Bitcoin falls below $5,000(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Bitcoin falls below $5,000
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46263998
169 comments
I wanted to get some bitcoin to buy some things off a website where bitcoin was the only thing accepted.
I recall being asked by a keen young thing if his (completely legal) online business should take bitcoin only. I suggested that since he wanted people to give him their money, he needed to make it easier for people to give him their money; not harder. The website of which you speak, I can only imagine, didn't really want your business.
I recall being asked by a keen young thing if his (completely legal) online business should take bitcoin only. I suggested that since he wanted people to give him their money, he needed to make it easier for people to give him their money; not harder. The website of which you speak, I can only imagine, didn't really want your business.
As an infrequent seller of things over the Internet, there are a lot of countries I would only ship to if I received an irreversible payment.
At least on EBay, the seller has some protections. On a random website you won’t.
Some countries have reliable postal systems that take forever and others have a high rate of fraudsters or thieving postal workers.
Sometimes some regions of the country are fine and others aren’t, but how can I know that?
At least on EBay, the seller has some protections. On a random website you won’t.
Some countries have reliable postal systems that take forever and others have a high rate of fraudsters or thieving postal workers.
Sometimes some regions of the country are fine and others aren’t, but how can I know that?
I think if you've got a genuine concern that the people you're dealing with are going to defraud you, you shouldn't get involved or your should accept the extra hassles and costs of an irreversible payment; be it cash, money transfer, or some other such. The world had irreversible payment for fear of fraud before bitcoin, and it will have it after.
If you're buying a comic book from a store the next city over and they only take bitcoin, they don't want your custom and accepting the extra cost and hassle of indulging their political leanings isn't worth it.
If you're buying a comic book from a store the next city over and they only take bitcoin, they don't want your custom and accepting the extra cost and hassle of indulging their political leanings isn't worth it.
Generally, I don’t get involved.
But if you’re in a developing country, even if your postal system is reliable, it’s hard to get sellers over any perception that you live in a mud hut and must be defrauding them.
Bank wires can be recalled, and take a while. My bank even charges $25 or so to receive one. Maybe Western Union would be an option. Bank drafts and cash can be counterfeit, let alone hard to get in my local currency (Canadian dollars).
As a seller, I would directly accept a handful of country’s payments directly, and leave the rest in crypto-only via a payment processor that pays me in $. That maximizes my revenue and minimizes my hassle.
But if you’re in a developing country, even if your postal system is reliable, it’s hard to get sellers over any perception that you live in a mud hut and must be defrauding them.
Bank wires can be recalled, and take a while. My bank even charges $25 or so to receive one. Maybe Western Union would be an option. Bank drafts and cash can be counterfeit, let alone hard to get in my local currency (Canadian dollars).
As a seller, I would directly accept a handful of country’s payments directly, and leave the rest in crypto-only via a payment processor that pays me in $. That maximizes my revenue and minimizes my hassle.
My bank even charges $25 or so to receive one
Putting aside everything else, I will say that your bank, like many banks in the US, is frequently found to be taking the piss. For a first world, developed nation, the retail banking sector in the US is in serious need of a bloody nose.
Putting aside everything else, I will say that your bank, like many banks in the US, is frequently found to be taking the piss. For a first world, developed nation, the retail banking sector in the US is in serious need of a bloody nose.
I’m in Canada. At least US bank accounts tend to have no monthly fees unless you want to do uncommon things like receive a transfer.
Unless you’re doing a SEPA transfer, the UK bank I looked at still charges for receiving and sending wires. And you always get dinged if there’s a currency exchange.
Unless you’re doing a SEPA transfer, the UK bank I looked at still charges for receiving and sending wires. And you always get dinged if there’s a currency exchange.
KYC is an awful thing for user experience.
Expect it moving forward.
Expect it moving forward.
FMI, KYC is a TLA for "Know Your Customer" based authentication.
FYI, TLA is a TLA for "Three Letter Acronym"
FYI is i.e "For Your Information".
FYI, FYI is a TLA for “For Your Information”
FMI is a TLA for "for my information"
[deleted]
For this sort of thing, a notary could do the job, and if you search on "notary near me" there are plenty of businesses doing it. It seems like there's an opportunity here to make this easier?
Banks do it pretty well already.
Coinbase and the like failed to do it initially, and had to play catch-up during the peak of the activity towards the end of last year / early this year. I guess it was a sort of tech debt with regards to their customer support and experience dealing with KYC problems?
Coinbase and the like failed to do it initially, and had to play catch-up during the peak of the activity towards the end of last year / early this year. I guess it was a sort of tech debt with regards to their customer support and experience dealing with KYC problems?
you're assuming that is the only way to buy bitcoin...when you use a site like coinbase you trade convenience for privacy. there are plenty of ways to receive and send bitcoin that don't require you to use or register an exchange wallet.
I just use the Bitcoin ATMs.
I honestly don’t know what to make of it. I’m surrounded by a lot of bankers, none of them believe in cryptocurrencies but all of them are focused on the price and have zero understanding of the technology. I’m also surrounded by a lot of blockchain people who are insanely hyped by the future of cryptocurrencies and who have little idea about their current prices.
Being in the middle I see 99% of bullshit blockchain stuff, but I’m really hyped by some cryptocurrencies and some of their tech. It is a really interesting field if you ignore the market, but there is also a lot to win/lose if you can predict where the tech will go.
Bankers and blockchain people are both the worst people to ask for an opinion. So I might be in the right position to make a guess.
There is value. This market might become as strong as the stock market is nowadays. As long as there is hype, there will continue to be a market. If it’s a scam/pyramid sheme/mlm, then it’s an international one and it’s probably not going to stop.
Being in the middle I see 99% of bullshit blockchain stuff, but I’m really hyped by some cryptocurrencies and some of their tech. It is a really interesting field if you ignore the market, but there is also a lot to win/lose if you can predict where the tech will go.
Bankers and blockchain people are both the worst people to ask for an opinion. So I might be in the right position to make a guess.
There is value. This market might become as strong as the stock market is nowadays. As long as there is hype, there will continue to be a market. If it’s a scam/pyramid sheme/mlm, then it’s an international one and it’s probably not going to stop.
I 'm confused about the position of bankers. Our bank terminated our business account because they found out we ran a cryptocoin price aggregator (oh the horror!). I had to terminate the site (because it was making peanuts and i didn't have the time) to have the account reinstated but i didn't understand the hostility. And this came from a bank that in 2013 crashed and literally stole money from their customer's accounts. This weird situation actually made me a lot more optimistic about the future of crypto, because , you know, banks are thieves too.
> i didn't understand the hostility
Cryptocurrencies are an AML nightmare. Ironically, this is a social–not technological–problem. Even on HN, you'll regularly see "I don't have to pay taxes on cryptocurrencies because the authorities can't catch me" comments. This creates regulatory risks. Regulatory risks are regulatory costs.
Add to that the credit card fraud (buy cryptocurrencies with a card, charge back; profit) and theft risks, and a cryptocurrency-affiliated customer is more likely to cost a bank rather than make them money. Layer on top of that the time it takes to develop expertise and a blanket ban on everything around cryptocurrencies becomes understandable (versus training employees to comb through them).
I don't like this outcome. But I see why a big bank would decide this. Community banks, on the other hand, might be willing to invest the time into understanding why you don't pose a fraud or my-assets-got-stolen-now-I'm-broke risk.
Cryptocurrencies are an AML nightmare. Ironically, this is a social–not technological–problem. Even on HN, you'll regularly see "I don't have to pay taxes on cryptocurrencies because the authorities can't catch me" comments. This creates regulatory risks. Regulatory risks are regulatory costs.
