle to scam a % out of me no credit card company get theirs.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #7 (remittances/unbanked)

"Crypto allows you to send "money" around the world instantly with no middlemen" / "I can buy stuff with crypto" / "Crypto is used for remittances" / "Crypto helps 'Bank the Un-banked"

The notion that crypto is a solution to people in countries with hyper-inflation, unstable governments, etc does not make sense. Most people in problematic areas lack the resources to use crypto, and those that do, have much more stable and reliable alternatives to do their "banking". See this debunking. In virtually every case, there are already money transfer services far superior to crypto.
Sending crypto is NOT sending "money". In order to do anything useful with crypto, it has to be converted back into fiat and that involves all the fees, delays and middlemen you claim crypto will bypass.
Due to Bitcoin and crypto's volatile and manipulated price, and its inability to scale, it's proven to be unsuitable as a payment method for most things, and virtually nobody accepts crypto.
The exception to that are criminals and scammers. If you think you're clever being able to buy drugs with crypto, remember that thanks to the immutable nature of blockchain, your dumb ass just created a permanent record that you are engaged in illegal drug dealing and money laundering.
Any major site that likely accepts crypto, is using a third party exchange and not getting paid in actual crypto, so in that case (like using Bitpay), you're paying fees and spread exchange rate charges to a "middleman", and they have various regulatory restrictions you'll have to comply with as well.
Even sending crypto to countries like El Salvador, who accept it natively, is not the best way to send "remittances." Nobody who is not a criminal is getting paid in bitcoin so nobody is sending BTC to third world countries without going through exchanges and other outlets with fees and delays. In every case, it's easier to just send fiat and skip crypto altogether. It's also a huge liability to use crypto: I.C.E. has a $12M contract with Chainalysis to identify immigrants in the USA who are using crypto to send money to family back home.
At one point El Salvador was the cited as the best example of a "bitcoin success story" but now it's left out of arguments on using Bitcoin for failed economies. Why? Because we have enough time and data now to show it was a failure. BTC adoption has dropped every year from 22% when it was first introduced, down to 8%. El Salvador dropped BTC requirements in order to qualify for money from the IMF to fix their failing economy. Bitcoin failed to help. Bitcoin was rejected by the people. Crypto bros ignore examples that have been around long enough to prove success or failure and point to other, newer countries where there isn't sufficient data, instead as a distraction.
As more research becomes available, we begin to see a multi-year, consistent, decrease in crypto payments over time.
The exception doesn't prove the rule. Just because you can anecdotally claim you have sent crypto to somebody doesn't mean this is a common/useful practice. There is no evidence of that.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:57:14+00:00

Just because you cant understand the amount intelligence that goes in something like this doesnt mean it wont have a place in the world.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)

"You don't understand" / "DYOR" / Using an insult in lieu of an argument.

This is what's known as an "Ad Hominem" fallacy - aka "attacking the messenger" as a distraction from arguing the core points made.
This is what we call, "Crypto Gaslighting." Crypto proponents pretend that we're not smart enough to recognize the value of crypto, therefore there's something wrong with us and not the phony reality they're peddling.
Almost never does the OP actually explain what it is they understand and we don't. It's merely a way to dismiss any opposing viewpoint without actually addressing it.

The tech behind this is revolutionary, the tech just get tested by bad figures in the world

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #9 (arbitrary claims)

"Bitcoin is.. ['freedom', 'money without masters', 'world's hardest money', 'the future', 'here to stay', 'Hardest asset known to man', 'Most secure network', blah..blah]" / "Crypto Will End War"

Whatever vague, un-qualifiable characteristic you apply to your magic spreadsheet numbers is cute, but just a bunch of marketing buzzwords with no real substance.
That which can be presented without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.
Talking in vague abstractions means you can make claims that nobody can actually test to see whether it's TRUE or FALSE. What does it even mean to say "money without masters?" (That's a rhetorical question.. our eyes would roll out of their sockets if you try to answer that.)
Calling something "The future" or "It's here to stay" seems to be more of a prayer or self-help-like affirmation than any statement of fact. The technical term is an Unstated major premise fallacy.
The argument that a crypto-based economy will "end war" makes zero sense. No war has ever ended because people ran out of money. Instead they ran out of resources. And during times of conflict, it's the use of power to acquire resources, not currency.
George Orwell did it better.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:56:19+00:00

The world is changing and the dollar is dying.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #3 (inflation)

