Crypto Fooled Us Once. It Will Fool Us Again(thefp.com)
thefp.com
Crypto Fooled Us Once. It Will Fool Us Again
https://www.thefp.com/p/crypto-fooled-us-once-fool-us-again
172 comments
>Then we get to claims about events that happened in the real world. Here, you would hope Lewis asks himself the question, “Are the characters making these claims reliable narrators?” But his book is not interested in that question, which gets relegated to a footnote and is answered with a Meh, I believe him.
I'm like 80% through the book and am enjoying it. Feel like I've definitely gained a better understanding of who SBF was with the pre-FTX context. But I 100% agree with the quote above and it almost reads like an autobiography.
I'm like 80% through the book and am enjoying it. Feel like I've definitely gained a better understanding of who SBF was with the pre-FTX context. But I 100% agree with the quote above and it almost reads like an autobiography.
> Alameda was the one firm in the world that was capable of convincing a regional Japanese bank to ignore the Financial Services Agency, even though Japan’s banking regulator had told banks to be maximally skeptical
When I was in Japan I saw this too, basically the nearest crypto grifter with the right unrelated pedigree convinces people that derive clout in this antiquated way. It makes me sad that “never crypto” gatekeepers eventually run into the nearest one who just happens to be shilling anything random. The whole point of crypto is that you don't need to gauge utility off of pedigree, you can gauge it on your own and reach an independent understanding that’s corroborated by all the other participants in the network, which includes walking away and being disinterested.
There needs to be broad education on this stuff and what a properly managed crypto servicing organization looks like. Primarily because these are concepts that don't go away with any regulatory change, its as simple as 2 computers or nodes communicating with each other so it never goes away.
When I was in Japan I saw this too, basically the nearest crypto grifter with the right unrelated pedigree convinces people that derive clout in this antiquated way. It makes me sad that “never crypto” gatekeepers eventually run into the nearest one who just happens to be shilling anything random. The whole point of crypto is that you don't need to gauge utility off of pedigree, you can gauge it on your own and reach an independent understanding that’s corroborated by all the other participants in the network, which includes walking away and being disinterested.
There needs to be broad education on this stuff and what a properly managed crypto servicing organization looks like. Primarily because these are concepts that don't go away with any regulatory change, its as simple as 2 computers or nodes communicating with each other so it never goes away.
Crypto does have utility, but there's only room for one: bitcoin.
Everything else is just a me-too derivative that can add nothing except the possibility of central control (like the "digital dollar").
The ability to instantly transmit the hardest asset known to man (harder than gold, in the sense of inflation resistance) does have utility, regardless of what critics say.
It has downsides too: the ability to be lost or stolen if custody is sloppy, energy use, and many others. But the balance between its utility and its limitations is something that enough holders recognize that it maintains a value above $26k for now.
The US debt recently increased by the entire market cap of bitcoin ($275 billion [1]) in a single day.
That doesn't guarantee anything, but in the old days when the global reserve currency started to become frankly inflationary, there was no easy recourse - you could only jump to the next best national fiat (which could have the same problems or worse), or gold (with all of its limitations). Now, due to bitcoin, an alternative exists.
People on HN are smarter than me, and they all seem to hate bitcoin with passion, but I haven't yet understood why. I think it might be harder to recognize its value when it's part of your implicit cultural background: the dollar is money. We lack the perspective of our great grandparents, who lived through the great depression, and understand that the dollar has no intrinsic value, either. Once that epiphany is reached by the masses, the appreciation in bitcoin value could come quickly.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fw...
Everything else is just a me-too derivative that can add nothing except the possibility of central control (like the "digital dollar").
The ability to instantly transmit the hardest asset known to man (harder than gold, in the sense of inflation resistance) does have utility, regardless of what critics say.
It has downsides too: the ability to be lost or stolen if custody is sloppy, energy use, and many others. But the balance between its utility and its limitations is something that enough holders recognize that it maintains a value above $26k for now.
The US debt recently increased by the entire market cap of bitcoin ($275 billion [1]) in a single day.
That doesn't guarantee anything, but in the old days when the global reserve currency started to become frankly inflationary, there was no easy recourse - you could only jump to the next best national fiat (which could have the same problems or worse), or gold (with all of its limitations). Now, due to bitcoin, an alternative exists.
People on HN are smarter than me, and they all seem to hate bitcoin with passion, but I haven't yet understood why. I think it might be harder to recognize its value when it's part of your implicit cultural background: the dollar is money. We lack the perspective of our great grandparents, who lived through the great depression, and understand that the dollar has no intrinsic value, either. Once that epiphany is reached by the masses, the appreciation in bitcoin value could come quickly.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fw...
>and they all seem to hate bitcoin with passion, but I haven't yet understood why
The dollar buys drugs, it buys guns, it buys terrible things. But it also buys bread and pays your rent.
The interface a large portion of us has had with bitcoin is speculation and cybercrime. "Your computer has been encrypted, please insert X bitcoin to continue" is not a great interface for making someone have a good feeling about a product.
>We lack the perspective of our great grandparents, who lived through the great depression, and understand that the dollar has no intrinsic value, either.
You also lack the perspective that if the economy collapses, particularly a large economy like the US economy your "unpinned" bitcoin is going to behave like it is very much pinned to that dollar.
The dollar buys drugs, it buys guns, it buys terrible things. But it also buys bread and pays your rent.
The interface a large portion of us has had with bitcoin is speculation and cybercrime. "Your computer has been encrypted, please insert X bitcoin to continue" is not a great interface for making someone have a good feeling about a product.
>We lack the perspective of our great grandparents, who lived through the great depression, and understand that the dollar has no intrinsic value, either.
You also lack the perspective that if the economy collapses, particularly a large economy like the US economy your "unpinned" bitcoin is going to behave like it is very much pinned to that dollar.
> The dollar buys drugs, it buys guns, it buys terrible things. But it also buys bread and pays your rent.
You can use Bitcoin to pay your phone bill with AT&T and buy electronics on Newegg. Many Americans might use US dollars to do this instead, but why would that impair their view of the Euro?
> The interface a large portion of us has had with bitcoin is speculation and cybercrime. "Your computer has been encrypted, please insert X bitcoin to continue" is not a great interface for making someone have a good feeling about a product.
This seems like putting the blame on the wrong party. If the criminals demand payment in gift cards, do people get mad at companies for offering gift cards?
> You also lack the perspective that if the economy collapses, particularly a large economy like the US economy your "unpinned" bitcoin is going to behave like it is very much pinned to that dollar.
If the world economy collapses, sure. If you're in some country in South America and that country's economy collapses, probably not.
US dollars are unique because -- ironically -- they're not just used as a currency. Enough large institutions and foreign governments hold them (or explicitly dollar-denominated assets like US treasuries) as an investment to significantly affect their value.
You can use Bitcoin to pay your phone bill with AT&T and buy electronics on Newegg. Many Americans might use US dollars to do this instead, but why would that impair their view of the Euro?
> The interface a large portion of us has had with bitcoin is speculation and cybercrime. "Your computer has been encrypted, please insert X bitcoin to continue" is not a great interface for making someone have a good feeling about a product.
This seems like putting the blame on the wrong party. If the criminals demand payment in gift cards, do people get mad at companies for offering gift cards?
> You also lack the perspective that if the economy collapses, particularly a large economy like the US economy your "unpinned" bitcoin is going to behave like it is very much pinned to that dollar.
If the world economy collapses, sure. If you're in some country in South America and that country's economy collapses, probably not.
US dollars are unique because -- ironically -- they're not just used as a currency. Enough large institutions and foreign governments hold them (or explicitly dollar-denominated assets like US treasuries) as an investment to significantly affect their value.
People don't really buy things on a daily basis with gold either, and 99% of its valuation is based on speculation.
You’re right that gold isn’t used as a currency and that it is a speculative asset. But 99%? Hardly. The majority of gold is used for jewelry or in electronics manufacturing.
>The majority of gold is used for jewelry or in electronics manufacturing.
I feel this is some kind of trick answer....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-in...
Around 53% of mined gold is used in jewelry (46%) and technology (6%). 47% is in investment and markets.
But this doesn't really properly break down how much jewelry is purchased as a type of investment hedge in places where markets are not stable. Unfortunately there is no easy way to separate out jewelry purchases for enjoyment/fashion verses alternate wealth holding.
I feel this is some kind of trick answer....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-in...
Around 53% of mined gold is used in jewelry (46%) and technology (6%). 47% is in investment and markets.
But this doesn't really properly break down how much jewelry is purchased as a type of investment hedge in places where markets are not stable. Unfortunately there is no easy way to separate out jewelry purchases for enjoyment/fashion verses alternate wealth holding.
Hence the dollar is not pinned to the price of gold.
> People on HN are smarter than me, and they all seem to hate bitcoin with passion, but I haven't yet understood why. I think it might be harder to recognize its value when it's part of your implicit cultural background: the dollar is money.
Because if BTC is going to be my money for transactions, I actively do not want any of the speculation on its price. It’s not useful for normal transactions if the price can swing as much as 50-100% within a year — some quick searching says BTC started the year around $17k/BTC and is currently around $27k/BTC. BTC currently acts like both a currency and a speculative store of value, and only one of those is really useful if it’s supposed to be the future of money. Otherwise it’s just a more-volatile speculative bet than stocks or bonds or etc that people hope to eventually trade for USD.
Because if BTC is going to be my money for transactions, I actively do not want any of the speculation on its price. It’s not useful for normal transactions if the price can swing as much as 50-100% within a year — some quick searching says BTC started the year around $17k/BTC and is currently around $27k/BTC. BTC currently acts like both a currency and a speculative store of value, and only one of those is really useful if it’s supposed to be the future of money. Otherwise it’s just a more-volatile speculative bet than stocks or bonds or etc that people hope to eventually trade for USD.
You do realize that people heavily speculate on the price of dollars, stocks, real estate, etc., don't you? ;-)
In all seriousness, we do understand what you are saying, bitcoin's price relative to the things you want to buy does fluctuate pretty heavily right now because it is still very much in the early adoption phase. But eventually that will even out.
In all seriousness, we do understand what you are saying, bitcoin's price relative to the things you want to buy does fluctuate pretty heavily right now because it is still very much in the early adoption phase. But eventually that will even out.
> You do realize that people heavily speculate on the price of dollars, stocks, real estate, etc., don't you? ;-)
The supermarket doesn't let me use stocks or houses to buy milk and bread, and fortunately I live in a stable enough country that currency fluctuations are fairly minimal. Compared to Bitcoin it may as well not move at all!