Add to that the credit card fraud (buy cryptocurrencies with a card, charge back; profit) and theft risks, and a cryptocurrency-affiliated customer is more likely to cost a bank rather than make them money. Layer on top of that the time it takes to develop expertise and a blanket ban on everything around cryptocurrencies becomes understandable (versus training employees to comb through them).
I don't like this outcome. But I see why a big bank would decide this. Community banks, on the other hand, might be willing to invest the time into understanding why you don't pose a fraud or my-assets-got-stolen-now-I'm-broke risk.
Have you posted a writeup of your business experiences running the aggregator? Seems like it would be a good read.
The weird thing about it, as long as cryptocurrencies are volatile, folks are not going to buy/sell using them. Then what is the intrinsic value of it if no one buys/sells with them? Only value is speculation with nothing real supporting it. Bitcoin is not even shiny and pretty like Gold.
Your comment is pretty much what I get from bankers all the time. There is much more to just bitcoin, actually even off-side chains built on top of bitcoin which provide more than just transactions of money.
But isn't that effectively just git without all the branching nonsense and stronger crypto?
The original argument for bitcoin was that it's a great replacement of physical money.
The original argument for bitcoin was that it's a great replacement of physical money.
Yeah, in the arguments for a lot of other cryptocurrencies are different: use the financial incentive to build something else.
What are you even talking about?
Does the stuff you are referring to have a market price? Like with Bitcoin, we can say that its market price is around $5,000 USD per BTC.
Does this other stuff, which you say is so great, have a unit price at which it can be bought and sold? If yes, is that market anywhere as large as Bitcoin?
If it doesn’t have a Traded price, then what is it?
Does the stuff you are referring to have a market price? Like with Bitcoin, we can say that its market price is around $5,000 USD per BTC.
Does this other stuff, which you say is so great, have a unit price at which it can be bought and sold? If yes, is that market anywhere as large as Bitcoin?
If it doesn’t have a Traded price, then what is it?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Other cryptocurrencies are building systems backed by financial incentives. These systems offer different properties: File storage, name resolution, smart contracts, etc. Every cryptocoin is trying a different tech. As I said there is a lot of bullshit in the field but if you dig, there are things that are interesting. These projects are flying under the radar and potentially have a future.
I’m not selling you anything, just pointing out that a lot of people (on both side) are clueless and I think you proved my point.
I’m not selling you anything, just pointing out that a lot of people (on both side) are clueless and I think you proved my point.
Ok, I am still clueless. What does file storage have to do with currency or coinage?
When it comes to the general public adopting crypto as usable, cash replacement currency, I think there's two issues with adoption.
One is of course the network effect. I can't pay with (whatever)coin unless other people use it too. So unless I'm just really excited about crypto and want to pay with it, it's not very useful to me until more people start using it. And considering most of the crypt-hype has worn off, there's less and less people that are just dying to use it.
And the other is that people (and businesses) are not going to try things over and over until someone gets it right. Bitcoin is terrible as a currency. I tried paying a friend of mine for a sandwich once, just for fun, and it cost me $10 to send him $10, plus it took almost an hour. Of course it's less bad now, but it's still not great. Valve started accepting bitcion and later stopped. Lots of retailers did too. No one is going to jump on Bitcoin Cash or Monero or whatever, even if they're better, because they were burned pretty hard with Bitcoin.
Someone is going to have to genuinely nail it with a currency that is instant, costs almost nothing per transaction, is very easy to use, and they're going to have to make sure everyone knows it. And even then I think it's going to be uphill.
One is of course the network effect. I can't pay with (whatever)coin unless other people use it too. So unless I'm just really excited about crypto and want to pay with it, it's not very useful to me until more people start using it. And considering most of the crypt-hype has worn off, there's less and less people that are just dying to use it.
And the other is that people (and businesses) are not going to try things over and over until someone gets it right. Bitcoin is terrible as a currency. I tried paying a friend of mine for a sandwich once, just for fun, and it cost me $10 to send him $10, plus it took almost an hour. Of course it's less bad now, but it's still not great. Valve started accepting bitcion and later stopped. Lots of retailers did too. No one is going to jump on Bitcoin Cash or Monero or whatever, even if they're better, because they were burned pretty hard with Bitcoin.
Someone is going to have to genuinely nail it with a currency that is instant, costs almost nothing per transaction, is very easy to use, and they're going to have to make sure everyone knows it. And even then I think it's going to be uphill.
I think of it as the ice-cream currency test.
The transaction needs to occur before an ice-cream cone would melt, and it needs to cost less.
The transaction needs to occur before an ice-cream cone would melt, and it needs to cost less.
> No one is going to jump on Bitcoin Cash or Monero or whatever, even if they're better
I think they will, if it is better.
> going to have to genuinely nail it with a currency that is instant, costs almost nothing per transaction, is very easy to use,
There are such cryptos. stellar, nano and i m sure also others. And i think monero's anonymity promise is a big selling point too
I think they will, if it is better.
> going to have to genuinely nail it with a currency that is instant, costs almost nothing per transaction, is very easy to use,
There are such cryptos. stellar, nano and i m sure also others. And i think monero's anonymity promise is a big selling point too
Who will use bitcoin without it having a stable value?
> Who will use bitcoin without it having a stable value?
It just need to be stable enough for the length of the transaction. As long as you keep the bitcoins moving, the gain/loss will distribute itself over everyone and it won't be different than any bank fees.
Let say I want to buy something from you for 20$ USD, I'm in Canada, so I buy 27$ CAD of Bitcoin on a local exchange (so I buy it from someone that essentially just sold something), I transfer the resulting Bitcoin to you, you then sold it as soon as you can. Even if the Bitcoin price is losing 25% today, if you can do all that in 2 hours, you will only lose about 3%, which is similar to Visa fees. Ideally you wouldn't hold them for more than 5 minutes and it would all be automated behind the scene without your knowledge, probably through your bank if they move quick enough, but that could be through a third party too (which is the beauty of it all, you depends on no one).
That's an ideal world though and I feel like that's an utopia but that's how I see we can ignore the stability issue.
It just need to be stable enough for the length of the transaction. As long as you keep the bitcoins moving, the gain/loss will distribute itself over everyone and it won't be different than any bank fees.
Let say I want to buy something from you for 20$ USD, I'm in Canada, so I buy 27$ CAD of Bitcoin on a local exchange (so I buy it from someone that essentially just sold something), I transfer the resulting Bitcoin to you, you then sold it as soon as you can. Even if the Bitcoin price is losing 25% today, if you can do all that in 2 hours, you will only lose about 3%, which is similar to Visa fees. Ideally you wouldn't hold them for more than 5 minutes and it would all be automated behind the scene without your knowledge, probably through your bank if they move quick enough, but that could be through a third party too (which is the beauty of it all, you depends on no one).
That's an ideal world though and I feel like that's an utopia but that's how I see we can ignore the stability issue.
The fees are a much bigger problem. Bitcoin is unusable, it s a speculative vehicle for rich people. Zero-fee , or very-low-fee cryptos (i remember stellar, iota, raiblocks, even xrp) would be very usable if they had a large userbase and a very easy way to buy them. One of those has to focus on real world growth, i.e. get many websites to support them by providing a dead-simple payment solution.
I think there are ways to make them less volatile. For one, don't list them in any crypto-to-crypto exchanges, instead allow only dollar cash-ins/outs, or limit the amount that can be exchanged to some fixed value like $100 / hour. Speculation and greed is limiting the prospects of most coins.
