The Dark Future Where Payments Are Politicized and Bitcoin Wins(coindesk.com)
coindesk.com
The Dark Future Where Payments Are Politicized and Bitcoin Wins
https://www.coindesk.com/dark-future-payments-politicized-bitcoin-wins
70 comments
I find the HN attitude to cryptocurrency to be fascinating. This is the site where I first learned about Bitcoin in 2011. At the time it was treated enthusiastically. People would "Show HN" projects they made that used BTC, people were intellectually curious about it. Then somewhere around 2014 it turned negative. I'm not sure what drove this change. IS it that engineers liked experimenting with it, and when those experiments didn't bear fruit they moved on? Is it that the engineers were replaced with marketers and financial analysts in the cryptocurrency community?
> Then somewhere around 2014 it turned negative. I'm not sure what drove this change.
That is around when Bitcoin dropped its currency aspirations and went whole hog into being a vehicle for speculation.
That is around when Bitcoin dropped its currency aspirations and went whole hog into being a vehicle for speculation.
> That is around when Bitcoin dropped its currency aspirations and went whole hog into being a vehicle for speculation.
Was that when we started to see all the scammy pump and dump schemes around random new cryptocurrencies as well?
Was that when we started to see all the scammy pump and dump schemes around random new cryptocurrencies as well?
I think many of us have tried our best to teach people about "shitcoins", but the greed and fantasy of riches has caused lots of people to buy Bitcoin copypastes.
The most recent round of dissapointment comes from blockchains being too expensive to use as write only databases, yet people using it for trivial means like crypto kitties.
I predict the next issue will again be unrelated to Bitcoin, but rather non POW coins getting hacked.
The most recent round of dissapointment comes from blockchains being too expensive to use as write only databases, yet people using it for trivial means like crypto kitties.
I predict the next issue will again be unrelated to Bitcoin, but rather non POW coins getting hacked.
My opinion soured (~2017) once I realized the unavoidable environmental cost. The TPS limit was quite damning too. Hearing the faithful flip from currency to asset language smelled a lot like a pyramid scheme.
But who knows, maybe the offshoots like CureCoin can do some good without devastating the environment.
But who knows, maybe the offshoots like CureCoin can do some good without devastating the environment.
[deleted]
It's purely impatience, I think. Since blockchain hasn't "moved fast and broken things" quickly enough, it's clearly useless and will never have any purpose whatsoever, ever.
I imagine the HN of 1910 would be saying, "The Wright Brothers flew seven years ago and we aren't flying across the ocean yet, clearly aviation is a pointless new technology."
I imagine the HN of 1910 would be saying, "The Wright Brothers flew seven years ago and we aren't flying across the ocean yet, clearly aviation is a pointless new technology."
And it holds less songs than a NoMad. Lame.
The problem with any technology is that hype doesn't equal potential. Up until 2014, bitcoin was under hyped. It had a lot of potential. Since then the opposite has been true: shucksters sell it as the cure for cancer. Plenty of people here tried to get others interested in 2012 and then spent 2016 explaining to their non technical managers why the new block chain product they just bought won't actually work for what they want it for...
This place has been negative on bitcoin long before 2014.
It turns into a yahoo groups chat with a quickness whenever bitcoin or cryptocurrencies come up. It's embarrassing for a site that prides itself on having insight into emerging technologies and ideas.
I'd blame the scamcoin wave of 2014 or so. And the gox fiasco, of course.
Many people haven't updated their opinions since then. Even if they've bothered to keep up, they see everything in the light of those days and never reconsider.
Many people haven't updated their opinions since then. Even if they've bothered to keep up, they see everything in the light of those days and never reconsider.
There's no actual use-case for bitcoin anymore. The enthusiasm got diverted to blockchain aka. the technology.
Except speculation.
Except speculation.
I liked it when I went to Europe. I ran out of Euros and got some from a Bitcoin ATM at a university for less than the bank fee.
This was a few years ago, fees are probably higher now... Which negates your insistence that the technology is the value.
This was a few years ago, fees are probably higher now... Which negates your insistence that the technology is the value.