The supermarket doesn't let me use stocks or houses to buy milk and bread, and fortunately I live in a stable enough country that currency fluctuations are fairly minimal. Compared to Bitcoin it may as well not move at all!
I don't think you can call something early adoption if it's been around for 15 years. The iPhone had been around for about the same amount of time and it's a mature platform. The "it's early" argument is really only peddled by people who seem to have an interest in bitcoin's value increasing.
The temptation for sarcasm here is so high...15 whole years huh? This isn't a JavaScript framework we are talking about here. A secure and reliable financial system has very different properties than a consumer product like an iPhone.
You do know the Internet got started in the 1960's, right? And didn't really take off until 30 years later?
You do know the Internet got started in the 1960's, right? And didn't really take off until 30 years later?
Bitcoin has had plenty of time to see widespread adoption. Its numerous flaws have become apparent and the ecosystem is so infested with scams and get rich quick bullshit. Good luck!
Saying bitcoin has had plenty of time is laughable. Do you think anyone said that about the internet in 1985 maybe?
When you start talking about scams and get rich quick schemes are unfairly grouping all of "crypto" with bitcoin. Bitcoin has been used in some of the schemes, but always with some other "coin" and false promises in conjunction with bitcoin. People that have stuck with plain vanilla bitcoin have not been scammed.
When you start talking about scams and get rich quick schemes are unfairly grouping all of "crypto" with bitcoin. Bitcoin has been used in some of the schemes, but always with some other "coin" and false promises in conjunction with bitcoin. People that have stuck with plain vanilla bitcoin have not been scammed.
It is possible to borrow against BTC (and many other crypto) holdings. This means you don't have to sell. Lend your BTC, earns a bit interest. Borrow your local currency at some rate and within a comfortable liquidation ratio. Spend the local currency on what you want to buy. Earn from your job. Pay back the loan. Keep thing thing you bought. Now you're putting your store of value to work for you and the daily swings in BTC price become less important. No need to go to anyone for permission to do that either. No credit checks. No banks. Anywhere in the world.
> It’s not useful for normal transactions if the price can swing as much as 50-100% within a year
Why not? If you're not using it for speculation then you wouldn't be holding it for that long. If you're using it as a currency then you might keep $50 worth in your wallet and if you ever receive more than that and not want to spend it immediately you'd exchange it for some traditional investment instead.
Why not? If you're not using it for speculation then you wouldn't be holding it for that long. If you're using it as a currency then you might keep $50 worth in your wallet and if you ever receive more than that and not want to spend it immediately you'd exchange it for some traditional investment instead.
> If you're using it as a currency then you might keep $50 worth in your wallet
Because that $50 in my wallet might be $25 or $100 by the time I need it.
Because that $50 in my wallet might be $25 or $100 by the time I need it.
What does that matter? If you're only holding $50 then your maximum exposure is $50. And if it turns into $100 then you're not exactly complaining about it.
Seriously? Because if it goes to five when I need to use it for groceries, I’m in a bit of a pickle. That does not happen with the USD/Euro/whatever.
> Because if it goes to five when I need to use it for groceries, I’m in a bit of a pickle.
Why? You're out $45. That sucks, but since you're not a Bitcoin speculator who holds all their assets in Bitcoin, you only have to open your phone and exchange something for another $50 worth of Bitcoin so you can use it to buy groceries.
Maybe you could use the $50 you made that time your $50 in Bitcoin turned into $100 and then you used half of it to invest in something else because you're not a Bitcoin speculator who needs more than $50 worth of Bitcoin at any given time.
> That does not happen with the USD/Euro/whatever.
When you're measuring dollars in bread rather than Bitcoin in dollars, the consequence is that a loaf of bread costs more dollars. People are complaining about this happening right now.
Why? You're out $45. That sucks, but since you're not a Bitcoin speculator who holds all their assets in Bitcoin, you only have to open your phone and exchange something for another $50 worth of Bitcoin so you can use it to buy groceries.
Maybe you could use the $50 you made that time your $50 in Bitcoin turned into $100 and then you used half of it to invest in something else because you're not a Bitcoin speculator who needs more than $50 worth of Bitcoin at any given time.
> That does not happen with the USD/Euro/whatever.
When you're measuring dollars in bread rather than Bitcoin in dollars, the consequence is that a loaf of bread costs more dollars. People are complaining about this happening right now.
So I’m not using it for currency, then? If it’s value can range from $100 to $5, it is unusable as daily currency, and the only reason to hold it is because I’m hoping today is the day it’s $100, and if it’s not, I’m going to use my real currency to buy things.
You’ve just made speculation small scale and complicated.
And my bread costs 8% more dollars than it did a little while ago. My dollar didn’t lose 92% of its value. They’re entirely different issues. My fifty USD will still buy enough bread for the week. My fifty BTC might if I happen to want bread at the right time.
You’ve just made speculation small scale and complicated.
And my bread costs 8% more dollars than it did a little while ago. My dollar didn’t lose 92% of its value. They’re entirely different issues. My fifty USD will still buy enough bread for the week. My fifty BTC might if I happen to want bread at the right time.
In the past year the difference between the low and the high for Bitcoin was about 100%, i.e. if you bought at the low and sold at the high your $50 turned into $100 and if you did the opposite your $50 turned into $25. This is the variation over the last year, not the last day, and only if you picked the worst (or best) to days to transact. In the past seven days the net change was <1%. This is more variation than US dollars have but it's not unreasonable when you're only holding small amounts -- as you would when using it as a currency.
You use it as a currency because you can't email someone dollar bills and digital payment processors charge higher fees. Because you want to buy something that isn't tied to your name, or don't want everything you buy tied to your name. Because you want to write a piece of code that lets people buy and sell directly without relying on a mercurial third party that can steal anyone's money or close their account without recourse. And if you want to, to pay your phone bill.
> You’ve just made speculation small scale and complicated.
Actually buying investment securities with a $50 cryptocurrency gain was a joke. You could do it in theory but what you're really going to do is not buy anymore Bitcoin until you've spent the $100 worth instead of buying $50 more after you'd spent the original $50. The point is that the volatility generally evens out. It doesn't really matter if you replenish your Bitcoin wallet after 5 days one time and 10 days another if it averages out.
Moreover, the more people use it, the less volatile the price is. It's understandable that people don't immediately use this to buy groceries, but if they use it to buy digital subscriptions or build distributed systems or what have you, the more people use it for those things the less volatility there is. And then at some point people may start using it to buy groceries.
You use it as a currency because you can't email someone dollar bills and digital payment processors charge higher fees. Because you want to buy something that isn't tied to your name, or don't want everything you buy tied to your name. Because you want to write a piece of code that lets people buy and sell directly without relying on a mercurial third party that can steal anyone's money or close their account without recourse. And if you want to, to pay your phone bill.
> You’ve just made speculation small scale and complicated.
Actually buying investment securities with a $50 cryptocurrency gain was a joke. You could do it in theory but what you're really going to do is not buy anymore Bitcoin until you've spent the $100 worth instead of buying $50 more after you'd spent the original $50. The point is that the volatility generally evens out. It doesn't really matter if you replenish your Bitcoin wallet after 5 days one time and 10 days another if it averages out.
Moreover, the more people use it, the less volatile the price is. It's understandable that people don't immediately use this to buy groceries, but if they use it to buy digital subscriptions or build distributed systems or what have you, the more people use it for those things the less volatility there is. And then at some point people may start using it to buy groceries.
> People on HN are smarter than me, and they all seem to hate bitcoin with passion, but I haven't yet understood why
"Hate" is a strong word, but I dislike Bitcoin because so much of its value doesn't come from utility, but from speculation. People rarely buy Bitcoin to actually use it, but instead because they hope/expect the price will go up. And that's what leads to cases like SBF.
> and understand that the dollar has no intrinsic value, either.
You need US dollars to pay US taxes and buy/sell into the world's largest consumer market. That's why there's a strong demand for dollars.
"Hate" is a strong word, but I dislike Bitcoin because so much of its value doesn't come from utility, but from speculation. People rarely buy Bitcoin to actually use it, but instead because they hope/expect the price will go up. And that's what leads to cases like SBF.
> and understand that the dollar has no intrinsic value, either.
You need US dollars to pay US taxes and buy/sell into the world's largest consumer market. That's why there's a strong demand for dollars.
Strong demand for Dollar is linked to commodities being all priced in Dollar.
If global oil output had to decrease due to, for example, peak oil, dollar value would collapse very quickly, because all of a sudden, monetary mass would be excessive compared with declining economic activity.
If global oil output had to decrease due to, for example, peak oil, dollar value would collapse very quickly, because all of a sudden, monetary mass would be excessive compared with declining economic activity.
People are speculating on Bitcoin for different reasons, but many of us are doing so because we have examined it closely and seen it's utility. It is still very early in the adoption phase and so it's hard to see the utility in practice right now, but as you learn more about our current financial system and how Bitcoin works, the potential of Bitcoin is pretty astounding.
Some people are, and a lot of them are here if HN. But the _extreme_ vast majority of people buying Bitcoin wouldn't be interested in it if it had a stable long-term value - they're in it for the speculation.
> the _extreme_ vast majority of people buying Bitcoin wouldn't be interested in it if
I am impressed by your powers of perception! You can probably read my mind, too, and tell me why I do the things I do, at least my major purchasing and investment decisions. It's a little scary knowing that there exists people as perceptive as you. It makes me feel naked almost.
I am impressed by your powers of perception! You can probably read my mind, too, and tell me why I do the things I do, at least my major purchasing and investment decisions. It's a little scary knowing that there exists people as perceptive as you. It makes me feel naked almost.
The main problem with bitcoin is it's fundamentally a terrible currency. With a transaction time of between 30 minutes and 16 hours, throughput of 7 transactions per second, and an energy consumption comparable to a medium sized country, it's an obviously awful currency for anything other than selling large quantities of drugs, ransom payments, or gambling.
You are talking about settlement times of Bitcoin transactions.
Yes, those take 10 minutes at best, or roughly around an hour if you want to be very confident that the funds have settled. Settlement times on dollars is generally 3 days at best.
The lightning network on top of Bitcoin gives you credit card speed transaction times, with settlement still happening on the Bitcoin layer in minutes not days.
The lightning network on top of Bitcoin gives you credit card speed transaction times, with settlement still happening on the Bitcoin layer in minutes not days.
The settlement times of the Dollar is instant if cash is used. Credit cards are fast, too. Even bank transactions are usually faster than 3 days.