I think there are ways to make them less volatile. For one, don't list them in any crypto-to-crypto exchanges, instead allow only dollar cash-ins/outs, or limit the amount that can be exchanged to some fixed value like $100 / hour. Speculation and greed is limiting the prospects of most coins.
Iota is unusable from (almost) the very first day it got out, they are just scheduling and rescheduling the removal of central coordinators, making that in no way different from a central authority authorizing payment, they cashed and they disappeared basically
Stellar is trying to achieve a completely different goal than exchanging stellars coins.
Almost no one of those crypto could achieve even half of the current daily transaction processed by CC, and the proof they are using is in no way as safe as proof of work, even if more efficient. Why would people adopt them? There's no advantages, fees would be similar probably
Stellar is trying to achieve a completely different goal than exchanging stellars coins.
Almost no one of those crypto could achieve even half of the current daily transaction processed by CC, and the proof they are using is in no way as safe as proof of work, even if more efficient. Why would people adopt them? There's no advantages, fees would be similar probably
$5000 still seems like an insane number for something that I have no idea how to judge the value of.
I felt the same about Facebook, and it's now worth $380B.
The value proposition of FB seems much easier to explain than cryptocurrency, though. We at least know what FB gets used for and where it earns money. That's 100% more than I can say about Bitcoin.
Bitcoin core derives a good deal of value from being the entry to exchanging for coins/tokens to buy into an ICO, which is now more restrained due to last week's SEC actions. While there are stinky ICO-funded projects, there are also valid projects that are growing. I have always seen it as more of a front door, given that it's the primary pair across exchanges and given tx costs. LTC was, for long, promo'd as the coin that would be used for day-to-day purchases. Unfortunately traditional fiat users do not think in that way as this is not the usual use of something fiat.
> Bitcoin core derives a good deal of value from being the entry to exchanging for coins/tokens to buy into an ICO, which is now more restrained due to last week's SEC actions. While there are stinky ICO-funded projects, there are also valid projects that are growing. I have always seen it as more of a front door, given that it's the primary pair across exchanges and given tx costs. LTC was, for long, promo'd as the coin that would be used for day-to-day purchases. Unfortunately traditional fiat users do not think in that way as this is not the usual use of something fiat.
I understood most of those words individually, but the combination was a complete bafflement.
And that, in a nutshell, is a big problem for Bitcoin. I understand cash - it has value because the government says it has value and it's directly exchangeable for something that I can relate to that value (say, a huge bag of bubblegum). But how do you explain an ICO and it's value to someone, without an actual, physical object being present?
On the surface, it sounds like something virtual being exchanged for something else virtual which may or may not lead to some other virtual thing, but at no time is anything physical, representing concrete value, present.
In re the bubblegum example - when I was young, my grandfather handed my cousin and I a dollar to buy some gum, expecting we buy a piece or two and hand him the change. You can figure out the rest, I think. He was kinda pissed off.
I understood most of those words individually, but the combination was a complete bafflement.
And that, in a nutshell, is a big problem for Bitcoin. I understand cash - it has value because the government says it has value and it's directly exchangeable for something that I can relate to that value (say, a huge bag of bubblegum). But how do you explain an ICO and it's value to someone, without an actual, physical object being present?
On the surface, it sounds like something virtual being exchanged for something else virtual which may or may not lead to some other virtual thing, but at no time is anything physical, representing concrete value, present.
In re the bubblegum example - when I was young, my grandfather handed my cousin and I a dollar to buy some gum, expecting we buy a piece or two and hand him the change. You can figure out the rest, I think. He was kinda pissed off.
So in simple terms, it's basically a highly convertible currency, but now all the things you can convert it into are useless, which means it's not as valuable as before. Did I get that right?
We didn't in 2007 when FB was worth $15B, though. At the time, it was primarily used for throwing sheep at people, getting laid, and boasting about how many friends you have. They had just barely opened up the site to adults, the news feed was a year in the future, the Like button was 2 years in the future, and they didn't have advertisement or any revenue at all until 5 years in the future.
All we knew was that a lot of people were very excited about it for pretty irrational reasons. That's a lot like how a lot of people are very excited about cryptocurrency for pretty irrational reasons.
All we knew was that a lot of people were very excited about it for pretty irrational reasons. That's a lot like how a lot of people are very excited about cryptocurrency for pretty irrational reasons.
In 2007, Facebook made $153M. Zuckerberg announced Facebook Ads on November 6, 2007. Then they basically doubled their revenue the next year, and for several years after. They must have had something before Facebook Ads, because they couldn't have made the entire $153M in less than two months.
Money laundering.
Facebook ads are a goldmine for both advertisers and FB. Not hard to see the value of the company, now, or years ago.
[deleted]
I felt the same about Juicero and it's now worth $0. That logic doesn't work.
We knew that facebook was a business, with growing users.
Amusing that the Bitcoin / Bitcoin Cash split is now even deeper with a split in Bitcoin Cash. Just keep on forking until everyone has their own cryptocurrency, I guess.
Aside from that, a point nobody seems to bring up is just how unproven most cryptocurrency technology is from a monetary safety standpoint.
It's not just about a 51% blockchain attack. In multiple cases of some of the most popular cryptocurrencies, we've seen danger [0] (these are not the only examples). Nobody talks about this though, so while you're worried about centralized banking, consider for a moment the threat of bad actors to the core of your system.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/09/cryptocurrency-insecurity-...
Of course many fanatics (some of the same people who still treat John McAfee seriously) will blindly "hodl" by the logic that it's gone up after the post-2013 crash, it must surely skyrocket again. Some people can justify their belief, but many are just playing follow the leader.
Aside from that, a point nobody seems to bring up is just how unproven most cryptocurrency technology is from a monetary safety standpoint.
It's not just about a 51% blockchain attack. In multiple cases of some of the most popular cryptocurrencies, we've seen danger [0] (these are not the only examples). Nobody talks about this though, so while you're worried about centralized banking, consider for a moment the threat of bad actors to the core of your system.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/09/cryptocurrency-insecurity-...
Of course many fanatics (some of the same people who still treat John McAfee seriously) will blindly "hodl" by the logic that it's gone up after the post-2013 crash, it must surely skyrocket again. Some people can justify their belief, but many are just playing follow the leader.
Please don't confuse Bitcoin with any other cryptocurrency. Bitcoin Core is where developers who treat it responsibly as a multi-billion dollar system are concentrated. It's very hard to submit code to it for a reason (unlike ALL other crypto currencies so far). Just as an example Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency where you can see a page with all security vulnerabilities so far.
I am aware that Bitcoin is not the same as the myriad of altcoins. Faith in the cryptocurrency market as a whole can affect all prices, and that's half the point. Besides, it's only been what, not quite 10 years since the first Bitcoin implementation, and there's still plenty of ongoing work. I'm sure the developers take their job very seriously, but even so, there's no promise of impenetrability this early. Maybe in another 10 years.
Volatility induced by technical failures in the cryptocurrency market should be just as concerning, particularly when people expect / expected the price to stabilize following the surge in price in 2017.
Volatility induced by technical failures in the cryptocurrency market should be just as concerning, particularly when people expect / expected the price to stabilize following the surge in price in 2017.
The price of bitcoin is actually a pretty good metric to observe the Gartner hype cycle in action: from the rise, peak of inflated expectations, and slide into the through of disillusionment. I predict that in 2019 or 2020 the price of bitcoin will slowly begin to come back up once we hit the slope of enlightenment.