> This was a few years ago, fees are probably higher now
Anecdote: I have a U.S. online bank account with no minimums or maintenance fees. Travelled to Europe a few months ago. Took out Euros with the ATM fee reimbursed by my bank and an implied FX spread less than 1% to spot.
Anecdote: I have a U.S. online bank account with no minimums or maintenance fees. Travelled to Europe a few months ago. Took out Euros with the ATM fee reimbursed by my bank and an implied FX spread less than 1% to spot.
[deleted]
The use case is decentralized digital gold.
No idea why you are downvoted.
Although the term is "inflation hedged asset"
Although the term is "inflation hedged asset"
Store of value is the use case.
Cryptocurrency enthusiasts cannot find a legitimate use for bitcoins, so they dream up hellscapes where "both sides" are bad and apolitical bitcoin saves the day
I always think it's hilarious that people who call themselves Bitcoin enthusiasts will say things like "No one wants to live in a country where bitcoin has become vital for payments", when the original Bitcoin paper calls it "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" and the introduction quite clearly suggests that it would be better for people if they used Bitcoin to replace trust with cryptography. Please just read the first two paragraphs: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
(Or actually, read the whole thing, it's interesting, but it's obvious that the experiment really didn't turn out the way it was planned)
(Or actually, read the whole thing, it's interesting, but it's obvious that the experiment really didn't turn out the way it was planned)
> (Or actually, read the whole thing, it's interesting, but it's obvious that the experiment really didn't turn out the way it was planned)
Bitcoin set out to implement the ideas of Wei Dai's b-money system and was also inspired by 2008 financial crush. I think Bitcoin is a success from the cypherpunks/crypto-anarchy perscpective and it is the fruits of their discussions/debates.
Bitcoin set out to implement the ideas of Wei Dai's b-money system and was also inspired by 2008 financial crush. I think Bitcoin is a success from the cypherpunks/crypto-anarchy perscpective and it is the fruits of their discussions/debates.
Bitcoin is not inspired by the financial crisis. A project like that takes many years to research and develop.
Even without reading that, "electronic cash" seemed obvious to me when I first heard about bitcoin: I could see digital artists using it to sell commissions. Especially adult art, since PayPal has (had?) a tendency to kick them off the platform once they find out what's being sold.
You see money was one of the first distributed systems, it transcended languages and flags, the protocol was deployed everywhere. But this protocol of value exchange always had issues with trust, related to the double spending problem so it always required a third party. Gold is almost perfect because it is rare and recognizeable, but gold can be faked and is too heavy to carry around in large amounts also violence can come from gold and violence is a big no no for the cypherpunks. So for our traditional protocol to work we invented money printers that we trust to print our money (Banks) and monitor it for tax purposes. But now maybe for the first time in the world it is possible to have a P2P system of value exchange, no banks, kings or even governments required, the only requirement is a cpu. The new protocol offers new ways to structure our economy, it makes old ways obsolete but it has its own set of problems. Is the new protocol good or is it bad? I say it is too early to answer this, but I also think crypto-coins should be given a chance, it is good that people are starting to use this protocol it gives us real-life data to compare its pros and cons against our traditional protocol.
In many cases it is true, but the one legitimate use case is helping out in countries where monetary freedom is restricted. When the state forbids you to sell a currency that's permanently losing value due to unchecked inflation, being able to work for any appreciating coin or even a stablecoin is benefitial to society.
> In many cases it is true, but the one legitimate use case is helping out in countries where monetary freedom is restricted.
Don't forget the other major use case: online retail for illegal goods and services. Cash is impractical, and using the conventional payment systems is a good way for criminals to get caught.
Don't forget the other major use case: online retail for illegal goods and services. Cash is impractical, and using the conventional payment systems is a good way for criminals to get caught.
I wish I could filter out every "Bitcoin dumb LOL" reply that inevitably appears in the comments. We get it, we've heard all the jokes before, thank you.
Maintaining privacy from government/corporate surveillance.
Isn't Bitcoin structured so that all transactions are recorded for everyone to see in the ledger? Doesn't that make surveillance easier?