How do you arrive at „3 days at best“?
LN transactions are usually not settled within minutes but when channels are closed. Anything else would negate their whole advantage. Are you thinking of rollups (which Bitcoin doesn’t have yet).
How do you arrive at „3 days at best“?
LN transactions are usually not settled within minutes but when channels are closed. Anything else would negate their whole advantage. Are you thinking of rollups (which Bitcoin doesn’t have yet).
Paper dollar settlement times are fast, if you happen to be in the same physical location as the person you are transacting with.
Everything else you mentioned is a transaction not an actual settlement of cash. When you pay with a credit card, for example, no dollars change hands. The credit card company promises to pay the merchant at some point in the future. I've heard it can take 2 weeks for actual dollars to show up in their bank account. Similar with all bank transfers, though usually more like 3 days.
And of course, in all those scenarios with banks involved, you don't actually have a physical pile of dollar bills in a vault at the bank. You just have a promise of dollars from the bank. And they have all promised more dollars like that then they actually have.
Everything else you mentioned is a transaction not an actual settlement of cash. When you pay with a credit card, for example, no dollars change hands. The credit card company promises to pay the merchant at some point in the future. I've heard it can take 2 weeks for actual dollars to show up in their bank account. Similar with all bank transfers, though usually more like 3 days.
And of course, in all those scenarios with banks involved, you don't actually have a physical pile of dollar bills in a vault at the bank. You just have a promise of dollars from the bank. And they have all promised more dollars like that then they actually have.
Traditional ACH transactions take days because they're not even transmitted to the other bank until the end of the day. Then you have to wait for their response.
Credit cards are even worse. All you get instantly is whether the card info is valid and has that much credit. But it could be a stolen card or a customer who issues a fraudulent chargeback, and you may not find out about that for a month or more. Meanwhile you've long since delivered the goods.
Credit cards are even worse. All you get instantly is whether the card info is valid and has that much credit. But it could be a stolen card or a customer who issues a fraudulent chargeback, and you may not find out about that for a month or more. Meanwhile you've long since delivered the goods.
When I pay something via credit card in an online store, my bank's app gives me a transaction notification within 3-5 seconds. I don't know whether that means that the transaction has been fully settled, but at least it appears to be moving through the system rather quickly.
> Traditional ACH transactions take days because they're not even transmitted to the other bank until the end of the day.
From what I hear in the US, their banking system is slow to innovate outside of fintech providers. Here in Europe, SEPA Instant Direct Transfer allows ACH transactions to be settled within at most 20 seconds.
> Traditional ACH transactions take days because they're not even transmitted to the other bank until the end of the day.
From what I hear in the US, their banking system is slow to innovate outside of fintech providers. Here in Europe, SEPA Instant Direct Transfer allows ACH transactions to be settled within at most 20 seconds.
> From what I hear in the US, their banking system is slow to innovate outside of fintech providers.
Actually, the FedNow system, which will provide very fast transactions, is currently being deployed in the US:
https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/about....
Actually, the FedNow system, which will provide very fast transactions, is currently being deployed in the US:
https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/about....
Bitcoin wallets can also give you a notification instantly that your transaction is "moving through the system" if that's all you want.
The real test of transaction settlement time is how quickly you can withdraw physical dollars from the bank
The real test of transaction settlement time is how quickly you can withdraw physical dollars from the bank
> But it could be a stolen card
Ah yes and bitcoin is better here because it doesn't even try to stop stolen money from being used.
Ah yes and bitcoin is better here because it doesn't even try to stop stolen money from being used.
Credit cards don't stop stolen money from being used, all they do is make it a theft from the merchant instead of a theft from the cardholder.
Some people complain Bitcoin isn't anonymous enough, others complain that it doesn't have built-in protection that would absolutely require an invasion of privacy
You are correct about lightning transactions. Funds are settled in the Bitcoin layer when the two channel partners close the channel. I think that time can vary depending on the channel partners, but when they do decide to close, then it takes the normal Bitcoin "transaction" (settlement) time.
> Settlement times on dollars is generally 3 days at best.
If I do a card payment the merchant knows they'll get the money inside a few seconds. Same if I use cash, or a bank transfer.
If I do a card payment the merchant knows they'll get the money inside a few seconds. Same if I use cash, or a bank transfer.
"knows they'll get the money" is different than actually has the money. And they don't know, there could be a chargeback, the credit card company could decide their business is illegitimate and withhold funds, the federal government could intervene and stop the funds. It is absolutely not the same as cash or bitcoin.
Sure, but the risk is low enough that Aldi is happy to let me take my food out of the store within a second or two of tapping my card. For the _extreme_ vast majority of life, that's plenty.
You say it is inflation resistant, but after a period of massive deflation, it has seen inflation rates that would make an African dictator blush, and now it is back to deflating.
Things that are inflation resistant don’t rise AND fall wildly in relation to gently inflating assets like USD. They have a pricing curve which would be completely flat when priced in real (inflation adjusted == real) dollars. Bitcoin is not that
Things that are inflation resistant don’t rise AND fall wildly in relation to gently inflating assets like USD. They have a pricing curve which would be completely flat when priced in real (inflation adjusted == real) dollars. Bitcoin is not that
> That doesn't guarantee anything, but in the old days when the global reserve currency started to become frankly inflationary, there was no easy recourse - you could only jump to the next best national fiat (which could have the same problems or worse), or gold (with all of its limitations). Now, due to bitcoin, an alternative exists.
Or you just buy assets priced in dollars; bonds, real estate, equities, etc. Nobody with half a brain holds their wealth in currency. Currency is for transacting, not storing wealth.
> People on HN are smarter than me, and they all seem to hate bitcoin with passion, but I haven't yet understood why.
See above and below.
It has 0 intrinsic value. It also has no cash flows. The only “value” it has is speculative.
Or you just buy assets priced in dollars; bonds, real estate, equities, etc. Nobody with half a brain holds their wealth in currency. Currency is for transacting, not storing wealth.
> People on HN are smarter than me, and they all seem to hate bitcoin with passion, but I haven't yet understood why.
See above and below.
It has 0 intrinsic value. It also has no cash flows. The only “value” it has is speculative.
> Crypto does have utility, but there's only room for one: bitcoin.
That it doesn’t have any known/recognizable founder has helped it quite a bit. Compare that to other coins with founders who have compromised on things (in some or many people’s views) and it makes the case stronger. Plus the fact that it didn’t have an ICO-like event — where the people launching it and their friends get a big stake for close to nothing — has also helped reinforce the idea that it’s less scammy.
> Everything else is just a me-too derivative that can add nothing except the possibility of central control (like the "digital dollar").
I’m not sure where you’re getting this from if you’re comparing all other cryptocurrencies. Would Monero and similar currencies be a “me too” derivative too? If yes, why? Monero is quite steady, AFAIK, in its valuation in fiat currency terms.
That it doesn’t have any known/recognizable founder has helped it quite a bit. Compare that to other coins with founders who have compromised on things (in some or many people’s views) and it makes the case stronger. Plus the fact that it didn’t have an ICO-like event — where the people launching it and their friends get a big stake for close to nothing — has also helped reinforce the idea that it’s less scammy.
> Everything else is just a me-too derivative that can add nothing except the possibility of central control (like the "digital dollar").
I’m not sure where you’re getting this from if you’re comparing all other cryptocurrencies. Would Monero and similar currencies be a “me too” derivative too? If yes, why? Monero is quite steady, AFAIK, in its valuation in fiat currency terms.
> Crypto does have utility, but there's only room for one: bitcoin.
Except that Bitcoin is very expensive to actually use and isn't private by default.
That Bitcoin is the only one with value is only wishful thinking from the Bitcoin maximalists.
Except that Bitcoin is very expensive to actually use and isn't private by default.
That Bitcoin is the only one with value is only wishful thinking from the Bitcoin maximalists.
Bitcoin is not expensive to use, I'm not sure why you think it is
It is far more private by default than our current central bank and credit card system. Could it be better? Maybe. Does everyone want a fully anonymous system? I'm not sure
It is far more private by default than our current central bank and credit card system. Could it be better? Maybe. Does everyone want a fully anonymous system? I'm not sure
Not expensive? Is that a joke?
At the moment the average transaction fee is almost $4, but cases of more than $10 or $20 are not uncommon. It has been as high as $50 as well.
It's just too expensive and/or too slow to work for day to day payments.
At the moment the average transaction fee is almost $4, but cases of more than $10 or $20 are not uncommon. It has been as high as $50 as well.
It's just too expensive and/or too slow to work for day to day payments.
$4 per what? Do you even know?
Have you heard of the lightning network that is a fast transaction layer built on top of Bitcoin?
Have you heard of the lightning network that is a fast transaction layer built on top of Bitcoin?
Is it too hard to comprehend what I wrote? Average fee per transaction?
I have heard about this mystery thing that supposedly solves all of Bitcoins problems.
Except that it's been years and it's still not ready, you still have load it up via the expensive transactions and you have to use third party services to get a somewhat useable UX.
Lightning is even more of a joke than Bitcoin is.
I have heard about this mystery thing that supposedly solves all of Bitcoins problems.
Except that it's been years and it's still not ready, you still have load it up via the expensive transactions and you have to use third party services to get a somewhat useable UX.
Lightning is even more of a joke than Bitcoin is.
Yeah, you don't even have the right units on that metric, Bitcoin fees are not per transaction. They are not scaled by the amount of Bitcoin you are transacting either. It's a per byte fee. Different transactions take up more or less space on the blockchain depending on how many addresses are involved.
Here's a good explanation:
https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin/fees/
Here's a good explanation:
https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin/fees/
Yes? And you can still get an average fee per transaction to get a rough idea of how expensive it is.
I suppose, but it's just not a very useful number. If you are sending a billion dollars of Bitcoin from one address to another, the transaction fee could be one dollar. No bank in this universe will do that amount for that cheap (and the settlement time would be way more than Bitcoin's 10 minutes).
The overall point I'm trying to make is it's hard to compare Bitcoin to our current banking system if you don't really even understand how Bitcoin works
The overall point I'm trying to make is it's hard to compare Bitcoin to our current banking system if you don't really even understand how Bitcoin works
Why do you assume I don't know how Bitcoin works? Because I'm not using sat/byte, which would only confuse the casual reader?
My point was that for regular payments that regular people do Bitcoin is simply too expensive for. The average transaction amount is indeed very useful to backup that statement.
My point was that for regular payments that regular people do Bitcoin is simply too expensive for. The average transaction amount is indeed very useful to backup that statement.