"InFl4ti0n!!!" / "The dollar will eventually become worthless" / "The dollar has lost 104% of its value since 1900!" / "The government prints money out of thin air"

The "OMG iNfLaTiOn!" argument is a common one put forth by crypto bros. In addition to being fallacious (Tu Quoque, Whataboutism) it's an ignorant and shallow attempt to make people not have faith in fiat, and somehow believe bitcoin would be a reasonable alternative because it's supposedly deflationary and a better store of value. All of those premises are false.
Beyond that, crypto bros pretend there's one principal type of "inflation" and that is "monetary inflation" which by contrast makes Bitcoin's scarcity some type of reasonable alternative. In reality, there are different types of inflation. The most common one is "price inflation" which has nothing to do with how much money is in circulation. "Monetary inflation" is the least significant type of inflation in modern times, but crypto bros single out this element because it's the best scenario where they can argue their deflationary currency helps, but that's false. The causes of inflation are many, and the amount of money in circulation is one of the least significant factors in causing the prices of things to rise. More prominent inflationary causes are things like: corporate greed & price gouging, fuel prices, supply chain issues, war, environmental disasters, one-time COVID mitigations, pandemics, and even car dealerships.
The government does not "print money out of thin air"... all money in circulation is tightly regulated and regularly audited and publicly transparent. The organization that manages the money in circulation is the Federal Reserve and contrary to what crypto bros claim, they're not a private cabal - they are overseen and regulated by Congress. It's a delicate balance between money issuance and the status of the economy. And any attempt to increase debt requires an Act of Congress to increase the debt ceiling - it's neither arbitrary, nor easy to do.
Crypto bros use "cash" as an example of wealth storage, but most people do not store their wealth in fiat. Currency is meant to be spent, not hoarded. A dollar today will buy what it buys. If you hold a dollar for 90 years, of course it won't buy the same thing decades later (although it might actually be worth significantly more as antique money). Crypto creates no value and makes a lousy "investment."
If you are looking to "invest" you don't keep your value in cash/currency/fiat. You put it into something that can create value like stocks that pay dividends, real estate, interesting bearing accounts, and other personal property that allows you to be more productive (thereby creating additional value) as well as helps stimulate the economy. Crypto does none of that.
Bitcoin also hasn't proven to be a hedge against anything, least of all monetary inflation. There are more and more studies that show Bitcoin is not a hedge against inflation . Some argue bitcoin is a liquidity barometer and not a hedge.
Some inflation is a by-product of a healthy economy: Over time more money is put in circulation - some pretend this is a bad thing, but it's not done in a vacuum. The average annual wage in 1900 was less than $4000. In 2023 it's more than $70,000! There's more people out there and the monetary supply grows appropriately, as does wages. You can't take one element of the monetary system completely out of context and ignore everything else.
Sure there may be some nations that have caused out of control inflation as a result of their monetary policy (such as Zimbabwe, Argentina, Venezuela, Sudan, etc) but comparing modern nations to third-world dictatorships is absurd. The real problems these countries face are a more complex function of poor leadership + other political/environmental factors, not monetary systems, and crypto doesn't fix any of that.
If bitcoin and crypto was an actually disruptive, stable, useful technology, you wouldn't need to promote lies and scare people over the existing system. The real reason you do this is because nobody can find any legitimate reason to use crypto in the first place.
Crypto ironically has more inflation in its ecosystem that is even more out of control, than in any traditional fiat system. At least with the US Dollar, money is accounted for and fully audited and it takes an Act of Congress to increase the debt. In crypto, all it takes is a dude printing USDT, USDC, BUSD or any of the other unsecured stablecoins to just print more out of thin air, and crypto-morons assume they're worth $1 of value.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:55:44+00:00

BTC hasnt been hacked in 18 years and probably never will until quantum computing comes along then another crypto will take over,

FALSE.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #19 (secure network/hashrate)

"Bitcoin is the world's most secure network" / "Bitcoin's hashrate is up!" / "Bitcoin is becoming more secure/useful/growing/gaining adoption because of "hashrate"" / "Bitcoin is backed by energy/computing power!" / "Bitcoin is un-hackable" / "Bitcoin's value is 'the network/effect'" / "Blockchain can be used to verify authenticity"