They are. Monero and other privacy coins have features built in. But the ability for anyone to generate addresses anywhere adds for some level of privacy. The only way to identify the owner of an address is to have concrete information linking a person to an address.
Pseudonymity is not the same as anonymity. Coin tracing companies exist because of this. Unless the currency itself has numerous privacy mitigations built in (a la Monero), it's only going to keep casual observers from knowing. I compare most cryptocurrencies' observability to common household locks. They aren't keeping real thieves out. They just keep honest people honest.
So, when you are actually using it, then your privacy is revealed ( since you'll use that "anonymous" ledger to convert to USD/Eur).
Every cloud application for doing this literally requires you to send your ID to them.
Every cloud application for doing this literally requires you to send your ID to them.
One could mine it directly and never involve KYC. Or they could use a coin that has privacy features built-in, such that once it leaves the exchange they no long know what was done with it. There are also decentralized exchanges.
You're suggesting to mine a bitcoin, which has a pretty big difficult rate by now or to join a cloud miner.
Either way, you're arguments don't make any sense anno 2020.
I'd rather trust my bank, that is regulated than some anonymous thing on the internet.
Either way, you're arguments don't make any sense anno 2020.
I'd rather trust my bank, that is regulated than some anonymous thing on the internet.
I've mined a few Moneroj just casually using my desktop PC. Makes for a good space heater in the winter time. Depending on it as a sole source of income, no. But it's not impossible to obtain cryptocurrency from mining in 2020.
Yes. To achieve privacy and fungibility, one would need to use something like Monero instead.
So called "privacy coins" are more private than Bitcoin, but do not (and cannot) offer absolute privacy guarantees. Zcash and Dash can now be tracked, and Monero is next.
[1] https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/introducing-chainalysis... [2] https://news.bitcoin.com/chainalysis-and-integra-win-1-25-mi...
[1] https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/introducing-chainalysis... [2] https://news.bitcoin.com/chainalysis-and-integra-win-1-25-mi...
I'll believe Monero is traceable when someone claims any of the various bounties available for proving it.
A payment processor would help with this. Basic idea is you would buy a good online but you wouldn’t pay the merchant directly. You would pay a payments processor who would pay the merchant from its account. Somewhat similar to using Visa or Mastercard. Then the payments processor has data about you, but Mastercard and Visa sell your data today anyway. You can also using mixing pools and generate new addresses for each transaction to help mitigate tracking.
People don't pay for privacy, that's why we have ads.
+ You can see all the transactions in bitcoin..
+ You can see all the transactions in bitcoin..
This reads like a fan fiction that’s written by 13 year old, who was 0 idea his economy works, and is just trying to exploit and deepen political dive for personal gain.
Cutting ties with racist militia means that in the future I won’t be able to buy cupcakes across the street, because owner supports different party? That’s classic “where does it stop” argument, used to justify inaction to obviously wrong things, because it could be abused in the future. Omission bias at its best.
Cutting ties with racist militia means that in the future I won’t be able to buy cupcakes across the street, because owner supports different party? That’s classic “where does it stop” argument, used to justify inaction to obviously wrong things, because it could be abused in the future. Omission bias at its best.
By advancing vapid imagination only to take the whole thing back at the end (writing paraphrasing OK that dystopian future won't happen) ... Coindesk tries to ... oh, never mind I can't pretend: OP's link is a giant waste of time, another too political emotion saber rattling rag. Move-on.
The users in the author's fantasy have get some Bitcoin in the first place. And either they or the person who would supply it to them are going to have to get over their fear of going rogue, just like a tax avoider does currently.
Given the author is a fan and won't even risk writing about a more convincing example like sci-hub (I'm assuming out of fear that the publishing industry would come after them for advocating for their illegal competitor), what makes them thing regular folks would take an even bigger risk?
Given the author is a fan and won't even risk writing about a more convincing example like sci-hub (I'm assuming out of fear that the publishing industry would come after them for advocating for their illegal competitor), what makes them thing regular folks would take an even bigger risk?
