Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency • Hacker News Board

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#161

Post by furyg3 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 1:07 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #22

0wing wrote: post #12

Bitcoin and blockchain systems are nearly all designed to exploit new users and extract capital from greater fools who are too late to the game and didn't read or understand the rules and fine print. Satoshi's Bitcoin and many of the crypto-currencies that have followed create and distribute the supply that effectively creates a decentralized pyramid-ponzi scheme. Semantically, a more accurate term is needed; Bitcoin…

You seem to be confused. Bitcoin doesn't require buy-in. It doesn't give any promise of a positive return. Simultaneously, you argue that "easy migration to more advanced e-currencies" is a deficiency, even though they use the same scarcity model. The rest of your post is just ranty conjecture. If you want one thought on why digital currency has value, consider this: Currently, to send money between two people in the…

I just sent €3 to a friend at another bank (we're both in the Netherlands). It was there within the hour. It was also free.

If I send €3 worth of bitcoin it would have taken anywhere from 1-6 hours and would have cost me around €20 to process the transaction.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#162

Post by thebokehwokeh2 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

whataretensors wrote: post #108

0wing wrote: post #12

Bitcoin and blockchain systems are nearly all designed to exploit new users and extract capital from greater fools who are too late to the game and didn't read or understand the rules and fine print. Satoshi's Bitcoin and many of the crypto-currencies that have followed create and distribute the supply that effectively creates a decentralized pyramid-ponzi scheme. Semantically, a more accurate term is needed; Bitcoin…

1. Early bitcoin users shoulder more risk than later users. They are rewarded for pushing the blockchain forward. You could argue disproportionately, but the rules are set in stone from the beginning. 3. There are other coins that do not require asics or have as high of energy cost. 5. What exactly is a government going to do? They could perhaps take control of the chain? The cost would be enormous. They could attemp…

> An alternative view is that this is just the free market expressing itself through cryptocurrency

If anything, the bitcoin experiment has shown how easy it is for entities with disproportionate amounts of wealth to completely overwhelm and game a free market.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#163

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 1:33 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #158

ThomPete wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can start as many cryptos currencies as you want you won't be able to get the price of a bitcoin. You can't because they aren't bitcoin. It's not at all like Netflix or a DVD.

All you're saying there is that BTC has first-mover advantage. That can disappear overnight.

No I am saying that bitcoin is bitcoin with it's own unique history and that there only will be a set amount of those bitcoins. That makes it scarce. It's not just first mover advantage it's the advantage of the history and the money now put behind it that makes it valuable.

What you and many other people seem to be confusing is that Bitcoin the protocol isn't what's valuable. It's the ability to turn it into a physical like property.

The value of gold can dissapear too overnight. Same rules apply. Gold can be obsolete and just because it historically have had value does not mean it will always have that.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#164

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 1:34 PM UTC

dullgiulio wrote: post #160

Nursie wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you're saying there is that BTC has first-mover advantage. That can disappear overnight.

Exactly. And also, the investment in ASICs etc is not the same as opening a gold-mine. An ASIC can mine Litecoin or Bitcoin whichever is profitable, a gold-mine cannot start extracting petrol when that is more profitable. That's the intrinsic value of gold.

Again. You can't open a bitcoin mine. You can mine bitcoin but any fork of the bitcoin is not bitcoin anymore.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#165

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 1:34 PM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #156

ThomPete wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could do one better but that would be missing the point. The claim was that gold have intrinsic value and bitcoin doesn't. But to the extent of discussing intrinsic value in economical terms then bitcoin does too. In other words you can't both have your cake and eat it. Either both bitcoin and gold has intrinsic value in economical terms or none of them have in philosophical terms.

That's not true.

What's not true?

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#166

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 1:41 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #163

Nursie wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you're saying there is that BTC has first-mover advantage. That can disappear overnight.

No I am saying that bitcoin is bitcoin with it's own unique history and that there only will be a set amount of those bitcoins. That makes it scarce. It's not just first mover advantage it's the advantage of the history and the money now put behind it that makes it valuable. What you and many other people seem to be confusing is that Bitcoin the protocol isn't what's valuable. It's the ability to turn it into a physi…

It has first mover advantage and a brand name. That's literally all the distinguishes it from clone coins.