That assumes Bitcoin is the ideal expression of the near-term cryptocoin. Perhaps Bitcoin will be surpassed for technical reasons to become "The Yahoo! of crypto-currencies" one day.
From a speculator's perspective, it'd probably be a riskier but more rewarding bet to make in the cryptocurrency space.
From a speculator's perspective, it'd probably be a riskier but more rewarding bet to make in the cryptocurrency space.
"On Thursday, 15 November, Bitcoin Cash - an offshoot of Bitcoin - split into two different crypto-currencies, which are now in competition with each other"
Could someone explain why did Bitcoin Cash split again, were there technical reasons that couldn't be resolved by creating a new cryptocurrency?
edit: clarification
Could someone explain why did Bitcoin Cash split again, were there technical reasons that couldn't be resolved by creating a new cryptocurrency?
edit: clarification
By design the Bitcoin Cash network upgrades every 6 months. There were some proposed network upgrades that a certain influential mining group led by someone claiming to be the creator of Bitcoin disagreed with, and decided to band together with some other large miners to hard fork with their own protocol changes.
The changes were mostly around blocksize (the camp that disagreed wanted larger block sizes), how transactions are ordered in a block, and adding/removing certain functions.
The changes were mostly around blocksize (the camp that disagreed wanted larger block sizes), how transactions are ordered in a block, and adding/removing certain functions.
I haven't followed the split very closely at all, but "someone claiming to be the creator of Bitcoin" really understates things. That someone is Craig Wright. Craig is _obviously_ not Satoshi (the creator of Bitcoin) -- he is a transparent fraudster, lacks technical understanding, and is unhinged (see his tweets and crazy threatening emails).
I think a lot of this is just stemming from Craig's ongoing desire to fraudulently control Bitcoin by claiming to be it's creator (the fork is called "Satoshi's Vision").
I'd stay far away from anything he touches.
I think a lot of this is just stemming from Craig's ongoing desire to fraudulently control Bitcoin by claiming to be it's creator (the fork is called "Satoshi's Vision").
I'd stay far away from anything he touches.
Yes, I've followed his tweets on occasion. I'm not saying I think he is Satoshi. His "unhinged" Twitter behavior is not any more crazy than a certain leader of the free world IMO and on par with the general eccentricities that is crypto right now.
This email is pretty unhinged: https://coinjournal.net/craig-wright-threatens-to-crash-bitc...
Comparing him to Trump only speaks to the fact that Trump also has issues, not that Craig does not.
Moreover, the style of writing/behavior is polar opposite of Satoshi.
Comparing him to Trump only speaks to the fact that Trump also has issues, not that Craig does not.
Moreover, the style of writing/behavior is polar opposite of Satoshi.
I feel similarly about both CW and RV. This hash war may have been a nice moment of drama diversion but from a professional point of view, it's an awful game to bring to the crypto world and for noobs who have just begun watching.
It’s honestly probably not that interesting. Cryptocoins split all the time. Bitcoin has A dozen of forks, same for Ethereum, same for ...
The Bitcoin Cash folks didn't want to use a new cryptocurrency, they already had bitcoin and wanted to use it more like cash (i.e., low transaction fees). Basically, there was a large subset of Bitcoin users who did not agree with the development roadmap as set by the core Bitcoin developers. The core developers did not do enough to accommodate this subset of bitcoin users (there are technical reasons why they refused to do so, though their validity is debatable), so the codebase and blockchain were forked. It's a little confusing, but the most reasonable outcome since the community was at a political standstill for years and now both groups are free to do their own thing.
Nonono, the fork has just forked itself again after 15.5 months.
I _think_ the split came down to how to support the increasing rate of txn/s. The Bitcoin cash folks wanted to increase the "block size" which required a hard fork. The Bitcoin "board" wanted to implement a new "protocol" called lightning instead.
Ah, I was talking about the new split, I understand the original fork was over the blocksize cap.
Just the normal agreed-upon fork every 6 months but this time things heated up with the hashing war, which featured antminer pulled all the miners in his pool from BTC into BCH, causing downward price pressure.
So, it looks like this post got ripped off the front page.
Question: was the Bitcoin breaks $20000 post ripped off the front page last year?
Question: was the Bitcoin breaks $20000 post ripped off the front page last year?
I'm surprised it's that high, given that its biggest uses are just speculation, drugs, and ransomware.
Please let this mean cheaper GPUs
I'm really shocked by the whole cryptocurrency experiment. We are now ten years in and it seems like literally nothing of value has come of it at all. Billions have been spent and we have absolutely nothing to show for it.
I've thought it was overvalued for a while but I still kept expecting the whole ecosystem to create something I or someone else might find useful in the real world. I've waited and waited and waited but no. Teams of brilliant people, tons of money, and nothing!
It started as a sort of crypto-libertarian critique of financial capitalism, but then it seems to have evolved rapidly into a "reductio ad absurdium" parody of financial capitalism.
Among other things I think this experiment proves that the excesses and absurdities of financial capitalism are not a technical problem. They are a social and political problem. The instant cryptocurrency got legs it became yet another speculative casino just like the rest of the financial system.
Edit: so prove me wrong. Does anyone actually use a cryptocurrency based system for anything other than cryptocurrency itself, speculation, or gambling?
I've thought it was overvalued for a while but I still kept expecting the whole ecosystem to create something I or someone else might find useful in the real world. I've waited and waited and waited but no. Teams of brilliant people, tons of money, and nothing!
It started as a sort of crypto-libertarian critique of financial capitalism, but then it seems to have evolved rapidly into a "reductio ad absurdium" parody of financial capitalism.
Among other things I think this experiment proves that the excesses and absurdities of financial capitalism are not a technical problem. They are a social and political problem. The instant cryptocurrency got legs it became yet another speculative casino just like the rest of the financial system.
Edit: so prove me wrong. Does anyone actually use a cryptocurrency based system for anything other than cryptocurrency itself, speculation, or gambling?
There are a number of real-world applications to which cryptocurrency has been proven to be useful outside of gambling and financial speculation, such as darknet markets, ransomware, donations to blacklisted organisations, paying international contractors sotto banco, transporting money illegally across borders... While you may notice a common pattern in their legality or lack thereof, they certainly have real needs that are fulfilled by cryptocurrency.
I'm aware of that niche, but I was speaking mostly of the ICOs that promised new technologies and of broader adoption of cryptocurrency across the economy.
The thing that's shocked me the most is the amount of money raised by ICO-type projects during the boom and the fact that not one of them appears to have delivered anything. I'd expect some to be scams, but every single one of them? Not a single reputable functional team raised money with an ICO and shipped something?
I'm excluding ICOs that shipped things of use only to other ICOs, cryptocurrency, gambling, and speculation. That's self-referential: crypto to make crypto for more crypto. I'm talking about things of use in the real world. That's why I called it a parody of financial capitalism. The point of money is to facilitate useful things, not to just chase itself around in circles. The latter is the essence of financial capitalism vs. real productive capitalism.
The thing that's shocked me the most is the amount of money raised by ICO-type projects during the boom and the fact that not one of them appears to have delivered anything. I'd expect some to be scams, but every single one of them? Not a single reputable functional team raised money with an ICO and shipped something?
I'm excluding ICOs that shipped things of use only to other ICOs, cryptocurrency, gambling, and speculation. That's self-referential: crypto to make crypto for more crypto. I'm talking about things of use in the real world. That's why I called it a parody of financial capitalism. The point of money is to facilitate useful things, not to just chase itself around in circles. The latter is the essence of financial capitalism vs. real productive capitalism.
I mean what timeline were you expecting? Did you honestly think that an application with the attack surface of literally everyone would come-out polished in a year or two?