I see a different future. As layer 2 comes online, and capital continues to flood into Bitcoin, I imagine people having a layer 2 “checking” account which consists of Liquid or Lightning funds for instant low-fee transactions, and a “savings” account of Bitcoin. When they earn money or get paid large amounts, they will put it in savings to preserve the value, instead of losing it to inflation. Periodically they will transfer some to their checking account to pay for goods and services.
This is how I use coinbase. I have some Bitcoin for free and instant payments.
I'm not saying where most of my Bitcoin is.
I'm not saying where most of my Bitcoin is.
Payment processors already deplatform sexually explicit content that features minors. (They also don't process payments for digital-only sexual content, likely because of high fraud and chargeback rates.) But I haven't seen PayPal fall down the slippery slope of banning kinky/less mainstream sexual content.
Right now, these payment processors are deplatforming racists and neo-Nazis who openly advocate for the creation of a white ethnostate. To assume that eventually these payment processors will be successfully pressured into deplatforming moderately-right publications like the WSJ is classic slippery-slope fallacy. There is a huge difference between believing conservative ideas and advocating for violence against ethnic minorities.
> social network Gab, which describes itself as pro-free speech but has high concentrations of toxicity.
Give me a break. Gab is a haven for white-supremacists and neo-Nazis. PayPal deplatformed Gab after a verified neo-Nazi user posted anti-semitism on the site, then shot up a synagogue killing 11 and injuring 6 [0]. "Toxicity" is terribly bad faith argument.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)#2018_Pitt...
Right now, these payment processors are deplatforming racists and neo-Nazis who openly advocate for the creation of a white ethnostate. To assume that eventually these payment processors will be successfully pressured into deplatforming moderately-right publications like the WSJ is classic slippery-slope fallacy. There is a huge difference between believing conservative ideas and advocating for violence against ethnic minorities.
> social network Gab, which describes itself as pro-free speech but has high concentrations of toxicity.
Give me a break. Gab is a haven for white-supremacists and neo-Nazis. PayPal deplatformed Gab after a verified neo-Nazi user posted anti-semitism on the site, then shot up a synagogue killing 11 and injuring 6 [0]. "Toxicity" is terribly bad faith argument.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)#2018_Pitt...
Payment processors also won't touch sci-hub. What do you think of that?
Secondary question: When is a slippery slope a fallacy and when is it not? There's lots of things we consider it good to ban because allowing it is a slippery slope, like when the administration justified using torture in exigent situations.
Secondary question: When is a slippery slope a fallacy and when is it not? There's lots of things we consider it good to ban because allowing it is a slippery slope, like when the administration justified using torture in exigent situations.
SciHub is ultimately helping people violate copyright laws. I personally think that science should have more open access, and I assume that many who work at these payment processors share my sentiment. But I think payment processors want to avoid legal liability — legal fees and settlements (or even criminal charges) are expensive.
> When is a slippery slope a fallacy and when is it not?
Wikipedia has a section on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_...
In my opinion, slippery slope is a fallacy when there is not a clear demarcation. If the US government says "we need to torture in exigent situations" I worry about slippery slope because it's easy for the definition of "exigent" to change when convenient. On the other hand, if the US government said "we use torture for people who have been in contact with ISIS and have been convicted of murder," then the criteria are provable facts that create a clear line. I would still disagree with the use of torture, but my disagreement would be on ethical grounds, not that there is a slippery slope.
If payment processors say "we won't process payments for platforms who knowingly host content that advocates for violence against a race of people" — then it's not a slippery slope. When a line is clearly demarcated, there is a mechanism for changes in the policy to be examined (and just because a policy changes that doesn't mean that there is a slippery slope; sometimes changes are justified!).
One could argue that the line could be capriciously moved; however, I would want some sort of evidence or justification that it might be.
> When is a slippery slope a fallacy and when is it not?
Wikipedia has a section on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_...
In my opinion, slippery slope is a fallacy when there is not a clear demarcation. If the US government says "we need to torture in exigent situations" I worry about slippery slope because it's easy for the definition of "exigent" to change when convenient. On the other hand, if the US government said "we use torture for people who have been in contact with ISIS and have been convicted of murder," then the criteria are provable facts that create a clear line. I would still disagree with the use of torture, but my disagreement would be on ethical grounds, not that there is a slippery slope.
