Live data from Hacker News

Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

columbia.edu

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can buy a coffee with a CC immediately but Bitcoin I need to wait 3 hrs?

You don't need a globally redundant ledger to store your coffee purchases. The benefits of a blockchain over traditional financial systems is borderlessness and censorship resistance. Nobody is stopping you from buying coffee, why would you need a blockchain?

Expand from coffee to hamburgers, to gas station purchases, to groceries, etc, and soon you have ruled out a major percentage of the consumer economy. Not a deal breaker, but lots of hype for crypto is how it can replace fiat transactions wholesale or damn near it.

Re: Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The lightning network has no security (protection against double spend) That's not true. By locking funds into a Lightning Network payment channel you solve the double spend problem _in the channel_ (the person receiving your payment knows that in order for you to double spend the channel, the payment recipient would need to approve the double spend). The risk of being double spent still exists on the underlying blo…

What's a practical use case? It sounds like you have to deposit a balance into a lightning channel, meanwhile wait for the block to be accepted, and once the funds are in the channel any activity still needs to be verified by another block being processed and accepted into the main chain.. This process effectively doubles the required amount of transactions and time spent for the 'lightning' transaction to take place…

In Japan there are cards (and, indeed, your cell phone) that work exactly the same way. Debit cards don't really exist in Japan. Instead you buy a smart card (often the ones used for paying train or bus fares). You put some money on the card using a machine (you insert cash and it encodes the money on the card). Then you can flash the card onto a reader to pay for things (often train or bus fares, but in the past 10 years it has extended to vending machines, convenience stores, etc, etc).

Lightning is exactly the same way. You set up a contract with the payment processor. This requires the transaction to be accepted into a block. Then you make as many smaller transactions (which require no blockchain transactions) with the payment processor as you want. At any time, the payment processor can terminate the contract by cashing in the amount of money you have spent. This requires a transaction to be accepted in the block chain. After that the channel is closed and only the amount spent is transferred (the remaining amount is freed up). If it goes beyond the contract length without the payment processor cashing in, then the contract is cancelled and the total amount is freed up.

So basically it allows you to make many transactions through a payment processor, while only making 2 transactions on the block chain. Anyone can be a payment processor, but the protocol requires the payment processor to have capital equal to the transactions in process (they have to transfer funds to a third party before they get paid -- although they are guaranteed to get paid by the end of the contract).

It's actually a pretty slick protocol. Their website has a video with implementation details that explains exactly how it works: https://lightning.network/

Re: Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

#43

From the conclusion which I thought was really interesting: > Bitcoin is not regulated. It cannot be regulated. There is no need to regulate it because as a system it is committed to the protocol as is and the transaction fees it charges the users are determined by the users independently of the miners’ efforts. > Bitcoin’s design as an economic system is revolutionary and therefore would merit an economist’s attenti…

Bitcoin is not regulated. It cannot be regulated. There is no need to regulate it because as a system it is committed to the protocol as is and the transaction fees it charges the users are determined by the users independently of the miners’ efforts. There's no need to regulate Bitcoin the protocol or software. The gateways, such as the exchanges are more of an essential element in regard to regulatory and economic…

What if I were to tell you, that if bitcoin were to truly succeed, you won't NEED a gateway or exchange. You will just transact in bitcoin.

Re: Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can buy a coffee with a CC immediately but Bitcoin I need to wait 3 hrs?

You don't need a globally redundant ledger to store your coffee purchases. The benefits of a blockchain over traditional financial systems is borderlessness and censorship resistance. Nobody is stopping you from buying coffee, why would you need a blockchain?

> The benefits of a blockchain over traditional financial systems is borderlessness and censorship resistance.

That's a subjective viewpoint. I might just want to earn my salary in Bitcoin and spend it, like a currency.

Re: Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

#45
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Satoshi decided to decrease the amount of rewards as the network grew older and presumably more users would adopt it, why? Mining needed to have a way to incentivize miners before transaction fees were common, and there needed to be a system to get bitcoins out into users' hands to begin with. Once a critical mass of users have bitcoins and transaction fees support mining, there's less reason to continue minting new…

There was no "getting bitcoins out into user's hands" other then Satoshi and the small group of minters who generated the majority of early coins. It was designed to exploit late adopters, more so when the published price is controlled by only a few unregulated black box exchange "markets". If you look at the coin supply minted over time, in the first year ~3,000,000 coins were minted, 1/7th the total supply minted t…

The early adopters also took an extraordinary RISK in buying the coins, or spending the money mining them.

Bitcoin being mainstream and safe is a very new thing. I remember just a couple years, everyone was freaking out because they were worried that China was going to ban bitcoin.

And years before that, the worry was that the US, or whoever, would try to force AML regulations onto it.

