Earlier quoted context omitted.
If authoritarian governments can monitor and track the transactions, then arrest those people who make transactions that the government considers illegal, it seems pretty censorable.
There are ways to avoid your transactions being tracked. Coinjoin transactions, purchasing a miner for non-kyc bitcoin, payments on the lightning network, etc
Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?
31–40 of 151 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?
#32The reason is because the real things that are happening in the cryptocurrency space are overwhelmingly negative. People are getting their wallets hacked, losing their savings by investing in pump-and-dump schemes, using "custodial" crypto wallets that defeat the whole purpose of crypto, raising "ICOs" that skirt securities laws, starting underground markets that sell heroin and guns, quitting their jobs to make a li…
I think these hardships are the exact indicators of a dynamic new frontier. Apply caution, yes, but ignoring it might not be a good strategy either.
Re: Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?
#33Many of us were excited when bitcoin came out, about both the technology, and the concept of a currency that sovereigns can't control. The problem is, blockchain / cryptocurrency failed to deliver in any practical way, and as a concept was hijacked by scammers, so the only real hype now is from people trying to bypass securities laws so they can scam you. Find a way I can actually electronically teleport money to pay…
Indeed using Bitcoin for payment does not seem a good fit. However, Bitcoin could be viewed as the world reserve currency that is impossible to debase. This can give stability to all other currencies that are based on it. I think that would be a good thing. It would reduce governments' ability to deficit spend, thus reduce the likelihood of financing armies that can be used for aggression... It would not eliminate wa…
I wish I could agree, as someone who remains eternally hopeful for crypto. Unfortunately, it's almost certainly not the case.
When half a billion dollars goes missing from the US banking system, we can follow the paper trail every time. Criminals never cash out at that scale, especially when they wire money digitally. There's always an account to find, a wire transfer to track, or another bank to contact. The centralization is their saving grace against these scams. When half a billion dollars goes missing from a DAO or someone's cold wallet, they're fucked. Those coins get tumbled and are almost certainly never seen again. The bad guys win every time, which makes it highly unattractive for any investment at scale.
Which raises the ultimatum of Bitcoin, and cryptocurrency as a whole: to hold, or not to hold? That is the question. Custody is the bottom line here, and there's no easy answer. The public will always prefer to have someone else manage their account, which removes their agency and increases the capability of private parties debasing the asset. The higher the demand, the further the centralization progresses. Unfortunately, that demand is nearly unlimited and the benefits of managing your own wallet are slim compared to the work and upfront knowledge it requires.
> It would reduce governments' ability to deficit spend, thus reduce the likelihood of financing armies that can be used for aggression... It would not eliminate wars entirely, but would make financing them very difficult.
This is completely false. There is not a single first-world country that would base the value of their currency on crypto, and having cryptocurrency exist as an independent fiat makes it extraordinarily easy to fund combat. Terrorist organizations could accept donations via untraceable coins and cash out anonymously. Extremist sects could fund themselves privately without scrutiny. Even in your idyllic example, it would only embolden countries like Russia to pillage their neighbors since they don't need to worry about the consequences of financial sanctions, being cut off from the world's banking system, or even worrying about the value of their own currency.
If anything, the world embracing crypto all at once would escalate the financing of combat to unconscionable heights.
Re: Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are ways to avoid your transactions being tracked. Coinjoin transactions, purchasing a miner for non-kyc bitcoin, payments on the lightning network, etc
I can't imagine a quicker way to get on a government watch list than to participate in a Bitcoin mixer. How do you ensure Coinjoin isn't secrely being ran by your authoritarian government?
Re: Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?
#35There are two major issues with Bitcoin for me. First, crypto is always broken eventually. We have seen the deprecation of crypto algorithms time and again. Why should we assume Bitcoin is immune to this phenomenon? It's a high-value target and it could literally become valueless in an instant. Second, the changing climate is one of the most pressing matters of our time. Bitcoin is absolutely not helping there.
For expected deprecations as technology progresses, it should be relatively easy to change algorithms and then fork the blockchain onto the new system, simultaneously phasing out the current one.
Re: Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't imagine a quicker way to get on a government watch list than to participate in a Bitcoin mixer. How do you ensure Coinjoin isn't secrely being ran by your authoritarian government?
You can use a protocol that doesn't allow for a centralized coordinator with insight into the coin paths, like samourai whirlpool. It could potentially be logging ip's but can be accessed through vpn/tor
Re: Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed using Bitcoin for payment does not seem a good fit. However, Bitcoin could be viewed as the world reserve currency that is impossible to debase. This can give stability to all other currencies that are based on it. I think that would be a good thing. It would reduce governments' ability to deficit spend, thus reduce the likelihood of financing armies that can be used for aggression... It would not eliminate wa…
> I hold that Bitcoin is not the cause of the scams. I wish I could agree, as someone who remains eternally hopeful for crypto. Unfortunately, it's almost certainly not the case. When half a billion dollars goes missing from the US banking system, we can follow the paper trail every time. Criminals never cash out at that scale, especially when they wire money digitally. There's always an account to find, a wire trans…
Re: Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?
#38>I believe that Bitcoin will have an important (and positive) future in our lives. Can you elaborate how? From my point of view, the reason the general tech community despises crypto is precisely because of that; every now and then someone shows up saying that the tech is important and positive, yet none of them can come up with a single valid reason why. For people who are outside of it, the answer to why this is th…
I think the biggest 'positive' is that the government in control of the currency is unable to alter the value of it. It is clear that inflation is bad for the citizenry, yet that has been done throughout the ages by every dying civilization. I'm simply looking/hoping for a mechanism to stop it. It would be a 'positive' for you too! Is Bitcoin the ultimate answer? I can't say, but it is a good first step.
No. It is clear that both hyper-inflation and deflation are bad for the citizenry. However, modest inflation is generally a net positive.
"yet [inflation] has been done throughout the ages by every dying civilization." Do you have any real data for this? Sounds like bullshit to me.
Also, it seems preferable that government be in control of the currency rather than random speculators. Controlling the currency can be a useful tool if used responsibly. If you have bad government, then bitcoin isn't going to save you.
Re: Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?
#39It's hard to see Bitcoin's value proposition when you live a life of financial privilege. Bitcoin's value proposition is this: censorship-resistant money. If you don't care about being censored, you won't see the value proposition. If civil asset forfeiture seems like no big deal, then Bitcoin will seem dumb. If routing literally every payment you make through a surveillance apparatus seems fine then Bitcoin makes no…
This is pretty much exactly what BTC is too and in some senses is way worse, people only need to find a way to associate wallet addresses with identity and all your financials are open to them.
There are of course options that truly do solve the censorship issue, like Monero.
Re: Ask HN: Why do negative crypto articles dominate on HN?
#40Many of us were excited when bitcoin came out, about both the technology, and the concept of a currency that sovereigns can't control. The problem is, blockchain / cryptocurrency failed to deliver in any practical way, and as a concept was hijacked by scammers, so the only real hype now is from people trying to bypass securities laws so they can scam you. Find a way I can actually electronically teleport money to pay…
I think it's more that it's delivering in a practical way to people that live in authoritarian governments with currencies that are more unstable than bitcoin. In places where the citizens have to deal with their governments literally trying to steal their hard assets. For those of us who live in countries with a good banking system and mostly stable currencies (which is most of hn), bitcoin isn't a necessity.
When a government is able to engage in financial retribution against its critics, its own citizenry, Bitcoin might be necessary.