There being a set amount is only relevant in that context.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#167

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #166

ThomPete wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I am saying that bitcoin is bitcoin with it's own unique history and that there only will be a set amount of those bitcoins. That makes it scarce. It's not just first mover advantage it's the advantage of the history and the money now put behind it that makes it valuable. What you and many other people seem to be confusing is that Bitcoin the protocol isn't what's valuable. It's the ability to turn it into a physi…

It has first mover advantage and a brand name. That's literally all the distinguishes it from clone coins. There being a set amount is only relevant in that context.

No, it's not all that distinguishes it from clone coins.

Bitcoin has a unique history and a unique set of backers, current and future utility and more trust than any other cryptocurrency.

None of the other coins have that.

Your argument is like saying that the only thing that distinguishes the USD from the drakmar is branding.

There is always a reason why something have a value and people trust it. The value of that trust can appear and disappear from one day to the other with anything we consider valuable, just think of Diamonds as a great example of something that is suddenly worth a lot.

Humans decide the value, the market decides the claimed "intrinsic value" the market have determined the value of bitcoin.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#168

Post by keymone » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 1:59 PM UTC

0wing wrote: post #74

erentz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you and the other person mentioning lightning have been downvoted. I’ve noticed increasingly it’s not possible to have reasonable discussion about bitcoin on hacker news. It seems the folks from /r/btc have found this place.

Please explain how the Lightning Network developers solve an unsolved NP-Hard problem in computer science regarding routing? [1] The Lightning Network design is exactly what the first sentence of Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper seeks to avoid - payment processor middlemen. "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a f…

seems like you've heard the term and quickly decided that it describes something unsolvable in principle.

the truth is, that NP-hardness is only true for perfect solution in polynomial time. good-enough solutions can be found in finite time intervals just fine, there are plenty of practical implementations of that.

ever heard of this thing called "delivery companies"? well they solve TSP sub-optimally millions of times every day.

shocker, i know.

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#169

Post by moduspol » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:03 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #7

If you think bitcoin would make a good currency, ask yourself what happens if you have any debts, lease or mortgage denominated in bitcoin. At least hyperinflation wipes out debts, in hyperdeflation some people become millionaires and others owe millions based on whether you had positive or negative money at the start.

> If you think bitcoin would make a good currency, ask yourself what happens if you have any debts, lease or mortgage denominated in bitcoin.

They don't have to be denominated in Bitcoin for Bitcoin to be a successful currency. You could denominate your mortgage in junior cheeseburgers and still pay it off in Bitcoin.

I don't think the long term is Bitcoin. I think the long term is a diverse market of currencies, some of which are deflationary and others which are not. It's not critical that we all decide on one currency and set all the prices based on that, and even if it helps, that currency doesn't have to be Bitcoin.

Twitch, for example, already accepts unrelated gift cards as payment for subscriptions [1]. I think that is more like what we're moving toward.

[1] https://help.twitch.tv/customer/en/portal/articles/2812403-h...

Re: Goldman Sachs Report Explores Use of Bitcoin as Currency

#170

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:06 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #167

Nursie wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has first mover advantage and a brand name. That's literally all the distinguishes it from clone coins. There being a set amount is only relevant in that context.

No, it's not all that distinguishes it from clone coins. Bitcoin has a unique history and a unique set of backers, current and future utility and more trust than any other cryptocurrency. None of the other coins have that. Your argument is like saying that the only thing that distinguishes the USD from the drakmar is branding. There is always a reason why something have a value and people trust it. The value of that…

It has no more utility than a direct clone. None whatsoever. It's a nonsense claim to say it has more than any other - it has less uility than most! Many of the alts added many new capabilities.

The US Dollar is supported by a government that will help adjust supply, interest rates etc to keep its value roughly stable and it's utility in place. By design Bitcoin has none of this stuff.

I'm not making arguments about intrinsic value, I am saying that the value of BTC is built on sand much more than a national currency, and it's limited supply street cred is no sort of guarantee, based as it is on brand.