Ethereum's ICO was in 2014, and most ICOs were on Ethereum and are less than 1-2 years old. One of the older "smart contract" projects has been in development since 2013 and it is still a massive work in progress.
You have a shit ton of people who want to reap the benefits of what-to-come, in fact that is what ICOs made easier. What it lacks are extremely competent people willing to dedicate anywhere between 3-10 years of their life to make it happen. It is hard to say you can buy that with strictly money.
Ethereum's ICO was in 2014, and most ICOs were on Ethereum and are less than 1-2 years old. One of the older "smart contract" projects has been in development since 2013 and it is still a massive work in progress.
You have a shit ton of people who want to reap the benefits of what-to-come, in fact that is what ICOs made easier. What it lacks are extremely competent people willing to dedicate anywhere between 3-10 years of their life to make it happen. It is hard to say you can buy that with strictly money.
Go look at https://www.canwork.io/
I pay for my VPS in BTC
I don’t think mining will be profitable anymore at a certain point. As soon as mining becomes unprofitable, there will be a death spiral for the price of Bitcoin.
When miners leave the network the difficulty drops automatically keeping it profitable for those who remain.
But this then brings the question back (atleast for me): What happens when all coins are mined? I just looked it up and it's already >80% mined. So if miners would leave the pool and then suddenly (suddenly might even be a long period of time here, I don't know to much about bitcoin) all coins are gone. What happens?
Edit: What just got to my mind is that we will never gain more bitcoins then those 21 million, but we surely will lose them (people lose they keys, die, whatever). Will the price go up to "infinity" or will it suddenly drop to 0?
Edit: What just got to my mind is that we will never gain more bitcoins then those 21 million, but we surely will lose them (people lose they keys, die, whatever). Will the price go up to "infinity" or will it suddenly drop to 0?
According to [1], in 2140 each block will give 0.00000042 BTC (big guess based on mining trends). The reward per block goes down as the number of remaining coins reduces.
This introduces a very unstable system. If the price of bitcoin doesn't (double + increase with inflation), as the block reward shrinks, the rewards will become useless.
1: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10486/when-will-...
This introduces a very unstable system. If the price of bitcoin doesn't (double + increase with inflation), as the block reward shrinks, the rewards will become useless.
1: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10486/when-will-...
[deleted]
Theoretically, transaction costs (will) pay the miners.
Exactly. And a drop in hash power and difficulty, which have a lag between one and the other, enables miners with more expensive operations to enter. Of course, they suffer when the reverse happens..but such is life.
It was interesting when Monero did their first hard fork for "ASIC resistance" reasons.
I happened to be paying attention that day, and there was a brief period where the network was small because everyone's miners couldn't participate until they were updated. My little single-GPU miner was suddenly rather effective because I had it back up immediately while the difficulty was very low. These days I don't bother turning it on, but when the scheduled forks occur there's probably still some opportunity for the little guys.
I happened to be paying attention that day, and there was a brief period where the network was small because everyone's miners couldn't participate until they were updated. My little single-GPU miner was suddenly rather effective because I had it back up immediately while the difficulty was very low. These days I don't bother turning it on, but when the scheduled forks occur there's probably still some opportunity for the little guys.
What happens when the expenses to open new operations are too high even for the largest miners?
There will be a whole spectrum of cryptos with different advantages over one another... like there already is.
This is good news, very good. I hope it psychologically affects people and that it lasts long enough that people will stop focusing on speculation and pumps, and instead focus on adoption and expansion.
I’d go even further: I hope it keeps falling until a better crypto currency is worth more. Bitcoin even existing proves the market is more speculative than functional.
there does seem to be some disentanglement from bitcoin: https://coinmarketcap.com/
I never saw this coming.
What's the momentum for adoption in places like venezuela?
Nowhere to be found. I kid you not, the government tried to start a nationalized crypto. Many are just using other currencies like the Colombian peso.
O really? https://coin.dance/volume/localbitcoins/VES seems to tell a different story. Ofcourse no one wants to buy a 'nationalized (read: centralized) crypto'.
There's a lot of posts here questioning the utility of cryptocurrency when we already have cash. I sometimes ask myself the same question, as none of my day-to-day transactions would benefit from cryptocurrency (or even offer it as an option). But I'm a cantankerous old man who just goes to the grocery store and gas station, not some malleable young whipper-snapper shaping the future, for better or worse, with what I participate in.
However, I recently listened to a Reply-All episode [1] where a young girl casually received $100 in bitcoin from an anonymous individual mid-episode, a sort of restitution for having her account stolen, while corresponding with the thief on discord.
It took practically no time, and gave me some pause to consider how this might be a glimpse of the future. The exchange could have been done through PayPal or something else with less anonymity, but it wasn't, they used bitcoin. Perhaps it was staged, perhaps she was primed to have a coinbase account already by the show hosts knowing this would happen, I don't know. If it was an authentically candid situation, it would be somewhat remarkable that she was already prepared to accept the payment with zero friction other than asking "It's super long, right?" when asked for her bitcoin address.
So clearly there's already utility/convenience for some people today, and the fact that this group includes youngsters could mean it's just be a matter of their becoming mature adults continuing to use cryptocurrency before it takes over in a big way.
Here's the excerpt from the transcript for the curious and lazy:
----8<----8<----8<----8<-----
ALEX: And then (clears throat) he was like, “Look, do you have a bitcoin account?” And she was like, “Yeah.”
KEVIN: I sold the Snapchat for 100 so I’ll just send that directly back to you. So um, you can do whatever you want with that since it is rightfully yours.
ALEX: Lizzie, do you have your Bitcoin account number handy?
LIZZIE: Yeah.
ALEX: Do you want to drop it into–
KEVIN: Yeah, let me–
LIZZIE: It’s super long, right?
KEVIN: Yeah, yeah, yeah no. Post it. Yeah, yeah. It starts, uh, it’s usually with a three. You have coinbase, right?
LIZZIE: Yeah.
KEVIN: Yeah, let me boot up my ledger. Okay. [typing] Alright I sent it.
LIZZIE: Yup.
KEVIN: Got it?
LIZZIE: Yeah, thank you.
KEVIN: Cool. Yeah, of course. Yeah you can do whatever you want with that. If you wanted to donate it, go for it. And if you want to keep it and buy groceries go for it.
LIZZIE: Awesome.
----8<----8<----8<----8<-----
[1] https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/130-lizard
[1.mp3] https://traffic.megaphone.fm/GLT8967905844.mp3?updated=15416...
However, I recently listened to a Reply-All episode [1] where a young girl casually received $100 in bitcoin from an anonymous individual mid-episode, a sort of restitution for having her account stolen, while corresponding with the thief on discord.
It took practically no time, and gave me some pause to consider how this might be a glimpse of the future. The exchange could have been done through PayPal or something else with less anonymity, but it wasn't, they used bitcoin. Perhaps it was staged, perhaps she was primed to have a coinbase account already by the show hosts knowing this would happen, I don't know. If it was an authentically candid situation, it would be somewhat remarkable that she was already prepared to accept the payment with zero friction other than asking "It's super long, right?" when asked for her bitcoin address.
So clearly there's already utility/convenience for some people today, and the fact that this group includes youngsters could mean it's just be a matter of their becoming mature adults continuing to use cryptocurrency before it takes over in a big way.
Here's the excerpt from the transcript for the curious and lazy:
----8<----8<----8<----8<-----
ALEX: And then (clears throat) he was like, “Look, do you have a bitcoin account?” And she was like, “Yeah.”