I assume you don't know how bitcoin works because you are using the same arguments against it that most ignorant people use. The fact that you do know about it and you are still boiling things down to those explanations/arguments is even more discouraging to me. This is hacker news, we don't need to boil things down for the casual reader here, this audience wants to understand the detailed nuances and their implications.
Yes, transaction fees are too high for everyday small purchases. The 10 minute transaction/confirmation time is too slow for that too. That's why (just like in our current banking system) layers are being built on top of bitcoin to solve those problems (the lightning network, for example). The trade off is that these fast and cheap transaction layers will have a little less security and longer final settlement times (similar to our current system but actually still way more secure, and also permissionless, free of central control, etc., etc.).
Yes, transaction fees are too high for everyday small purchases. The 10 minute transaction/confirmation time is too slow for that too. That's why (just like in our current banking system) layers are being built on top of bitcoin to solve those problems (the lightning network, for example). The trade off is that these fast and cheap transaction layers will have a little less security and longer final settlement times (similar to our current system but actually still way more secure, and also permissionless, free of central control, etc., etc.).
So my argument, that Bitcoin is too expensive which you even agree with, is wrong because "ignorant people" use it?
It's amazing the amount of mental gymnastics Bitcoin maximalists come up with.
It's amazing the amount of mental gymnastics Bitcoin maximalists come up with.
Also, lightning is not a joke, it is used everyday. Take a look at the Strike app for an example, it's basically venmo, but using lightning under the hood.
Bitcoin uses about 100x more energy than ethereum, has 5x less throughput, and doesn't natively support smart contracts. There's definitely also room for ethereum.
There is no word for swapping $5 of crypto on Uniswap currently costing ~$2 in gas fees (and this is 'low') and taking several minutes other than "dumb".
There are other cryptos which have most or all of the advantages of Ethereum with minimal downsides. I don't want to come across as shilling any particular bag, so I'll be vague and say there are chains with reasonable amounts of activity where transactions take seconds and fees are $0.00x or $0.000x. This actually is disruptive and interesting compared to fees for Stripe/Braintree or even Mastercard/Visa.
The reality is that if Ethereum released today with its capabilities, it would not see widespread adoption. Its position today is purely because it's the incumbent smart contract chain.
There are other cryptos which have most or all of the advantages of Ethereum with minimal downsides. I don't want to come across as shilling any particular bag, so I'll be vague and say there are chains with reasonable amounts of activity where transactions take seconds and fees are $0.00x or $0.000x. This actually is disruptive and interesting compared to fees for Stripe/Braintree or even Mastercard/Visa.
The reality is that if Ethereum released today with its capabilities, it would not see widespread adoption. Its position today is purely because it's the incumbent smart contract chain.
The future is layer 2s.
Other blockchains that advertise smaller fees and faster transaction times all sacrifice on decentralization and/or security, and would not retain those advantages if their usage was at the same scale as ethereum.
Other blockchains that advertise smaller fees and faster transaction times all sacrifice on decentralization and/or security, and would not retain those advantages if their usage was at the same scale as ethereum.
Ethereum is essentially centrally controlled and Bitcoin is absolutely not.
In what way is Ethereum centrally controlled that Bitcoin isn‘t?
Vitalik says, "hey, let's do this" and everyone does it. Even when it's crazy things like rolling back transactions.
Satoshi doesn't even say anything and hasn't for a very long time.
Satoshi doesn't even say anything and hasn't for a very long time.
Ethereum is decentralized and Vitalik has no direct authority over the protocol
So you don't believe in the existence of Ethereum Classic?
No. This is absolutely a zombie chain.
Does it still exist, with people actually using it? Is that what you were referring to originally?
You said people do what Vitalik says. Ethereum Classic is the prime counter argument that this is not true. It almost flipped Ethereum, split the community, and completely wreaked the price.
That's not supposed to happen if everybody follows the supreme leader.
That's not supposed to happen if everybody follows the supreme leader.
Yes, that happened, but in the long run it failed and Vitalik still reigns supreme over the original Ethereum, despite him breaking one of the central promises of Ethereum in that scenario (the promise that "code is law").
Ethereum is better than the other complete scam coins, it's not a total scam. But it's not really permissionless and decentralized like Bitcoin.
Ethereum is better than the other complete scam coins, it's not a total scam. But it's not really permissionless and decentralized like Bitcoin.
People on hacker news are smart, but not about everything. It takes some effort to really understand our central bank dollar based financial system. It's takes effort to understand Bitcoin. Most of us here are focused on other things and only take a cursory look at Bitcoin and dismiss it's "slow transaction times" (which are actually incredibly fast settlement times), high energy use (which actually uses marginal energy that would otherwise be wasted), and conclude "this is not worth my time to understand, and I wish everyone would just shut up about it."
> harder than gold, in the sense of inflation resistance
Are we saying bitcoin is this? Because it's stupid volatile and seems pretty correlated to inflation.
Are we saying bitcoin is this? Because it's stupid volatile and seems pretty correlated to inflation.
In my opinion, Bitcoin was just the low hanging fruit.
Proof of Work is probably the way to go, but please make it useful work.
Proof of Work is probably the way to go, but please make it useful work.
Revise SETI@home. A bitcoin for every earth-sized exoplanet your GPU can discover in a given day. Ten bitcoin if it finds intelligent life.
Or a darker proof of work concept: Forget the big data centers, the NSA could hand out bitcoins to GPUs who help them brute force enemy encryption.
Or a darker proof of work concept: Forget the big data centers, the NSA could hand out bitcoins to GPUs who help them brute force enemy encryption.
> NSA could hand out bitcoins to GPUs who help them brute force enemy encryption.
Plot twist - that was your own encryption you helped the NSA (presumably legally) break!
Plot twist - that was your own encryption you helped the NSA (presumably legally) break!
The Bitcoin project is called Bitcoin Cash now
There's quite an entertaining (and sometimes shocking) discussion with the author of Number Go Up about the book https://youtu.be/THdU00jutvo (Zeke Faux Interview with Patrick Boyle)
I'm not sure I buy the thesis of Patrick's article "Crypto Fooled Us Once" on the basis FTX collapsed when SBF stole the clients money. Crypto goes on fine, Kraken, Coinbase and a hundred other exchanges still do business. One crooked exchange less has not put crypto and fooling into the past.
I'm not sure I buy the thesis of Patrick's article "Crypto Fooled Us Once" on the basis FTX collapsed when SBF stole the clients money. Crypto goes on fine, Kraken, Coinbase and a hundred other exchanges still do business. One crooked exchange less has not put crypto and fooling into the past.
This was flagged not because it was an intresting, relevant review contrasting two books, but because zealots here don't like Bari Weiss, publisher of very mainstream "The Free Press."
Once? There has been a wave of exchange collapses following every single bull market to date. Mt Gox was the first.
Yes, it will fool you again. Only if you're a fool.
Yes, it will fool you again. Only if you're a fool.
[deleted]
Those who criticize SBF most harshly now are in the crypto industry. It is not impossible that, after SBF is completely expelled from the crypto industry, SBF's critics will engage in similar behavior.
I think it's more that they're already engaging in that behavior, and hate SBF because he did it so openly and poorly. Nobody hates an incompetent scammer like a competent scammer.
Michael Lewis' "Big Short" was a decent account, but after that he's gone mad, if he's simply not on the payroll of Big Crypto.
Who's 'us'? Crypto sure did not fool me
Crypto and NFTs are the ultimate scam.
It's wooden nickels, the Brooklyn Bridge and Bernie Madoff all taken to their ultimate logical conclusion --- something with no intrinsic value whatsoever (electrons) is being exchanged for real functioning currency.
But what really sets the crypto scam apart is the fact that no is really lying about the fundamental nature of the transaction.
No one is hiding the fact that by buying crypto, you are exchanging your legal working currency for nothing more than an entry in a database with no real guarantees of any kind --- legal or otherwise. No one is hiding the fact that with only moderate technical skill, anyone can create a similar database and mint their own version of Bitcoin.
All crypto really does is provide a quasi-viable excuse to entice people to lie to themselves about economic reality and what we call "money".
It's wooden nickels, the Brooklyn Bridge and Bernie Madoff all taken to their ultimate logical conclusion --- something with no intrinsic value whatsoever (electrons) is being exchanged for real functioning currency.
But what really sets the crypto scam apart is the fact that no is really lying about the fundamental nature of the transaction.
No one is hiding the fact that by buying crypto, you are exchanging your legal working currency for nothing more than an entry in a database with no real guarantees of any kind --- legal or otherwise. No one is hiding the fact that with only moderate technical skill, anyone can create a similar database and mint their own version of Bitcoin.
All crypto really does is provide a quasi-viable excuse to entice people to lie to themselves about economic reality and what we call "money".
What's also incredible is the lack of government action on crypto. I mean, if something like crypto happened in the 60s, you can bet countries like the US would've banned "owning it" just like they did with gold.
Much much easier to ban a physical item like gold than crypto. Trying to ban crypto is like trying to ban p2p file sharing, except with much more serious implications as it would also kill a country's presence and innovation in the industry.
> no intrinsic value
> electrons
> entry in a database
The most fascinating phenomenon of crypto arguments is that they never change.
Fifteen years ago you could find these same unintentionally ironic statements, where the most cutting criticisms of cryptocurrency are equally true of dollars and euros.
The only thing missing from this thread (so far) is mysticism about the money supply and confident assertions that dollars are somehow "backed" by the military or tax payments.
> electrons
> entry in a database
The most fascinating phenomenon of crypto arguments is that they never change.
Fifteen years ago you could find these same unintentionally ironic statements, where the most cutting criticisms of cryptocurrency are equally true of dollars and euros.
The only thing missing from this thread (so far) is mysticism about the money supply and confident assertions that dollars are somehow "backed" by the military or tax payments.
dollars are somehow "backed" by the military or tax payments.
They are backed by law --- they are "legal tender". As such, I'm fairly confident I can pay next month's rent with them.
Crypto is backed by --- absolutely nothing.
Pretending you can't see the difference here is lying to yourself.
They are backed by law --- they are "legal tender". As such, I'm fairly confident I can pay next month's rent with them.
Crypto is backed by --- absolutely nothing.
Pretending you can't see the difference here is lying to yourself.
Seems like "backed by law" is just a synonym for the Latin "fiat", "let it be done", as in "the current regime decrees that this particular figment of our collective imagination is their preferred medium of exchange, which can, will, and always has changed throughout history to different socially constructed figments of the collective imagination".