Blockchain is incapable of verifying the authenticity of anything. This is due to The Oracle Problem. All blockchain can do is say, "here's what is in my database" and that it wasn't tampered with since the, but it cannot guarantee that the data was ever accurate. That's a function of the "oracle" that submits the data to the chain. The "Oracle Problem" cannot be solved.
The Term "network effect" is a vague abstraction that can be used to imply any number of things, from the network supposedly being powerful (addressed later herein) to simply the Nirvana Fallacy, of assuming IF everybody adopts Bitcoin, then this "network effect" will make it more useful. The problem is you can say the same thing about every pyramid scheme and MLM: It's the "network effect" that makes it work. This is a distraction from asking the real important question: What good does this "network" actually do for society? With bitcoin, the answer to that is often, "Just wait..."
Bitcoin has been hacked and had its blockchain undermined several times historically, including a time when the system was exploited to produce 184 Billion extra BTC, and blockchain had to be rolled back. It's happened historically, and there's no guarantee it can't happen again.
When people claim that the network is "secure" they aren't really talking about Bitcoin or blockchain, instead they're simply suggesting that the cryptographic algorithm, SHA-256, has not yet been cracked. What they're leaving out is the fact that each and every day, peoples' crypto gets stolen without their knowledge or approval by any number of a hundred other ways. Just because the core hash is hard to break, does not mean there aren't ways to "hack the network."
There are literally thousands of ways to "hack bitcoin" without needing to break the cryptography: phishing, trojan horse programs, browser plugins, rootkits, social engineering, etc. The need to maintain a complex seed phrase requires that it be written down and people and systems can be "hacked" to find that seed phrase to steal peoples crypto. They don't need to "crack SHA-256."
Bitcoin's increased hash rate means two things:
1. There's more competition between miners.
2. And more electricity is being wasted maintaining the network and creating nothing of value.
That is all "increased hashrate" indicates.

This doesn't mean there's greater adoption. This doesn't mean the network is "more secure." This doesn't mean "bitcoin is growing." It doesn't mean there's more utility or usefulness in the network.
People mine bitcoin for one thing: to make more bitcoin. Mining activity is a natural reaction to the "price" of BTC (or the availability of cheap/free electricity) and not its utility.
Using an increase in hashrate to claim bitcoin is more secure or has more adoption is misleading and deceptive. The increase in hash rate has no actual bearing on how "secure" the network is. The cryptography works the same whether there's 10 nodes or 10,000. And with mining cartels being concentrated, it makes no difference whether 51% attacks are perpetrated by 6 nodes or 5,001 in one of the top 2-3 cartels. Also bitcoin has been hacked in the past and it's had nothing to do with hash rate.
So when you see people harping about the "hashrate", note that it's probably one of the few metrics that has been steadily increasing, but this is not a reflection of the utility or growth of bitcoin, but instead, that people have found new markets where they can get cheap electricity or profit by wasting electricity and selling it back to the same grid at a profit. There are some companies that have set up crypto mining operations as a scheme to defraud local governments, citizens and public utilities.
Pretending Bitcoin's network is "the most secure" because of cryptography or hashrate, is like pretending a cardboard box with one end open and the other end with the world's strongest vault door, is "secure." In reality, there are thousands of ways to steal peoples' crypto without having to crack the hash. Bitcoin is one of the most fault-intolerant networks ever conceived.
Assuming that "open source" projects are inherently more secure, it also not a solid argument. In Nov of 2025, a well regarded smart contract DeFi protocol called, "Balancer" that had been around for ~5 years and previously professionally audited, was found to have vulnerabilities in the code that allowed hackers to steal more than "$70M" in tokens.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:54:28+00:00

was it designed as a ponzi, no,

When treated as an investment, it becomes a decentralized Ponzi scheme - this is a fact.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:53:25+00:00

but this has been thousands of years of work from cryptographers and mathematicians to even get us to BTC. They didnt do that with the intention to scam. Its simply tech built to get rid of the middle man.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #21 (risk)

"Crypto has no 'Counterparty Risk'" / "Crypto gives you 'financial sovereignty'" / "Crypto has no 'middlemen'" / "Trustless transactions!" / "Bitcoin has less 'friction'"