If payment processors say "we won't process payments for platforms who knowingly host content that advocates for violence against a race of people" — then it's not a slippery slope. When a line is clearly demarcated, there is a mechanism for changes in the policy to be examined (and just because a policy changes that doesn't mean that there is a slippery slope; sometimes changes are justified!).
One could argue that the line could be capriciously moved; however, I would want some sort of evidence or justification that it might be.
ok, so I think many people will take issue with your definition.
The arguably canonical modern example of a "bad slippery slope" argument is "if we legalize gay marriage, then what is next, bestiality?" but according to your definition, because it would need a "mechanism for changes in the policy", that is not a "slippery slope" argument.
The arguably canonical modern example of a "bad slippery slope" argument is "if we legalize gay marriage, then what is next, bestiality?" but according to your definition, because it would need a "mechanism for changes in the policy", that is not a "slippery slope" argument.
I think we agree.
Slippery slope arguments are valid if 1) there is no demarcated line ("extingent circumstances") or 2) there is a demarcated line, and there is good justification for why that line might change.
Legalizing gay marriage is a clearly demarcated line. There is no justification for why gay marriage being legalized will lead to bestiality being legalized, so it is an invalid slippery slope argument.
Slippery slope arguments are valid if 1) there is no demarcated line ("extingent circumstances") or 2) there is a demarcated line, and there is good justification for why that line might change.
Legalizing gay marriage is a clearly demarcated line. There is no justification for why gay marriage being legalized will lead to bestiality being legalized, so it is an invalid slippery slope argument.
I really think it would be good for America to enact some sort of electoral reform to allow for more than two parties to have a reasonable chance at influence. It really seems to distort your politics that everything is binary.
I would appreciate if you could explain to me how my political viewpoint is distorted inc. how I view things as "binary."
My viewpoint is: calling for ethnic cleansing through violence creates real harm (people have been murdered!), so private citizens and organizations should not support people who advocate for ethnic cleansing.
Also, blaming the two party system misunderstands US politics. Most Democratic politicians have not called for deplatforming of white supremacists — it's mostly a leftist idea.
My viewpoint is: calling for ethnic cleansing through violence creates real harm (people have been murdered!), so private citizens and organizations should not support people who advocate for ethnic cleansing.
Also, blaming the two party system misunderstands US politics. Most Democratic politicians have not called for deplatforming of white supremacists — it's mostly a leftist idea.
> My viewpoint is: calling for ethnic cleansing through violence creates real harm (people have been murdered!), so private citizens and organizations should not support people who advocate for ethnic cleansing.
Oh, I wholly agree on that part! It's absolutely not that. I think deplatforming that stuff is good. Good for society, and good because you get to watch them complain about being oppressed.
> Also, blaming the two party system misunderstands US politics. Most Democratic politicians have not called for deplatforming of white supremacists — it's mostly a leftist idea.
Precisely. My point was that the original article and much American political discourse has trouble distinguishing between the Democratic party and "leftists". And different groups of leftists - that often can't get along. It also kind of exists in the opposite direction, in that centrists aren't fascists. That's the distortion, and I think the two-party system makes the tribalism much worse than it needs to be.
Oh, I wholly agree on that part! It's absolutely not that. I think deplatforming that stuff is good. Good for society, and good because you get to watch them complain about being oppressed.
> Also, blaming the two party system misunderstands US politics. Most Democratic politicians have not called for deplatforming of white supremacists — it's mostly a leftist idea.
Precisely. My point was that the original article and much American political discourse has trouble distinguishing between the Democratic party and "leftists". And different groups of leftists - that often can't get along. It also kind of exists in the opposite direction, in that centrists aren't fascists. That's the distortion, and I think the two-party system makes the tribalism much worse than it needs to be.
Paypal canceled people just because they were thought criminals. At the point where you become a global payment processor (Paypal, Mastercard,...) a different ruleset should apply to you: no banning unless directly criminaly charged.
Because as it is now Paypal can ban you for whatever reason you want.