Not to say that it's dumb or silly to align yourself with the current regime, even though we all know that it will, sooner or later, be replaced by something else. Maybe that's next year, or maybe it won't happen in my children's lifetimes.
But for me, I already have 95% of my life and wealth tightly coupled to the stability and durability of the current regime, and it doesn't seem completely mad to diversify a bit into something that might possibly have a chance of surviving a regime change, or could retain some value in the event the current regime decides to appropriate or restrict or sanction how I can spend or transfer wealth currently locked in their system.
Perhaps twenty years ago it was unimaginable that the current regime could end, or transmute into an totalitarian hellscape, or even just continue with the appearance of liberal democracy but be undermined by authoritarians.
If it's become easier to imagine scenarios like these in recent years, is it insane to want a 5% allocation to independent, uncorrelated, uncensorable assets to correspond to a 5% probability of previously unthinkable scenarios?
Not to say that it's dumb or silly to align yourself with the current regime, even though we all know that it will, sooner or later, be replaced by something else. Maybe that's next year, or maybe it won't happen in my children's lifetimes.
But for me, I already have 95% of my life and wealth tightly coupled to the stability and durability of the current regime, and it doesn't seem completely mad to diversify a bit into something that might possibly have a chance of surviving a regime change, or could retain some value in the event the current regime decides to appropriate or restrict or sanction how I can spend or transfer wealth currently locked in their system.
Perhaps twenty years ago it was unimaginable that the current regime could end, or transmute into an totalitarian hellscape, or even just continue with the appearance of liberal democracy but be undermined by authoritarians.
If it's become easier to imagine scenarios like these in recent years, is it insane to want a 5% allocation to independent, uncorrelated, uncensorable assets to correspond to a 5% probability of previously unthinkable scenarios?
is it insane to want a 5% allocation to independent, uncorrelated, uncensorable assets ...
Yes --- when your "independent" assets have little to no history of success or stability beyond speculation, manipulation and promotion for questionable motives and arguably carries a much greater risk than the one you're looking to hedge against.
Crypto is one of the world's most volatile "assets". The only way it achieved any stability is through largely imaginary ties to fiat using "stable coins".
In other words, avoiding risk by adopting even more doesn't make much sense. "Smart money" doesn't buy into a startup with no real world product or assets in order to avoid risk.
Ask yourself this question --- why hasn't every profit driven bank and corporation offered their own crypto already? They have way more ability to promote it than bitcoin. The only reason they haven't is because they don't see any real advantage in the long run.
Yes --- when your "independent" assets have little to no history of success or stability beyond speculation, manipulation and promotion for questionable motives and arguably carries a much greater risk than the one you're looking to hedge against.
Crypto is one of the world's most volatile "assets". The only way it achieved any stability is through largely imaginary ties to fiat using "stable coins".
In other words, avoiding risk by adopting even more doesn't make much sense. "Smart money" doesn't buy into a startup with no real world product or assets in order to avoid risk.
Ask yourself this question --- why hasn't every profit driven bank and corporation offered their own crypto already? They have way more ability to promote it than bitcoin. The only reason they haven't is because they don't see any real advantage in the long run.
Comprare the value of say bitcoin and Venezuelan bolivars. The fact that the latter is "legal tender" has not helped it retain value much.
And bitcoin is not backed by nothing. It's backed by a vast army of bitcoin promoters which you may not like but they are not nothing.
And bitcoin is not backed by nothing. It's backed by a vast army of bitcoin promoters which you may not like but they are not nothing.
False equivalence.
I'm not Venezuelan, are you? The fact that an unstable "legal tender" exists somewhere doesn't make all others the same and it doesn't make crypto a better or more stable alternative. The fact that some people are promoting it for person gain doesn't either.
I'm not Venezuelan, are you? The fact that an unstable "legal tender" exists somewhere doesn't make all others the same and it doesn't make crypto a better or more stable alternative. The fact that some people are promoting it for person gain doesn't either.
The fiat money system also operates on faith, but that faith is in the government so by your definition that's ok I guess. It seems that the modern left is adopting the government as their own. Personally, I trust the government about the same amount as I trust big companies, not at all. In my view the current fiat money system is a very old legalized scam around which there is quite a lot of academic contortion and opaque jargon to try to justify its existence - funded by those who benefit from it. Unwinding the scam would be political suicide as it would crush the perceived wealth of the populus.
This is not to say that crypto isn't so infested with scams that they're now inseparable. I spread my trust around thinly across many countries, banks, and financial instruments with very little of it in crypto. My hopes is that crypto will mature and become boring but useful but do believe we're still a long way away from that.
This is not to say that crypto isn't so infested with scams that they're now inseparable. I spread my trust around thinly across many countries, banks, and financial instruments with very little of it in crypto. My hopes is that crypto will mature and become boring but useful but do believe we're still a long way away from that.
The fiat money system also operates on faith, but that faith is in the government so by your definition that's ok I guess.
Given a choice between the most stable government on the planet and the scam artists running crypto exchanges --- the choice is a no brainer.
Personally, I trust the government about the same amount as I trust big companies, not at all.
But you trust scam artists running crypto exchanges from undisclosed 3rd world locations?
You're lying to yourself.
Given a choice between the most stable government on the planet and the scam artists running crypto exchanges --- the choice is a no brainer.
Personally, I trust the government about the same amount as I trust big companies, not at all.
But you trust scam artists running crypto exchanges from undisclosed 3rd world locations?
You're lying to yourself.
I don’t trust crypto either. My wealth and focus are entirely wrapped up in business ventures which are inflation resistant.
Also, the US is not the country it used to be so past performance shouldn’t be as indicative of future performance. Particularly the Nixon depegging (Nixon shock) from gold substantially changed the character of the market and the US economy. It takes a long time for the effects to be felt in full and it’s my position that a lot of the current problems originate from that event.
From an outsider to the US the US does not look stable, quite the opposite. It’s not even an old government.
Also, the US is not the country it used to be so past performance shouldn’t be as indicative of future performance. Particularly the Nixon depegging (Nixon shock) from gold substantially changed the character of the market and the US economy. It takes a long time for the effects to be felt in full and it’s my position that a lot of the current problems originate from that event.
From an outsider to the US the US does not look stable, quite the opposite. It’s not even an old government.
My wealth and focus are entirely wrapped up in business ventures.
You're lying to yourself when you say you don't trust government.
Your wealth and business ventures are secured by the rule of law --- aka government.
It's a right wing mind virus that entices people to express distrust in government --- as they trust government with everything they do --- and vote for those actively trying to destroy the same trust.
You're lying to yourself when you say you don't trust government.
Your wealth and business ventures are secured by the rule of law --- aka government.
It's a right wing mind virus that entices people to express distrust in government --- as they trust government with everything they do --- and vote for those actively trying to destroy the same trust.
If it makes you feel any better I used to trust the government, I did military software and was quite jingoistic. Peace through superior firepower etc. I figured ‘of course the government is good, people like me are working for them’. Then I got a good look at the realities from the inside, figured they were going to crush the middle class and that if I wished to escape that fate I would have to exit the middle class asap.
When I first heard the term 'fiat money system' I thought it was talking about bitcoin. The value exists because some crypto guy says it exists. That is the very definition of fiat.
After when I was corrected that they were talking about real currency my first thought was oh, this is a grift. Only scammers try to reverse the meaning of words like this.
After when I was corrected that they were talking about real currency my first thought was oh, this is a grift. Only scammers try to reverse the meaning of words like this.
The term fiat currency predates crypto by a truly substantial amount of time, it describes an idea which is as old as currency. There is no reversal of meaning, fiat is from Latin ‘let it be done’ it’s value is by decree.
> No one is hiding the fact that by buying crypto, you are exchanging your legal working currency for nothing more than an entry in a database with no real guarantees of any kind --- legal or otherwise
You just described the modern banking system. Yes, the government will give you guarantees for your stored funds to some extent, but when shit hits the fan, you are on your own (example 2008 financial crisis).
> All crypto really does is provide a quasi-viable excuse to entice people to lie to themselves about economic reality and what we call "money".
The same can be applied to the modern stock market. How many top players bring actual value, are sustainable, and can live more than 6 months without pumping stocks (and company valuation) through social media nonsense and other accounting tricks?
You just described the modern banking system. Yes, the government will give you guarantees for your stored funds to some extent, but when shit hits the fan, you are on your own (example 2008 financial crisis).
> All crypto really does is provide a quasi-viable excuse to entice people to lie to themselves about economic reality and what we call "money".
The same can be applied to the modern stock market. How many top players bring actual value, are sustainable, and can live more than 6 months without pumping stocks (and company valuation) through social media nonsense and other accounting tricks?
> You just described the modern banking system. Yes, the government will give you guarantees for your stored funds to some extent, but when shit hits the fan, you are on your own (example 2008 financial crisis).
How much money did your savings account lose in 2008? Or your checking account?
How much money did your savings account lose in 2008? Or your checking account?
Wrong question. Ask yourself how much value your saving/checking account lose in 2008. Check DXY history for that.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/jul/wk2/art04.htm
CPI was deflation for June 2008 to June 2009 yo.
Whatever cash you had that year gained value, not just from interest rates, but also from deflation.
--------
I dunno why you'd pick DXY when CPI or PCE are far more well regarded measures of price fluctuations.
CPI was deflation for June 2008 to June 2009 yo.
Whatever cash you had that year gained value, not just from interest rates, but also from deflation.
--------
I dunno why you'd pick DXY when CPI or PCE are far more well regarded measures of price fluctuations.
Money market funds broke the buck in 2008:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/money-mar...
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/money-mar...
Cool story bro. But answer my question.
How much money did you lose in your SAVINGS account, or CHECKING account?
Don't move the goalposts on me. I know what you are trying to do rhetorically.
How much money did you lose in your SAVINGS account, or CHECKING account?
Don't move the goalposts on me. I know what you are trying to do rhetorically.
Dude
One money market fund, which was a tiny tiny percentage of overall money market funds, broke the buck by like 3%
Also money market funds aren't insured (typically)
Also, money market funds for sweep now have much stricter regulations to prevent even that from occurring again.
One money market fund, which was a tiny tiny percentage of overall money market funds, broke the buck by like 3%
Also money market funds aren't insured (typically)
Also, money market funds for sweep now have much stricter regulations to prevent even that from occurring again.
In 2008, who lost deposits in the US? Can you explain how, for example, Apple or Exxon are just pumping their stock and what the accounting tricks are?