And a couple years before THAT the worry was that the US would do all of that AND arrest everyone involved in the system, and send them to jail for facilitating money laundering.

Being involved in bitcoin was a risk for early adopters, and that risk was rewarded.

Re: Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

#46
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is mostly correct, but I see it a bit differently. This initial wave of speculation is slowly building up network utility. Use cases like micro-transactions or Web payments become more and more viable as the network size grows. Eventually enough people own Bitcoin that it makes sense for it to be baked into a browser for micropayments, and for it to be used in lieu of Venmo/PayPal. Speculation is the boo…

I don't need to own bitcoin to carry out a transaction with it for longer then a few minutes. With a global cap of soon to be 28 transactions a second Bitcoin will never be competitive with Visa.

The capacity for large volume ("real life scale") of transactions with reasonable verification latency is something that I have always seen as the real blocker with Bitcoin. I continue to be slightly surprised that the issue isn't covered more actively.

Re: Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

#47
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's unlikely. Bitcoin cash isn't accepted anywhere yet, and unlike Bitcoin it does not have Segwit, and thus no layer2/lightning network support. It's 8MB blocks only up the on-chain scaling from like 3 tx/sec to ~20tx/sec. That's a negligible difference when compared to credit cards, paypal, etc. Bitcoin will only ever reach that kind of capacity with 2nd layer lightning network, or something like it.

When will btc adopt lightning?

Segwit was just activated on Bitcoin around two weeks ago. Among other things, segwit includes a fix for txn malleability needed to facilitate a lightning network implementation on bitcoin. The lightning network alpha release has been implemented on Litecoin, and has been on the Bitcoin testnet since the beginning of the year. My guess is it will go live before the end of the year, and adoption will ramp up next year.

Re: Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

#48
post #5

That is a very 2015 view - now days people don't buy bitcoin for its use in transactions, they buy bitcoin because it keeps going up. The more it goes up the less people are likely to spend it. We don't need many miners if people never spend it. Here is one high profile example http://avc.com/2017/08/store-of-value-vs-payment-system/ (of course when it starts to go back to zero people will all try to sell and the inf…

It's not quite like that. The number of transactions on the network has been steadily increasing because there are plenty of reasons to do your shopping in bitcoin, as 140 million Americans will find out after the Equifax hack.

Re: Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no "getting bitcoins out into user's hands" other then Satoshi and the small group of minters who generated the majority of early coins. It was designed to exploit late adopters, more so when the published price is controlled by only a few unregulated black box exchange "markets". If you look at the coin supply minted over time, in the first year ~3,000,000 coins were minted, 1/7th the total supply minted t…

The early adopters also took an extraordinary RISK in buying the coins, or spending the money mining them. Bitcoin being mainstream and safe is a very new thing. I remember just a couple years, everyone was freaking out because they were worried that China was going to ban bitcoin. And years before that, the worry was that the US, or whoever, would try to force AML regulations onto it. And a couple years before THAT…

Risk and reward should be in balance if you want to see Bitcoin as the type of currency people would actually use as a significant part of their economy. The first miners may have risked some (real) money, but that is nothing compared to the massive wealth¹ they would hold if Bitcoin ever did supplant local currencies — even if people used it just for coffee.

The amount of (untaxed!) wealth owned by those early miners would dwarf that of Gates and Buffet. That kind of Ayn Rand level of capitalism doesn't seem to agree with most people — although it does seem palatable amongst Bitcoin aficionados.

1: https://cointelegraph.com/news/who-owns-bitcoin-universe-fro...

Re: Monopoly Without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin System [pdf]

#50
post #17

This paper mainly focuses on the miner-transaction fee-protocol economics, completely neglecting the real world economic interactions and history of BTC. Satoshi's core design of bitcoin minting favored early adopters to mint coins at extremely low cost and processing power, this is why someone traded 10,000 bitcoins for two pizzas because it took no effort to generate those early on. Satoshi decided to decrease the…

>Satoshi decided to decrease the amount of rewards as the network grew older and presumably more users would adopt it, why? Mining needed to have a way to incentivize miners before transaction fees were common, and there needed to be a system to get bitcoins out into users' hands to begin with. Once a critical mass of users have bitcoins and transaction fees support mining, there's less reason to continue minting new…

If no Bitcoin is being minted and a certain amount is lost every year to burn addresses or mistakes, it stands to reason that at some point the amount Bitcoin in circulation would approach zero. A hacker group could grind the economy to a halt by gaining control of people's wallets and burning money, creating much larger deflation than what is caused by the economy growing.

On the other hand, as far as I understand there is a huge number of inactive coins that no-one knows whether they've been lost or not. If those coins start moving it would effectively create a large inflationary pressure.

Post reply on HN