When you become global and directly affect people's livelyhoods it should be illegal to cancel people just like that.
The "it's a private business it can do whatever it wants" argument simply doesn't apply anymore (unless you want to end up with corporations for nations since you now have to bow down to private corporations if your opinions are not acceptable. In other words: corporations own your mouth, they own your speech, you cannot go against privot corps. Nightmare fuel. Well you can go against them but you will then lose all of your income which is centralized in a few global corps who also most likely share data on dissidents).
Because as it is now Paypal can ban you for whatever reason you want.
When you become global and directly affect people's livelyhoods it should be illegal to cancel people just like that.
The "it's a private business it can do whatever it wants" argument simply doesn't apply anymore (unless you want to end up with corporations for nations since you now have to bow down to private corporations if your opinions are not acceptable. In other words: corporations own your mouth, they own your speech, you cannot go against privot corps. Nightmare fuel. Well you can go against them but you will then lose all of your income which is centralized in a few global corps who also most likely share data on dissidents).
Or, you know, you could just pay people with cash and checks.
Every country in the world has analog public financial instruments, and most have or are developing digital instruments. We don't really need to use a Switzerland's worth of electricity to move money around.
Every country in the world has analog public financial instruments, and most have or are developing digital instruments. We don't really need to use a Switzerland's worth of electricity to move money around.
What fascinated me about Bitcoin in the first place was the idea of having money as a first class citizen on the net. Well, we know this didn’t really became reality.
Today, we still can’t easily and frictionless send money to a website. Just think about what this means for online journalism.
That you mention “checks” suggests that you are a person living in the US. I can tell you that even as a European, I often hit a paywall where I couldn’t even pay if I were willing to go through the hassle of paying by credit card.
PayPal helps a bit but having one centralized service means there is no real competition.
Today, we still can’t easily and frictionless send money to a website. Just think about what this means for online journalism.
That you mention “checks” suggests that you are a person living in the US. I can tell you that even as a European, I often hit a paywall where I couldn’t even pay if I were willing to go through the hassle of paying by credit card.
PayPal helps a bit but having one centralized service means there is no real competition.
> I can tell you that even as a European, I often hit a paywall where I couldn’t even pay if I were willing to go through the hassle of paying by credit card.
And even if you can pay, you have to give your full name, address, phone number, and credit card number in order to be able to pay. Then the merchant has to pay a ~3% fee to accept the payment, run your personal data through some machine learning algorithm to try and prevent someone from using your stolen credentials, and still receive chargebacks some percentage of the time.
I really wish there was a widely adopted payment system that acted like cash on the internet (instant, irrevocable, low fees, privacy preserving, stable value). Crypto actually has a chance at solving this, but nothing so far actually checks all of these boxes as far as I know.
And even if you can pay, you have to give your full name, address, phone number, and credit card number in order to be able to pay. Then the merchant has to pay a ~3% fee to accept the payment, run your personal data through some machine learning algorithm to try and prevent someone from using your stolen credentials, and still receive chargebacks some percentage of the time.
I really wish there was a widely adopted payment system that acted like cash on the internet (instant, irrevocable, low fees, privacy preserving, stable value). Crypto actually has a chance at solving this, but nothing so far actually checks all of these boxes as far as I know.
j0ba(3)
[deleted]
> Paypal canceled people just because they were thought criminals.
No, PayPal cancelled Gab because a verified, active user murdered 11 people and injured 6 others in a synagogue shooting. The same user constantly posted neo-Nazi and anti-semitic hate speech.
"Thought-crime" is a bit too charitable for a neo-Nazi murderer, don't you think?
Before you argue that Gab did nothing wrong — 100% they did. They gave the shooter a platform and credibility for ideas that should have died with WWII.
No, PayPal cancelled Gab because a verified, active user murdered 11 people and injured 6 others in a synagogue shooting. The same user constantly posted neo-Nazi and anti-semitic hate speech.
"Thought-crime" is a bit too charitable for a neo-Nazi murderer, don't you think?
Before you argue that Gab did nothing wrong — 100% they did. They gave the shooter a platform and credibility for ideas that should have died with WWII.