I own stocks that pay me dividends - a share of the company profits. The company manufactures tangible goods, sells them to people, and then distributes some of the profits from these sales to shareholders. The shares I own are a claim on some portion of those profits.
There are plenty of companies that pay dividends. The logic behind stock buybacks is that it achieves a similar end for investors with favorable tax treatment.
In either case I am receiving some portion of the cash flows generated by a business. These cash flows are being generated independently of any stock market activity.
So tell me what claim on an underlying asset / cash flow does a cryptocurrency entitle me to?
There are plenty of companies that pay dividends. The logic behind stock buybacks is that it achieves a similar end for investors with favorable tax treatment.
In either case I am receiving some portion of the cash flows generated by a business. These cash flows are being generated independently of any stock market activity.
So tell me what claim on an underlying asset / cash flow does a cryptocurrency entitle me to?
The utility of a scarce token that can have ownership changed, permissionless (without a third party) to anyone, anywhere in the world, basically instantaneously. Some might call that "money".
How is it a scam if the people buying it know exactly what they're buying, and the code is all open source? The word "scam" implies someone is being misled.
How is cryptocurrency any more of a scam than fiat currency, ie. digits in the computer of some private bank or central bank?
How is cryptocurrency any more of a scam than fiat currency, ie. digits in the computer of some private bank or central bank?
> How is it a scam if the people buying it know exactly what they're buying, and the code is all open source? The word "scam" implies someone is being misled.
This is astonishing mental gymnastics. Take the average crypto investor and ask them how the blockchain works. Not marketing fluff: the actual steps in pseudo-code for literally any step of the process.
"The code is all there bro" is an astonishing amount of bad faith. Yeah, it is. Big deal. I've been a software developer for my entire adult life, but I don't work in cryptography, so I can't tell you a single damn thing about how blockchains work. The average investor in crypto, the influencers that peddle it, the whales that flooded the market with money? None of them understand it even slightly. I'd bet my life savings on it.
> How is cryptocurrency any more of a scam than fiat currency, ie. digits in the computer of some private bank or central bank?
A short, non-exhaustive list of differences:
- Crypto has basically zero consumer protections and makes the implementing of them extremely difficult by it's nature
- It is "anonymous" (actually pseudonymous) unless you are technically inclined enough to interact with the chain yourself, with your own software. "Normies" get to use platforms built by... somebody? Who maybe did it right? Probably. If they did it wrong though good luck getting your money back!
- Complete lack of any oversight of any regulatory body, which is a selling point, up until there actually are those, which are the large miners, stakeholders and exchanges
- Runaway deflation is not only a possibility, it is the goal of all of these projects, it's what "TO THE MOON!" means. They WANT that. After which and during their attempts to achieve it, the currency is useless as a currency because of the volatility in value.
- The system has demonstrated multiple times that all the "ownership is truly yours" rhetoric is thrown out the window when the real monied investors in the background have their assets taken from them, in a way that is not against the rules, but no worries we'll just rewrite history for them because they're rich, they can't lose or this whole scheme falls apart
This is astonishing mental gymnastics. Take the average crypto investor and ask them how the blockchain works. Not marketing fluff: the actual steps in pseudo-code for literally any step of the process.
"The code is all there bro" is an astonishing amount of bad faith. Yeah, it is. Big deal. I've been a software developer for my entire adult life, but I don't work in cryptography, so I can't tell you a single damn thing about how blockchains work. The average investor in crypto, the influencers that peddle it, the whales that flooded the market with money? None of them understand it even slightly. I'd bet my life savings on it.
> How is cryptocurrency any more of a scam than fiat currency, ie. digits in the computer of some private bank or central bank?
A short, non-exhaustive list of differences:
- Crypto has basically zero consumer protections and makes the implementing of them extremely difficult by it's nature
- It is "anonymous" (actually pseudonymous) unless you are technically inclined enough to interact with the chain yourself, with your own software. "Normies" get to use platforms built by... somebody? Who maybe did it right? Probably. If they did it wrong though good luck getting your money back!
- Complete lack of any oversight of any regulatory body, which is a selling point, up until there actually are those, which are the large miners, stakeholders and exchanges
- Runaway deflation is not only a possibility, it is the goal of all of these projects, it's what "TO THE MOON!" means. They WANT that. After which and during their attempts to achieve it, the currency is useless as a currency because of the volatility in value.
- The system has demonstrated multiple times that all the "ownership is truly yours" rhetoric is thrown out the window when the real monied investors in the background have their assets taken from them, in a way that is not against the rules, but no worries we'll just rewrite history for them because they're rich, they can't lose or this whole scheme falls apart
> Runaway deflation is not only a possibility, it is the goal of all of these projects
Not all of them. One [1] has an emission of one coin per second forever, taking a century to get yearly inflation down to 1%.
[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-su...
Not all of them. One [1] has an emission of one coin per second forever, taking a century to get yearly inflation down to 1%.
[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-su...
Someone not understanding what they're buying when the information is all publicly available doesn't make it a scam. Again, a scam implies someone being "misled". If you buy some ecstasy and its laced with fentanyl, you were scammed (to say the least). If you buy ecstasy and you get ecstasy, you were not scammed as you got exactly what you asked for.
> The system has demonstrated multiple times that all the "ownership is truly yours" rhetoric is thrown out the window
In ethereum that only happened once back in 2016 when the DAO was hacked. In any case you're free to use Ethereum Classic.
Anyways you listed some legitimate concerns of cryptocurrencies, but none of them imply that crypto is a scam. Nobody is forced to use crypto, and anyone purchasing crypto should obviously do their own research and evaluate whether it makes sense for them. Crypto has legitimate use cases (eg. for people in countries with oppressive currency regimes) and many find it work the risks.
> The system has demonstrated multiple times that all the "ownership is truly yours" rhetoric is thrown out the window
In ethereum that only happened once back in 2016 when the DAO was hacked. In any case you're free to use Ethereum Classic.
Anyways you listed some legitimate concerns of cryptocurrencies, but none of them imply that crypto is a scam. Nobody is forced to use crypto, and anyone purchasing crypto should obviously do their own research and evaluate whether it makes sense for them. Crypto has legitimate use cases (eg. for people in countries with oppressive currency regimes) and many find it work the risks.
> Someone not understanding what they're buying when the information is all publicly available doesn't make it a scam.
Literally the entire basis of free market ideology is the notion that buyers and sellers operate on an equal footing and a presumption of good faith can be assumed, or at least, that's how it's been sold historically. So, so much of crypto is just outright lies. The notion that every member of a project, for instance, can all walk away rich is at face value a lie: because crypto cannot create wealth, merely move it, the people who cash out big on top can only do that because so many others have bought in on the bottom. It's just a techy retooling of a bigger fool's scam: you can only make money on the asset you've bought by finding a buyer to buy it at a higher price later. The only way you can conceptualize these things as a store of value is to presume an infinite chain of bigger fools ready to buy it at an ever increasing price, ad infinitum. Or, if you prefer to operate in reality, there will eventually be a bag holder, someone who holds something that is now worthless and cannot sell it.
Like, for example, all the people who hold Ethereum Classic, which is probably why it's worth a tenth what Ethereum is: because the principles of this technology don't fucking matter, what matters is the traction the coin has with the investor class, and the people who are in this to make money (which is the vast, vast majority of them) are going to follow the chains that the big stakeholders go to.
> Again, a scam implies someone being "misled". If you buy some ecstasy and its laced with fentanyl, you were scammed (to say the least). If you buy ecstasy and you get ecstasy, you were not scammed as you got exactly what you asked for.
And this again is exactly the attitude I absolutely loathe in the tech space. This notion that if you aren't smart enough or knowledgeable enough to see the bad shit coming, if you, by your very basic human nature can be taken advantage of by someone who knows more, than you apparently deserve to be. Buyer beware.
That attitude sucks ass. If the crypto guys were really about changing the world for the better, they would be building a financial system that is, yes, detached from the current, highly biased and corrupting one that is rife with problems, and on-boarding people with education. With understanding of the underlying tech, imparting knowledge about the failings and foibles of the systems they're replacing, and showing a new, better version, decoupled from the corrupting influences of governments they claim render fiat unusable. That's NOT what they've done here. They have not built a replacement financial system, they built a near exact copy of the current one, minus all manner of consumer protections, any insurance of value, with a singular goal: to recreate the structural inequities of the old system, with them on top. That's fucking it. That is the entire difference between fiat and crypto.
Literally the entire basis of free market ideology is the notion that buyers and sellers operate on an equal footing and a presumption of good faith can be assumed, or at least, that's how it's been sold historically. So, so much of crypto is just outright lies. The notion that every member of a project, for instance, can all walk away rich is at face value a lie: because crypto cannot create wealth, merely move it, the people who cash out big on top can only do that because so many others have bought in on the bottom. It's just a techy retooling of a bigger fool's scam: you can only make money on the asset you've bought by finding a buyer to buy it at a higher price later. The only way you can conceptualize these things as a store of value is to presume an infinite chain of bigger fools ready to buy it at an ever increasing price, ad infinitum. Or, if you prefer to operate in reality, there will eventually be a bag holder, someone who holds something that is now worthless and cannot sell it.
Like, for example, all the people who hold Ethereum Classic, which is probably why it's worth a tenth what Ethereum is: because the principles of this technology don't fucking matter, what matters is the traction the coin has with the investor class, and the people who are in this to make money (which is the vast, vast majority of them) are going to follow the chains that the big stakeholders go to.
> Again, a scam implies someone being "misled". If you buy some ecstasy and its laced with fentanyl, you were scammed (to say the least). If you buy ecstasy and you get ecstasy, you were not scammed as you got exactly what you asked for.
And this again is exactly the attitude I absolutely loathe in the tech space. This notion that if you aren't smart enough or knowledgeable enough to see the bad shit coming, if you, by your very basic human nature can be taken advantage of by someone who knows more, than you apparently deserve to be. Buyer beware.
That attitude sucks ass. If the crypto guys were really about changing the world for the better, they would be building a financial system that is, yes, detached from the current, highly biased and corrupting one that is rife with problems, and on-boarding people with education. With understanding of the underlying tech, imparting knowledge about the failings and foibles of the systems they're replacing, and showing a new, better version, decoupled from the corrupting influences of governments they claim render fiat unusable. That's NOT what they've done here. They have not built a replacement financial system, they built a near exact copy of the current one, minus all manner of consumer protections, any insurance of value, with a singular goal: to recreate the structural inequities of the old system, with them on top. That's fucking it. That is the entire difference between fiat and crypto.