KEVIN: I sold the Snapchat for 100 so I’ll just send that directly back to you. So um, you can do whatever you want with that since it is rightfully yours.
ALEX: Lizzie, do you have your Bitcoin account number handy?
LIZZIE: Yeah.
ALEX: Do you want to drop it into–
KEVIN: Yeah, let me–
LIZZIE: It’s super long, right?
KEVIN: Yeah, yeah, yeah no. Post it. Yeah, yeah. It starts, uh, it’s usually with a three. You have coinbase, right?
LIZZIE: Yeah.
KEVIN: Yeah, let me boot up my ledger. Okay. [typing] Alright I sent it.
LIZZIE: Yup.
KEVIN: Got it?
LIZZIE: Yeah, thank you.
KEVIN: Cool. Yeah, of course. Yeah you can do whatever you want with that. If you wanted to donate it, go for it. And if you want to keep it and buy groceries go for it.
LIZZIE: Awesome.
----8<----8<----8<----8<-----
[1] https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/130-lizard
[1.mp3] https://traffic.megaphone.fm/GLT8967905844.mp3?updated=15416...
something that I think is commonly misunderstood about Bitcoin is that something can bring a lot of value, without being valuable in a market capitalisation sense. Think Wikipedia and Linux.
Shouldn't all the True Believers be mortgaging and leveraging everything and going all in?
Well the funny thing about the True Believers is that their numbers are strangely correlated to the price of bitcoin.
gfkyrslfgh(1)
Oh no, my $10 is now worth $5
HODL!!! I'm told you'll soon be so rich you could buy a yacht! Or two!
London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down, my dear lady
(ambiguity intended)
(ambiguity intended)
Crypto is going to come back with vengeance. Maybe not bitcoin and maybe not in the next 6 months, but people have seen the future and they want more.
In order to maximize "exchange of value", there needs to be a way to exchange tiny amounts of money easily. Right now there isn't such a way and crypto might solve it.
In order to maximize "exchange of value", there needs to be a way to exchange tiny amounts of money easily. Right now there isn't such a way and crypto might solve it.
(not an investor nor a banker)
"At its peak, in November 2017, it briefly hit $19,783 - which means the price has fallen by about 75%."
If this were a real stock market and those were real $$$s, isn't that the kind of crash that causes great depressions or investors jumping out of windows (movie trope, but not really)
How can something so volatile possibly be worth pursuing or investing in, other then get rich quick schemes.
"At its peak, in November 2017, it briefly hit $19,783 - which means the price has fallen by about 75%."
If this were a real stock market and those were real $$$s, isn't that the kind of crash that causes great depressions or investors jumping out of windows (movie trope, but not really)
How can something so volatile possibly be worth pursuing or investing in, other then get rich quick schemes.
The real stock market actually has those kind of moves, approximately once a decade. Peak Akamai, for example, was $327/share on Dec 1 1999. I bought in at $1.90 in May 2002, the bottom was $0.90 4 months later, and it's currently at $68.53. Folks who invested in the dot-com boom are still 80% underwater (much worse than any Bitcoin investor), while folks who invested 3 years later are sitting on a comfortable 60-bagger.
Investors in GM & Chrysler (considered blue-chip value stocks at the time) saw their investments go to zero when the companies declared bankruptcy in the 2009 Financial Crisis. The S&P 500 dropped 50% in the same period. PG&E stock dropped by 53% in one day last week when it was revealed that they may be responsible for the California wildfires.
Pretty much everything worth investing in is that volatile. You just either need to be greedy when other people are fearful and vice versa, or have long enough time horizons for it not to matter.
Investors in GM & Chrysler (considered blue-chip value stocks at the time) saw their investments go to zero when the companies declared bankruptcy in the 2009 Financial Crisis. The S&P 500 dropped 50% in the same period. PG&E stock dropped by 53% in one day last week when it was revealed that they may be responsible for the California wildfires.
Pretty much everything worth investing in is that volatile. You just either need to be greedy when other people are fearful and vice versa, or have long enough time horizons for it not to matter.
[deleted]
Surely the speculative value of bitcoin is independent of the inherent value of cryptocurrency technology. You wouldn't argue that cash isn't viable because some countries economies have crashed.
> You wouldn't argue that cash isn't viable because some countries economies have crashed
On the other hand, I would say a country's economy weren't viable if their cash had crashed.
On the other hand, I would say a country's economy weren't viable if their cash had crashed.
> You wouldn't argue that cash isn't viable because some countries economies have crashed.
That's actually exactly the argument I've seen from many Bitcoin proponents, ironically enough.
That's actually exactly the argument I've seen from many Bitcoin proponents, ironically enough.
I agree that I think crypto is pretty much dead in the water, but comparing it's volatility to the stock market as a whole is kind of silly.
Sure, if the S&P/Dow/Nasdaq fell 75% people would be jumping out the window, but it's also never risen 300% in a few months like crypto did.
Crypto needs to be evaluated against other speculative investments and not against a long term vehicle like a major index.
Sure, if the S&P/Dow/Nasdaq fell 75% people would be jumping out the window, but it's also never risen 300% in a few months like crypto did.
Crypto needs to be evaluated against other speculative investments and not against a long term vehicle like a major index.
300?
Try 2000%, not 300%.
High volatility makes people rich -- that's the attraction. It also makes people poor.
Try 2000%, not 300%.
High volatility makes people rich -- that's the attraction. It also makes people poor.
I've been trading it since last suummer and doing just fine, thank you. But years and years and years of trading under my so-called belt. I'm not alone, though. There is a way to trade a bear market...safely... The folks that got hurt were holders and those who went nuts in Dec. and thought "green" meant "buy."
I think you have your answer: the stock market has had massive declines, and yet people still pursue and invest in stocks.
It's the first one. The fact that it was able to gain that much value and mind share is astounding.
"people have seen the future and they want more"
Citation needed. The impression I get is that other than a get rich quick/MLM scheme, there isn't really anything there of interest to the general population. And I say that as someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about Bitcoin and crypto in general.
Citation needed. The impression I get is that other than a get rich quick/MLM scheme, there isn't really anything there of interest to the general population. And I say that as someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about Bitcoin and crypto in general.
You can tell everyone wants it by the way demand has crashed through the floor
Disclaimer: I made about 13x total ROI speculating on Bitcoin during its volatility between the $1200-8k range. I wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole now.
Demand has crashed because speculation is much more difficult now, and it's much easier to get into a position where your only choices are (a) sell at a huge loss; or, (b) hold and hope it goes up and you can get out even. A few years ago when it was much more volatile unless you were very unlucky with your timing you didn't have to wait more than a month or two to be able to sell with substantial gains, and wait for another drop to buy back in (or buy in pieces on the way down).
Demand has crashed because speculation is much more difficult now, and it's much easier to get into a position where your only choices are (a) sell at a huge loss; or, (b) hold and hope it goes up and you can get out even. A few years ago when it was much more volatile unless you were very unlucky with your timing you didn't have to wait more than a month or two to be able to sell with substantial gains, and wait for another drop to buy back in (or buy in pieces on the way down).
It crashed as currently the technology isn't quite there, however it will be eventually.
There are several projects working to put power back in the hands of general consumers, rather than enterprise businesses.
DataWallet[0], for example, is building blockchain-based data hub for users to manage their data, in such a way that they (the users) retain control over it, and companies wanting access have to pay. Simplest use case: enter your contact info in 1 place only, not on every website you sign up for. More generally, I think something like this would be well-received by the public, given recent outcries around privacy, scandals in large tech companies, and the emergence of GDPR (specifically: regular people learning - perhaps for the first time - that they have a right to control the access permissions of the data they create, even on someone else's platform).