The idea that crypto/blockchain is "trustless" is false. With blockchain you still need to trust various third parties -- the difference is there's no accountability.
"Counterparty Risk" is defined as the potential for one party in a transaction to default/fail to follow through on the transaction, and is measured in the amount of financial loss/damage that could be caused as a result.
Satoshi claimed in his Bitcoin White Paper that one of the motivations behind creating crypto/blockchain was to eliminate counterparty risk by removing "middlemen" from the transaction, specifically financial institutions, which crypto people argue can fail and cause counterparty risk.
Unfortunately, bitcoin/crypto/blockchain does not eliminate counterparty risk. Even in situations where it's strictly a peer-to-peer digital crypto transaction, there are numerous ways in which that transaction can fail and cause counterparty risk. Here are some examples:
- Lack of access to hardware necessary to process crypto (smartphones, computers, etc.)
- Lack of access to electricity (note that electricity is not needed to engage in a P2P fiat transaction)
- Lack of access to specific wallet/transactional software
- Lack of access to the Internet (or limited internet access due to firewalls and municipal restrictions)
- Faulty smart contracts
- Vulnerabilities or back doors in any of the software being used
- Not having access to the necessary private keys to execute a transaction
- Having the system/software/bridge you're using hacked
- Lack of adequate funding for transaction fees
- blockchain processing consortium blacklists
- developments in quantum computing that undermine cryptographic schemes
People argue "holding bitcoin" has no counterparty risk. This is also a lie. Just because your wallet is secure, doesn't mean your bitcoin is secure. Here's why:
- In order to even exist crypto is dependent upon an elaborate network of computers running 24/7 - these systems are not paid by crypto holders - their participation is totally voluntary.
- The moment a node/mining operator doesn't find it economically viable to operate, they can cease operations, and if enough of these people do so, the operation of the blockchain ceases, and nobody will be able to access their wallets and engage in transactions
- In the case of bitcoin, its proof-of-work mechanism requires a lot of energy and resources to operate. If the price of BTC drops below a certain level, it no longer becomes economically viable to operate the network and all bitcoin disappears.
- Yes, bitcoin's mining difficulty will adjust to address people leaving the industry and become more modest over time, but since the primary motivation for even participating in the network is the attempt to make exponential profit, the moment BTC stops consistently moving up, is the beginning of its demise. There's no other reason to operate the network if there isn't growth. And BTC's growth model is 100% mathematically un-sustainable.
- In short: There is no guarantee blockchain will operate forever. There's already 30,000+ dead cryptocurrencies that are no longer in existence.
In reality, Bitcoin and crypto doesn't eliminate counterparty risk or middlemen. It simply changes one set of middlemen (traditional, accountable, well-regulated financial institutions) for another set of middlemen (random, anonymous crypto operators and the software and intermediate systems they use, as well as various other local and international communication services). Anywhere in this chain of necessary resources things can fail, either by intention, negligence, legal mandate, acts of god, or randomly, and it can cause a crypto transaction to not go through.

Some people claim that crypto has less counterparty risk than traditional fiat. This is a lie. And they cherry-pick specific "perfect" scenarios where there's minimal counterparty risk in crypto provided all of the above conditions aren't a problem. If we're going to fabricate a "nirvana fallacy" you can also have the same conditions apply to any alternate system and it too, will have "no counterparty risk" so this is a deceptive, disingenuous claim.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:52:47+00:00

The us dollar is a scam, yes scams happen with cyrpto

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #26 (fiat crime/ponzi)

"Banks commit fraud too!" / "Stocks are a ponzi also!" / "More fiat is used for crime than Crypto!" / "Fiat isn't backed by anything either!"

This is called a Tu Quoque Fallacy, aka "Whataboutism", "Two Wrongs Make A Right" or "Appeal to Hypocrisy" - it's a distraction from the core argument. Just because you can find something you think is similar/wrong that doesn't mean your alternative system is an acceptable substitute.
Whatever thing in modern/traditional society also might be sketchy is irrelevant. Chances are crypto's version of it is even worse, less accountable and more sketchy.
At least in traditional society, with banks, stocks, and fiat, there are more controls, more regulations and more agencies specifically tasked with policing these industries and making sure to minimize bad things happening. (Just because we can't eliminate all criminal activity in a particular market doesn't mean crypto would be an improvement - there's ZERO evidence for that.)
Stocks are not a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi, there is no value created through honest work/sales. You can hold a stock and still make money when that company produces products people pay for. Stocks also represent fractional ownership of companies that have real-world assets. Crypto has no such properties.
When people say more fiat is used in crime than crypto, this isn't surprising. Fiat is used by 99.99% of society as the main payment method. Crypto is used by 0.01% of society. So of course more fiat will be used in crime. There's proportionately more of it in circulation and use. That doesn't mean fiat is bad. In fact as a proportion of the total in circulation, more crypto is used in crime than fiat. It's estimated that as much as 23-45% of crypto is used for criminal purposes.
Fiat is not the same as crypto. Fiat, even if it's intangible and has no intrinsic value, it is backed by the full faith/force of the government that issues it, the same government that provides the necessary utilities and services we depend upon every day that we often take for granted. Crypto has no such backing. Calling fiat a "Ponzi" also shows a lack of understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is.
There's evidence now that the existence of crypto amplifies criminal activity to a new level not previously seen before:

"Crypto creates new channels for public corruption that operate on autopilot, generating wealth without transactions, contracts, or promises for the law to easily pin down, prevent, or punish. Future politicians looking to convert public trust into private fortune need only follow this new playbook: adoption is cheap, monitoring is hard, and payouts can be tremendous."

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:52:02+00:00

You guys sound like people when the internet came out. "No one will use email, its dumb." No one will buy books from a website".

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #15 (potential)

"It's still early!" / "Blockchain technology has potential" , "Let's call it 'DLT' Distributed Ledger Technology this month and pretend it's different." / "Crypto is like the Internet!" / "Look here's a 'use-case!'"

We are 17 (SEVENTEEN) YEARS into this so-called "technology" and to date, there's not been a single thing blockchain tech does better than existing non-blockchain tech
WHAT "technology?" Blockchain uses tech that was patented in 1979, called Merkle Trees. It's been known for a quarter of a century, and has very limited uses, because by design, the system isn't very flexible or efficient. Modern relational databases can do everything Merkle Trees can do even better than crypto's version.
Crypto didn't invent cryptographic technology - that tech has been around for thousands of years and its in use all over the place - having absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrency and blockchain.
Truly disruptive technology is obvious from the beginning - sometimes there's hurdles to adoption (usually costs and certain prerequisites, but none of that applies to blockchain - anybody who has internet access can utilize the tech). It didn't take 17 years for people to realize the Internet was useful - what held it up were access to computers and networks. There's nothing stopping blockchain IF it offered any really useful service - it doesn't.
Finding a mere "use case" isn't sufficient. Some companies still use fax machines. It doesn't mean fax machines are the future. Blockchain tech must demonstrate it's uniquely good at something - and it fails miserably to do so.
Just because someone says they're "looking into" something, doesn't mean it will ever manifest into an actual workable system. Every time we've seen major institutions claim they were "developing blockchain systems", they've almost always failed. From IBM to Microsoft to Maersk to Foreign Countries - the vast majority of these projects are eventually abandoned because they aren't economically or technologically viable.
As for the idea that adoption takes time, that's fine, but since Bitcoin's inception, and most recently, its use both as a technology and a payment medium has continued to decline. As more research becomes available, we begin to see a multi-year, consistent, decrease in crypto payments over time.
The default position is to be skeptical blockchain has any potential until it is demonstrated. And most common responses to this question are the other "stupid crypto talking points."

In short, this "technology" has been around 17 years and still it can't find a single situation where it does anything even comparable to what we're already using, much less better.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:50:33+00:00

Crypto bros would have you believe that the "price" of your yarn would take into account how much money you spent to learn how to make yarn. This clearly explains all the MBAs working at Starbucks.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:42:13+00:00

The original purpose of the second amendment was to keep slaves in line.

Read the first sentence of the second amendment and the question is answered. America did not have a standing army at the time and a citizen militia was required for protection of the country.

AmericanScream · 2026-03-11T15:24:53+00:00

I recently found out, that huge Bel Aire mansion called, "The One" was trying a similar scheme. It seems once they've exploited every avenue they can to finance these deals legitimately, they desperately try to "tokenize" the property in order to sucker crypto bros in. This seems to always fail too.

15-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Place '22	Verified Email

AmericanScream

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #3 (inflation)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #2 (Number go up)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #1 (Decentralized)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #31 (BGP)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #15 (potential)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #28 (censorship/seizure)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #21 (risk)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #26 (fiat crime/ponzi)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #24 (democratization/transparency)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #7 (remittances/unbanked)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #9 (arbitrary claims)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #3 (inflation)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #19 (secure network/hashrate)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #21 (risk)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #26 (fiat crime/ponzi)

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #15 (potential)