You have it oddly exactly backwards. I find that people that are not smart enough to understand Bitcoin generally respond by getting mad about Bitcoin or ignoring it.
People that first understand it eventually find Monero and BCH and start investing everything they can afford.
Of course idiots can be on both sides.
People that first understand it eventually find Monero and BCH and start investing everything they can afford.
Of course idiots can be on both sides.
I don't understand the technical intricacies of Bitcoin, that's true. But that's not why I'm mad about it. I'm mad about it because it's socially corrosive. I'm mad about it because tons of people who had no way of knowing better were brought into it and lost everything. I'm mad about the reflexive syllogism that permeates all tech-centered spaces which seems to say:
"If you can be exploited, you deserve to be exploited."
"If you can be exploited, you deserve to be exploited."
How is it a scam if the people buying it know exactly what they're buying
It's scam in that you're being enticed to mislead yourself.
You're ignoring the obvious difference between "legal tender" and electrons. Most children understand that "monopoly money" isn't real "legal tender" --- but you don't?
Those running the crypto "marketplace" don't suffer from these sort of delusions.
It's scam in that you're being enticed to mislead yourself.
You're ignoring the obvious difference between "legal tender" and electrons. Most children understand that "monopoly money" isn't real "legal tender" --- but you don't?
Those running the crypto "marketplace" don't suffer from these sort of delusions.
> It's scam in that you're being enticed to mislead yourself.
That doesn't even make sense.
> Most children understand that "monopoly money" isn't real "legal tender" --- but you don't?
No one is claiming that cryptocurrencies are legal tender (outside of countries like El Salvador that made it so)
That doesn't even make sense.
> Most children understand that "monopoly money" isn't real "legal tender" --- but you don't?
No one is claiming that cryptocurrencies are legal tender (outside of countries like El Salvador that made it so)
That doesn't even make sense.
Neither does surrendering "legal tender" for money that is not.
Neither does surrendering "legal tender" for money that is not.
People buy many things that aren't legal tender - money market funds, bonds, stocks, gold, etc.
I find that people that are not smart enough to understand Bitcoin generally respond by getting mad about Bitcoin or ignoring it by calling it a scam.
Really? Only people who do not understand how bitcoin works do not like it and are just not smart enough?
This comment being repeated half a dozen times does not make it true or productive to conversation.
This comment being repeated half a dozen times does not make it true or productive to conversation.
It's funny because HN was initially supportive of Bitcoin when it first came out, but ever since it became popular has been vehemently against it.
It's like the reverse of that famous HN post when Dropbox was announced and the top comment was that this probably won't work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
It's like the reverse of that famous HN post when Dropbox was announced and the top comment was that this probably won't work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
Cryptocurrencies are scams in much the same way MLM schemes are scams. Everyone knows what they’re buying into. But their expectations of outcomes are greatly skewed by the vested interests of existing participants.
MLM schemes are a scam because the premise is that you'll make money, but there is no creation of value and the increase in value just comes from the increase in users. Once you saturate the market, the last people to get in are left holding the bag. They lose their money so someone else could get it.
Cryptocurrencies increase in value as more people use them, but they don't fall to zero as a result of becoming widespread, because their sole value isn't for speculation. They can also be used as a currency.
Now, some of these valuations have built into them the assumption that their use as a currency will ultimately become widespread, because otherwise they would be worth a lot less than they are. But less isn't the same as zero, and volatility doesn't matter if you are using it as a currency because then you're not holding enough of it for a long enough period of time to be exposed to a major change in value.
With a MLM scam the value doesn't just have volatility, when you run out of suckers the value crashes to zero forever. With cryptocurrency the speculators can lose their shirts and at the end of the day you can still buy Bitcoin with cash and then use it to pay for a VPN.
Cryptocurrencies increase in value as more people use them, but they don't fall to zero as a result of becoming widespread, because their sole value isn't for speculation. They can also be used as a currency.
Now, some of these valuations have built into them the assumption that their use as a currency will ultimately become widespread, because otherwise they would be worth a lot less than they are. But less isn't the same as zero, and volatility doesn't matter if you are using it as a currency because then you're not holding enough of it for a long enough period of time to be exposed to a major change in value.
With a MLM scam the value doesn't just have volatility, when you run out of suckers the value crashes to zero forever. With cryptocurrency the speculators can lose their shirts and at the end of the day you can still buy Bitcoin with cash and then use it to pay for a VPN.
Avon, Amway, Vector, Mary Kay, etc have been fleecing suckers WAY longer than Bitcoin has existed. I don’t know where they your “MLM’s go to zero” idea is coming from. Sure, many MLMs go to zero. But so do many cryptocurrencies.
Avon et al are the people at the top of the pyramid. They don't go out of business, they keep running the scam until they get arrested or run out of suckers. And P.T. Barnum said something about the latter.
It's the suckers whose "investment" in one of these things goes to zero, which happens all the time.
There are cryptocurrencies that go to zero, but there are also government currencies that go to zero. They go to zero when people stop using them as a currency, not when they become so widespread that you've saturated the market for suckers.
It's the suckers whose "investment" in one of these things goes to zero, which happens all the time.
There are cryptocurrencies that go to zero, but there are also government currencies that go to zero. They go to zero when people stop using them as a currency, not when they become so widespread that you've saturated the market for suckers.
Ah, I misunderstood. Touché, that is a fair distinction. It's hard to know how widespread leverage is used in crypto investments. One of the scary things about cryptocurrency investments is the lack of regulation, letting unsophisticated "investors" easily take on ludicrous amounts of risk. It's not uncommon to see 100x leverage offerings at crypto exchanges [1][2][3]. If used, it obviously can result in "investment goes to zero"—or worse—situations.
[1] https://margex.com/
[2] https://app.covo.finance/
[3] https://ascendex.com/en/products/trade/futures-trading
[1] https://margex.com/
[2] https://app.covo.finance/
[3] https://ascendex.com/en/products/trade/futures-trading
I feel like people should be made aware of the risks and if they haven't misled you about what's at stake, you're an adult and you can place your bets.
That isn't a scam, it's a gamble. It's the same as going to a brokerage and selling short, or buying a piece of land sight unseen. They are not allowed to lie to you. You are allowed to be an idiot and lose all your money.
That isn't a scam, it's a gamble. It's the same as going to a brokerage and selling short, or buying a piece of land sight unseen. They are not allowed to lie to you. You are allowed to be an idiot and lose all your money.
No one with a brain or in a position of power has ever made a legitimate claim that Monero or Bitcoin Cash is a scam.
Just empty attacks and idiots.
Just empty attacks and idiots.
Wow. Guess I’m out of my league here.
Solving double-spend in a distributed / decentralized system sounds like a guarantee to me?
It only seems to solve it in theory. However in a world of centralized mining where devs have high influence on how forks are treated, the double spend problem is still a problem. This is because what distinguishes forks can be their “validity”, not their proof-of-work, and fork validity is decided by humans and subject to politics and fraud.
Value is always decided by humans. The question is, is it decided in a distributed way via general consensus, or in a centralized way that exposes you to the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats?
Bitcoin devs can do whatever they want, except that there is no law putting them in charge so if they attempt to commit fraud they lose everyone's respect which was the only thing giving them any power, and they get replaced by someone else. Which they don't want, which keeps pressure on them to behave well.
Bitcoin devs can do whatever they want, except that there is no law putting them in charge so if they attempt to commit fraud they lose everyone's respect which was the only thing giving them any power, and they get replaced by someone else. Which they don't want, which keeps pressure on them to behave well.
Devs can commit fraud without anyone knowing is my point, actually. Picture a scenario like the 2013 Bitcoin fork but with a twist: a dev introduces a bug that allows a transaction to spend bitcoin without corresponding inputs, and triggers it while in the next block spending Bitcoin to buy a coffee, then after a few more blocks for confirmation, publicly announces the bug and the need to move off of the most-work chain. Miners and devs all agree that mining on top of the most-work chain with the bug doesn't make sense and move all the mining to a minority fork that has the bugfix. Minority fork overtakes the buggy fork. Malicious dev has his Bitcoin back and spends them a second time somewhere else. No one's the wiser.
We can argue about the game theory and what exactly would happen if this was attempted today, but the point remains that double spend is possible and the Bitcoin white paper does not address this issue because it assumes Bitcoin code is set in stone. As soon as you consider that the protocol evolves and is subject to human manipulation, the white paper's guarantees all go out the window. This includes the 21 million bitcoin "limit".
We can argue about the game theory and what exactly would happen if this was attempted today, but the point remains that double spend is possible and the Bitcoin white paper does not address this issue because it assumes Bitcoin code is set in stone. As soon as you consider that the protocol evolves and is subject to human manipulation, the white paper's guarantees all go out the window. This includes the 21 million bitcoin "limit".
The white paper assumes that you don't have a malicious device. If someone can modify the code running your device, they don't need to double spend, they can just directly steal your cryptocurrency.
Yes, there are other ways of stealing besides double spends. We're in agreement there.
And I think we can both further agree that someone that isn't us modifies the code of the Bitcoin node we run on our devices. Unless you're still running Bitcoin 0.1, but then you're actually not on the "Bitcoin" network as we know it today. There are pressures outside of your control that make it so that you have to update your node, and you have to run new code you probably haven't reviewed or approved yourself.
The only way to make Bitcoin work as defined by Satoshi is to have the code be 100% perfect and then not touch it, and that ship sailed a long time ago.
And I think we can both further agree that someone that isn't us modifies the code of the Bitcoin node we run on our devices. Unless you're still running Bitcoin 0.1, but then you're actually not on the "Bitcoin" network as we know it today. There are pressures outside of your control that make it so that you have to update your node, and you have to run new code you probably haven't reviewed or approved yourself.
The only way to make Bitcoin work as defined by Satoshi is to have the code be 100% perfect and then not touch it, and that ship sailed a long time ago.
What is this supposed to be a detriment relative to? If someone compromises your device then they can also transfer all of the money out of your bank account, use it to buy gold bullion and be on a beach in a non-extradition country before you get your next bank statement.
Yes, fraud also exists when you use real currency, and your bank will refund you for fraudulent charges. What's your point?
"Your bank will refund you for fraudulent charges" doesn't prevent fraud, it puts the cost of fraud insurance into the cost of banking. Which may be significantly less efficient when the user or anyone other than the bank is the lowest cost avoider for preventing fraud.
They also won't refund you for fraudulent charges unless you report them quickly enough.
They also won't refund you for fraudulent charges unless you report them quickly enough.