Another development of interest is Basic Attention Token[1], wherein users are essentially paid to watch ads. This project is pretty well-known so I won't say much about it other than that it does have consumer appeal.
Granted, the majority of blockchain projects don't (directly) address major problems that consumers have; rather, most address the problems that developers and/or businesses face. The hope is that some of these new technologies will enable said devs & businesses to build better products for their respective users.
[0] https://datawallet.com [1] https://basicattentiontoken.org/
DataWallet[0], for example, is building blockchain-based data hub for users to manage their data, in such a way that they (the users) retain control over it, and companies wanting access have to pay. Simplest use case: enter your contact info in 1 place only, not on every website you sign up for. More generally, I think something like this would be well-received by the public, given recent outcries around privacy, scandals in large tech companies, and the emergence of GDPR (specifically: regular people learning - perhaps for the first time - that they have a right to control the access permissions of the data they create, even on someone else's platform).
Another development of interest is Basic Attention Token[1], wherein users are essentially paid to watch ads. This project is pretty well-known so I won't say much about it other than that it does have consumer appeal.
Granted, the majority of blockchain projects don't (directly) address major problems that consumers have; rather, most address the problems that developers and/or businesses face. The hope is that some of these new technologies will enable said devs & businesses to build better products for their respective users.
[0] https://datawallet.com [1] https://basicattentiontoken.org/
It seems to have widespread utility in countries with severe currency problems like Venezuela. But I agree, for countries with healthy economies, I don't see why crypto would attain mainstream adoption for much more than black market transactions.
Agreed totally.
Are you joking? Bitcoin is a terrible medium for exchange of small quantities of money. A few places around where I live set up bitcoin payment machines a few years ago. They all gave up. Transaction processing times reached over 30 minutes at the slowest times.
Cash is already the perfect medium for exchanging small amounts of money.
Cash is already the perfect medium for exchanging small amounts of money.
Oh yeah? Try exchanging a small amount of cash from the US with someone in Africa. Cash doesn't solve this problem. In fact there is no good current solution to this problem.
What are your thoughts on Ripple / XRP?
The parent wasn't talking about Bitcoin in particular though. Newer systems like Tendermint finalize transactions after a few seconds by running a consensus algorithm after each block. We're working on a system with a different consensus algorithm which should have subsecond latency. There are also layer 2 systems which can provide almost instant latency, albeit with some caveats.
Perhaps but cash is disgusting. Have you read how 90 percent of cash is covered with cocaine? Not to mention all the creepy crawlies on it... ewww...
> Cash is already the perfect medium for exchanging small amounts of money.
Yes in person, but not over the internet. Crypto currencies definitely have potential for exchanging small amount of money there!
Yes in person, but not over the internet. Crypto currencies definitely have potential for exchanging small amount of money there!
As a customer, I'm OK with banks and similar centralized institutions to handle small payments. I can take risk of losing $100 if I'm banned. As a seller, on the other hand, I don't like any notion of centralized institution, because my account will have much more money and block will be painful. But, I guess, I won't have much choice.
Now Bitcoin has much more value for me, as a tool to store money and transfer big payments. There's no easy way to transfer few thousand bucks between countries without dealing with state agencies, there's huge risk of frozen account, there's huge risk of being robbed, etc. Storing money is the same: your house could be robbed, your bank could default. Bitcoin solving those problems perfectly, aside from its fluctuating price, of course, but that couldn't be solved with algorithms anyway.
Now Bitcoin has much more value for me, as a tool to store money and transfer big payments. There's no easy way to transfer few thousand bucks between countries without dealing with state agencies, there's huge risk of frozen account, there's huge risk of being robbed, etc. Storing money is the same: your house could be robbed, your bank could default. Bitcoin solving those problems perfectly, aside from its fluctuating price, of course, but that couldn't be solved with algorithms anyway.
The problem is that current cryptocurrencies are not good for such use case. You cannot use Bitcoin for "tiny amounts of money" and for sure you cannot use it "easily". So cryptocurrencies might win in the long run, just not the currently existing ones.
> people have seen the future and they want more.
Normally when there's a demonstrated demand for something, its price doesn't go down by 75% year over year. Well, outside of government price controlling
You could be right, but it doesn't appear that the thing will be bitcoin, at least not unless it's a different thing sharing the same name.
The promise of bitcoin was a currency. But so far, it's not being used as a currency, people are treating it more like gold than cash. Until people are actually using it in day to day transactions, it's just a collectible.
Now I have been payed in Etherium by a client a couple times, but it's such a hassle. That money's just sitting around because I don't even want to deal with the exchanges.
Normally when there's a demonstrated demand for something, its price doesn't go down by 75% year over year. Well, outside of government price controlling
You could be right, but it doesn't appear that the thing will be bitcoin, at least not unless it's a different thing sharing the same name.
The promise of bitcoin was a currency. But so far, it's not being used as a currency, people are treating it more like gold than cash. Until people are actually using it in day to day transactions, it's just a collectible.
Now I have been payed in Etherium by a client a couple times, but it's such a hassle. That money's just sitting around because I don't even want to deal with the exchanges.
I said crypto not bitcoin. And the current generation of cryptos isn't quite there yet.
Ah, gotcha. Sometimes people don't discern between the two.
What's your definition of there? Being able to do micro-transactions? quick transactions?
Would transaction fees matter?
What's your definition of there? Being able to do micro-transactions? quick transactions?
Would transaction fees matter?
So just out of curiosity re: exchanging tiny amounts of money, are you suggesting that cryptocurrency and blockchain tech replace banks? Because there are loads of ways to exchange tiny amounts of money...
Like? For example how to do micropayments on the web?
Venmo, Square Cash, Patreon. There's this espresso bar in LA that only takes cash or Venmo.
venmo & sq cash are not available here, and patreon are you serious? None of them beats the simplicity of an app wallet and semi-anonymous payments, kind of like a cash replacement.
agree with you but we have so much education to do of normal, every day people. It's too techy for too many.. so they don't see what you and I are seeing.
And with an easy setup.
> Crypto is going to come back with vengeance.
Bold statement.
> Right now there isn't such a way and crypto might solve it.
weak support.
Why do people need to exchange tiny amounts of money?
EDIT for clarity: Why do people need Crypto to exchange tiny amounts of money?
Bold statement.
> Right now there isn't such a way and crypto might solve it.
weak support.
Why do people need to exchange tiny amounts of money?
EDIT for clarity: Why do people need Crypto to exchange tiny amounts of money?
Completely disagree with the op re bit coin, but I do agree that people need easy ways to handle small transactions seamlessly. Mpesa and venmo provide plenty of reasonable use cases...
People already exchange tiny amounts of money. It's done through this cutting edge service called "banking." I think the implication of the GP's comment is that he considers blockchain/cryptocurrency tech a replacement for banking.
What banking service are you referring to? Credit networks, debit networks, ACH, something else? AFAIK none of them are practical for micropayments, in the US at least. It's possible that the banking industry could invent a network on which micropayments are practical, but it hasn't happened yet.
Micropayments is the perfect use case.
My vision is you would stock a wallet with, say $50, and then authorize a few of your regular sites in your client. Every time you loaded a new story, it might deduct $.01 for example.
Perhaps not with this tech, but one similar with fast transactions and tiny fees. See Iota for example.
Shifting from an ad driven to paid publisher/subscriber model has many advantages. Ideally you'd have a tech to support it which was a) not centralized, b) anonymous customer but visible vendor, and c) low transaction fees. This rules out credit cards and bitcoin but there are others.
My vision is you would stock a wallet with, say $50, and then authorize a few of your regular sites in your client. Every time you loaded a new story, it might deduct $.01 for example.
Perhaps not with this tech, but one similar with fast transactions and tiny fees. See Iota for example.
Shifting from an ad driven to paid publisher/subscriber model has many advantages. Ideally you'd have a tech to support it which was a) not centralized, b) anonymous customer but visible vendor, and c) low transaction fees. This rules out credit cards and bitcoin but there are others.
I imagine Netflix working that way in an opaque way.
Of the 3rd-party produced works, I assume netflix pays them some fraction of my $x.xx/month based on my viewing time.
Of the 3rd-party produced works, I assume netflix pays them some fraction of my $x.xx/month based on my viewing time.
I really don't understand these examples for micropayments, they're always for things I wouldn't pay for anyway.
Oh? Do you fund anyone on Patreon? Is there no content you think is worthwhile, quality reading, that you'd pay a little to contribute your share, instead of ads and malware?
I don’t and nobody I know does either.
I think all these visions for micro payments have been swamped by advertising as a source for revenue.
I dislike that fact, but I don't think most people care. So micro payments are just a way to make less money than advertising-based models.
I dislike that fact, but I don't think most people care. So micro payments are just a way to make less money than advertising-based models.
Lol are you aware of the backlash against advertising?
I'm not sure people need a lot of ways to exchange tiny amounts of money either, but the existing ones like Venmo work really well. Without a blockchain. And fast, too!
lmao. People have seen the future and it is decentralized fax machines
My feeling: HN is generally negative against blockchain and it's applications, rooting to be proven useless because the Silicon Valley actually missed the window and it's not on the cutting edge of the wave.
My feelings towards bitcoin(cryptocurrencies in general): A tool to misbehave in a society that is completely regulated and monitored. Its price is going to match the market for misbehaviour. The size of the market for misbehaviour is going to be based on how much the society deviates from moderate: that is, in total anarchy bitcoin can replace the total global money supply and reach millions of dollars equivalent per bitcoin and in totalitarian governments in multipole world order it can be the currency to trade between camps and illegals when the governments tells you not to.
Edit: Hey, it would be nice if you also write why you disagree.
My feelings towards bitcoin(cryptocurrencies in general): A tool to misbehave in a society that is completely regulated and monitored. Its price is going to match the market for misbehaviour. The size of the market for misbehaviour is going to be based on how much the society deviates from moderate: that is, in total anarchy bitcoin can replace the total global money supply and reach millions of dollars equivalent per bitcoin and in totalitarian governments in multipole world order it can be the currency to trade between camps and illegals when the governments tells you not to.
Edit: Hey, it would be nice if you also write why you disagree.
"HN is generally negative against blockchain"
I agree with this part. However, many of us are just negative because of the tendency to try and make blockchain a solution when it's not needed. Especially when it's used somewhere where you already have to trust a 3rd party. In those cases, a traditional ledger is fine.
I agree with this part. However, many of us are just negative because of the tendency to try and make blockchain a solution when it's not needed. Especially when it's used somewhere where you already have to trust a 3rd party. In those cases, a traditional ledger is fine.
I don't think SV missed the window. Coinbase has done very well.
I think the reasons a lot of HN people are negative on bitcoin and blockchain are:
- For most use cases, blockchains seem like a really inefficient database. While blockchains are are neat data structure and might have some great uses in the future, most of the proposed use cases seem better served by a normal DB. Would love to be proven wrong.
- The "power used vs. utility provided" ratio of BTC seems insanely bad. A fairly small financial network (at the global scale) is sucking up a noticeable fraction of energy production.
- Crypto brought a wave of very non-technical get-rich hucksters into the tech scene doing pump and dump ICOs and the like.
- It seems like a lot of non-sophisticated, non-technical investors are getting duped out of their money. I hear all the time about working class people "getting into crypto" because they think it's a magic money machine and don't really understand the risk.
- And the biggest for me: Almost every crypto investor/fan I ask in person has NEVER used crypto to buy anything other than more crypto or to make small purchases. Crypto fans make huge claims like crypto is transforming commerce but it doesn't seem to jive with real life experience.
I think the reasons a lot of HN people are negative on bitcoin and blockchain are:
- For most use cases, blockchains seem like a really inefficient database. While blockchains are are neat data structure and might have some great uses in the future, most of the proposed use cases seem better served by a normal DB. Would love to be proven wrong.
- The "power used vs. utility provided" ratio of BTC seems insanely bad. A fairly small financial network (at the global scale) is sucking up a noticeable fraction of energy production.
- Crypto brought a wave of very non-technical get-rich hucksters into the tech scene doing pump and dump ICOs and the like.
- It seems like a lot of non-sophisticated, non-technical investors are getting duped out of their money. I hear all the time about working class people "getting into crypto" because they think it's a magic money machine and don't really understand the risk.
- And the biggest for me: Almost every crypto investor/fan I ask in person has NEVER used crypto to buy anything other than more crypto or to make small purchases. Crypto fans make huge claims like crypto is transforming commerce but it doesn't seem to jive with real life experience.
>For most use cases, blockchains seem like a really inefficient database. While blockchains are are neat data structure and might have some great uses in the future, most of the proposed use cases seem better served by a normal DB. Would love to be proven wrong.
As a corollary to this, a lot of blockchain "solutions" don't seem to even understand the problems they're purporting to solve. They're shoehorning blockchain into issues where it's absolutely inappropriate and claiming victory. Elections come to mind.
As a corollary to this, a lot of blockchain "solutions" don't seem to even understand the problems they're purporting to solve. They're shoehorning blockchain into issues where it's absolutely inappropriate and claiming victory. Elections come to mind.
Just like the programmers trying to solve every problem with an app at some point a few years ago.
Not long ago every app idea was getting funded only to decay in irrelevance.
Not long ago every app idea was getting funded only to decay in irrelevance.
Yes there is Coinbase but it is just an exchange, one of many. A really nice one but still just a marketplace(Kids in Japan were doing it like a decade ago).
It used to be the other way around, that is, Silicon Valley is early in something that gets big from nothing and the rest of the world makes it's own version after it's proven to be worthwhile.
Other than that I agree that there's lot's of BS going on but on the early days of the Web, there was also a lot of BS happening too.
It used to be the other way around, that is, Silicon Valley is early in something that gets big from nothing and the rest of the world makes it's own version after it's proven to be worthwhile.
Other than that I agree that there's lot's of BS going on but on the early days of the Web, there was also a lot of BS happening too.
> A tool to misbehave
Cash is a better tool for misbehaving. Bitcoin is a good tool for misbehaving remotely at a small scale, though even there something like Monero has it beat. The market for small-scale remote misbehaviour is small. Extant, but small—much smaller than the present cryptocurrency markets.
Cash is a better tool for misbehaving. Bitcoin is a good tool for misbehaving remotely at a small scale, though even there something like Monero has it beat. The market for small-scale remote misbehaviour is small. Extant, but small—much smaller than the present cryptocurrency markets.
I agree but the cash has it's own limitations and governments are trying to get rid of it and actually succeeding in some places like the Nordic countries.
Feel exact opposite. HN had a ton of pro-crypto articles trending earlier this year, as well as brigading from pro-crypto subreddits bombing the comments section.
I was immediately turned off when a different, exchange website asked me to upload a photo of myself holding my driver's license in one hand and a paper with the name of the website and date in the other.
Just my experience. To me, it seemed like a joke.