You've drifted off-course. We were talking about whether or not double spends are possible in Bitcoin and now you're arguing about how banks deal with fraud refunds. peace!
It prevents double spends under a set of assumptions. One of the assumptions it makes is that the Bitcoin code on your device faithfully implements the system in the paper. It doesn't claim to be the thing that causes that assumption to be valid; you have to ensure that using separate means.
Considering the _incredible_ amount of scams and rugpulls in the crypto space, some run multiple times by the same people, that would seem incredibly optimistic.
Cart before the horse. There is no guarantee that you can even "single spend" crypto.
Prove me wrong by paying next month's rent with it. Let me know how it goes.
Prove me wrong by paying next month's rent with it. Let me know how it goes.
I do pay my rent in crypto
Do you have a guarantee that you'll be able to next month?
How about if you want/need to move and get a new landlord?
The point being that no landlord or merchant or individual has any legal obligation to accept crypto as "money" and can refuse any time they want.
For all intents and purposes, crypto is monopoly money backed by greed and delusional thinking.
How about if you want/need to move and get a new landlord?
The point being that no landlord or merchant or individual has any legal obligation to accept crypto as "money" and can refuse any time they want.
For all intents and purposes, crypto is monopoly money backed by greed and delusional thinking.
Ngl having a shared global decentralized database that’s you can develop on sounds pretty nice to me. Definitely wouldn’t call that a scam. Maybe it’s overvalued though…
As someone who’s dabbled in the art world, I think people underestimate how important provenance is to an art piece. Having a decentralized system that can automatically keep a paper trail and is seamlessly connected to an automated market/auction service is mind blowing for the art world. It’s basically automating two entire sub industries: the auction houses, and the appraisers. The NFTs don’t even need to stay digitally to be useful. The art world is experimenting a lot with printing these days, and the NFTs are just a method of being able to buy a print from the artist.
> Maybe it’s overvalued though…
I think the problems started when people started treating crypto currencies as investments instead of, well, currencies. I think the BTC jump from low 100s into 6 digits territory is probably what precipitated the craze, making a lot of people go berserk and spawned a whole cottage industry.
I think the problems started when people started treating crypto currencies as investments instead of, well, currencies. I think the BTC jump from low 100s into 6 digits territory is probably what precipitated the craze, making a lot of people go berserk and spawned a whole cottage industry.
Forget the art world, I come from a country known for fradulent degrees, land records and academic certificates. Simply being able to certify them globally would be very useful.
At the end of the day, it’s a database still wholly dependent on the correctness of the data being inputted. The blockchain Rube Goldberg machine cannot solve for that physical to digital interface. A MS Access database with a checksum would be every bit as valid a solution to the problem you’ve outlined at a fraction of the complexity.
[deleted]
The cat is out of the bag on this one. Can't be 100% stopped or shutdown.
Many have tried stopping it for 15 years and unfortunately they are still wasting their time trying to do so.
Many have tried stopping it for 15 years and unfortunately they are still wasting their time trying to do so.
Crypto doesn't have to be explicitly stopped or shut down to be consigned to niche cases.
In fifteen years Linux went from a hobbyist project in 1991 to a major infrastructure project underpinning the Internet; Golang started in 2009 and now is ubiquitous in the tech world. Plenty of analogous technologies exist that were created and flourished in fifteen years, and they did so by providing meaningful value without requiring universal adoption to become effective.
In contrast the Bitcoin paper was released in 2008 and blockchain still hasn't found the killer app that people outside of the crypto ecosystem rely on in some serious capacity. Fifteen years in blockchain tech is still slow, risky, and painful to use; scams abound and there's a distinct lack of boring, practical use cases that make blockchains a safe technology to use as foundational infrastructure.
What manifests as people trying to stop blockchains is typically regulatory bodies trying to stop money laundering or the sale of unregistered investments. This isn't some shadowy cabal trying to crush Bitcoin but institutions watching Celsius Network and FTX detonate and trying to catch up to keep people from getting burned.
So yes, the blockchain cat is out of the bag, but nobody cares. We are squarely in "put up or shut up" territory because enough time has passed for the tech to develop; if blockchains never catch on then it's because the tech just wasn't that useful to begin with.
In fifteen years Linux went from a hobbyist project in 1991 to a major infrastructure project underpinning the Internet; Golang started in 2009 and now is ubiquitous in the tech world. Plenty of analogous technologies exist that were created and flourished in fifteen years, and they did so by providing meaningful value without requiring universal adoption to become effective.
In contrast the Bitcoin paper was released in 2008 and blockchain still hasn't found the killer app that people outside of the crypto ecosystem rely on in some serious capacity. Fifteen years in blockchain tech is still slow, risky, and painful to use; scams abound and there's a distinct lack of boring, practical use cases that make blockchains a safe technology to use as foundational infrastructure.
What manifests as people trying to stop blockchains is typically regulatory bodies trying to stop money laundering or the sale of unregistered investments. This isn't some shadowy cabal trying to crush Bitcoin but institutions watching Celsius Network and FTX detonate and trying to catch up to keep people from getting burned.
So yes, the blockchain cat is out of the bag, but nobody cares. We are squarely in "put up or shut up" territory because enough time has passed for the tech to develop; if blockchains never catch on then it's because the tech just wasn't that useful to begin with.
> In contrast the Bitcoin paper was released in 2008 and blockchain still hasn't found the killer app that people outside of the crypto ecosystem rely on in some serious capacity. Fifteen years in blockchain tech is still slow, risky, and painful to use; scams abound and there's a distinct lack of boring, practical use cases that make blockchains a safe technology to use as foundational infrastructure.
There are more blockchains (not tokens) that exist beyond Bitcoin and are much faster and their use-case is worldwide, instant and extremely low-fee same-day payments.
> What manifests as people trying to stop blockchains is typically regulatory bodies trying to stop money laundering or the sale of unregistered investments. This isn't some shadowy cabal trying to crush Bitcoin but institutions watching Celsius Network and FTX detonate and trying to catch up to keep people from getting burned.
They already know they can't stop or ban it and these other blockchains, but they will go after the unregulated, non-conforming exchanges and have already introduced rules and regulations on the existing ones.
But I'm afraid it isn't going away like it or not.
> So yes, the blockchain cat is out of the bag, but nobody cares.
Except, you seem to care enough to complain about it here and until the next time it gets talked about again, which is why you replied in the first place.
> We are squarely in "put up or shut up" territory because enough time has passed for the tech to develop; if blockchains never catch on then it's because the tech just wasn't that useful to begin with.
Of course it is no wonder why companies like PayPal, VISA, Moneygram, TransferGo, Stripe, Checkout.com, etc still continue to use it in their products.
There are more blockchains (not tokens) that exist beyond Bitcoin and are much faster and their use-case is worldwide, instant and extremely low-fee same-day payments.
> What manifests as people trying to stop blockchains is typically regulatory bodies trying to stop money laundering or the sale of unregistered investments. This isn't some shadowy cabal trying to crush Bitcoin but institutions watching Celsius Network and FTX detonate and trying to catch up to keep people from getting burned.
They already know they can't stop or ban it and these other blockchains, but they will go after the unregulated, non-conforming exchanges and have already introduced rules and regulations on the existing ones.
But I'm afraid it isn't going away like it or not.
> So yes, the blockchain cat is out of the bag, but nobody cares.
Except, you seem to care enough to complain about it here and until the next time it gets talked about again, which is why you replied in the first place.
> We are squarely in "put up or shut up" territory because enough time has passed for the tech to develop; if blockchains never catch on then it's because the tech just wasn't that useful to begin with.
Of course it is no wonder why companies like PayPal, VISA, Moneygram, TransferGo, Stripe, Checkout.com, etc still continue to use it in their products.
It could be vastly reduced by banning the fiat on and off ramps.
Crypto only has an opening because all the other functioning currencies are actually just electrons with no intrinsic value whatsoever too.
Exactly, the critics love to harp on about how "nothing backs Bitcoin!"
I find that people that are not smart enough to understand Bitcoin generally respond by getting mad about Bitcoin or ignoring it.
I find that people that are not smart enough to understand Bitcoin generally respond by getting mad about Bitcoin or ignoring it.
Computer and phone screens are just "photons flashing around", and yet the information they represent is indisputably useful.
The tech itself isn’t scam. A way to certify ownership is important if you’re going to build a future where work is borderless, digital, and copyright enforcement/royalty collection has to be automated.
Scams get built on the tech, but that’s always been the case with any new tech.
That said, crypto culture and the speculative energy it breeds definitely incentivized scams. The culture needs a massive overhaul
Scams get built on the tech, but that’s always been the case with any new tech.
That said, crypto culture and the speculative energy it breeds definitely incentivized scams. The culture needs a massive overhaul
I wish we could stop saying crypto here and just say, fraud, or ponzi, or get rich quick schemes. Crypto was the marketing term used this time around, but it's been other things in the past and there will be new ones in the future.
The days of the tired overblown mantra among certain software engineering camps, many of which are funded by public capital markets, continuing to beat the drum of "all crypto is a scam" are over. Having an understanding and appreciation of how public capital markets work is key. Not many have this understanding and appreciation. The capital markets were designed to enable a company to raise capital aka funding. Crypto now represents a truly global capital marketplace accessible to all, not just to accredited investors in the US. Bottom line.
Key points to remember:
1. Crypto is not a currency, it's a trading vehicle similar to a stock, junk bond, debenture, options or futures contract.
2. Regulated security tokens/crypto that represent equity ownership in a company with real products and with real revenue generating capability is the future of crypto.
It's important to realize the advantage of a truly global capital marketplace represented by regulated security tokens connected to the equity of a company/startup which provide a company/startup the ability to raise funding, create jobs, get salaries paid, fund operations in science and techology in any indusrty which provide a return on investment capital (ROIC) to stakeholders and shareholders at the same time.
Key points to remember:
1. Crypto is not a currency, it's a trading vehicle similar to a stock, junk bond, debenture, options or futures contract.
2. Regulated security tokens/crypto that represent equity ownership in a company with real products and with real revenue generating capability is the future of crypto.
It's important to realize the advantage of a truly global capital marketplace represented by regulated security tokens connected to the equity of a company/startup which provide a company/startup the ability to raise funding, create jobs, get salaries paid, fund operations in science and techology in any indusrty which provide a return on investment capital (ROIC) to stakeholders and shareholders at the same time.
But he underestimated the get-rich-quick mentality. That's what made crypto big. Everyone wanted to be a part of it. And naturally, this type of mentality is filled with fraudsters.