Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fools and their crypto

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 128 posts

Re: Fools and their crypto

#51

Post by csydas »

rootusrootus wrote: post #48
fuddcoinn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all the same laws are applicable and fraud is fraud. what is more interesting is that a variety of traditional control mechanisms appear to be ineffective at stopping the two voluntary parties from interacting whereas for banking and brokerages they are sufficient. I'd hate to see a second useless set of laws be made, similar to "hate crimes" (a crime is a crime - except when you say a certain something or think a ce…

I've never understood the problem some people have with hate crimes. Don't we already have plenty of crimes where the only differentiator is mental state or intent? Hard to see how a hate crime classification is any different than, say, Murder 1 versus Murder 2.

I would assume it's a perceived sense of lack of fairness in the sentencing; to be clear, I share your position on hate crimes. They exist for the same reason that we have both Murder and Manslaughter charges, because our system of law considers intent as part of the sentencing.

But it is not hard to see how some would view such laws as unfair. Intent can be difficult to prove and it requires interpretation; if you believe in clear cut and easily understandable laws, then naturally Hate Crimes and other such laws probably seem like a bad idea, and I get why that is frustrating and even intimidating with how fast gossip can travel. The system itself is built with release valves, but it's likely not much comfort for the wrongly accused.

I think that's a separate problem, however, which is just exacerbated by perceptions of laws like Hate Crimes as opposed to being caused by the laws themselves.

Re: Fools and their crypto

#52

Post by animex »

Thriptic wrote: post #21

I will repeat myself from another ICO thread last week: you cannot have investment vehicles where commiting fraud results in no punishment. It simply doesn't work. Until someone figures out a way to even somewhat integrate ICOs into the existing legal system, this will keep happening. I have proposed one possible solution to this problem here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208325

You know, unless you're Wall Street.

Re: Fools and their crypto

#53

Post by dingaling »

hughperkins wrote: post #43
jimjimjim wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

like when cyber started to become slang for sex while online. it has probably happened through out history where well established names get hijacked when something else get picked up by the general population. e.g. hacker vs cracker. drones (rc helicopters vs pilotless aircraft).

also: broadband. It originally contrasted with narrowband, and they describe modes for propagation of light through fiberglass cables... I thought it was really weird when I heard people on mainstream radio discussing such things. Eventually I realized they were using broadband as a synonym for 'fast internet' :P

> It originally contrasted with narrowband

I agree with your wider point, but the antonym of broadband in networking context is actually baseband.

'Narrowband' is a good example of a word that came into use to fill a perceived gap in the lexicon. A gap which didn't really exist, but the word became more widely used because it was not challenged by people who should know better.

Another example is 'bandwidth' which has so many colloquial meanings now that it is unusable in any general context. It's just a collection of letters that can mean anything you want. Also 'hacker'.

This is not the evolution of languge, it is its destruction. Overloading words with so many contrary or ambiguous meanings that language fails at its primary purpose of conveying meaning and intent.

Re: Fools and their crypto

#55

Post by richardknop »

KasianFranks wrote: post #49
mrep wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name 1 that has used that capital to achieve over 10$ million in profit per year.

It's early days. Think Netscape.

It's not so early. People have been developing apps on top of Bitcoin Blockchain for years now. Ethereum has been almost 2 and half years ago. I am not expecting any unicorns like Google/Facebook but at least couple of dapps with actual customers (e.g. not couple hundred crypto fanatics that sign up to every dapp just to pump the price) that are growing revenue and customer base and seem like a legitimate business.

I've been following crypto space for a long time but can't think of any blockchain app like that. Only money making companies are exchanges which make money from fees because of the mania and all the people trying to flip tokens to make big bucks and quickly sell to other noobs, but exchanges are old fashioned companies with centralised databases and Java/.NET codebase, they are not actual dapps.

Re: Fools and their crypto

#56

Post by richardknop »

KasianFranks wrote: post #4

Separating bad actors and their crypto from good actors and their crypto is where were headed next. Lessons in due diligence apply to crypto just as with any other investment vehicle but it seems many have missed this. The crypto space is being refined, which is a good thing.

According to your profile you are doing a new ICO so obviously you would defend them.

Re: Fools and their crypto

#57

Post by teekert »

animex wrote: post #52
Thriptic wrote: post #21

I will repeat myself from another ICO thread last week: you cannot have investment vehicles where commiting fraud results in no punishment. It simply doesn't work. Until someone figures out a way to even somewhat integrate ICOs into the existing legal system, this will keep happening. I have proposed one possible solution to this problem here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208325

You know, unless you're Wall Street.

Recommended watching: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/

Re: Fools and their crypto

#58

Post by cdancette »

There's a thing that bothers me with ICO, it's when people call it an investment. It has nothing to do with an investment, it's basically a presale for the service that the company will provide.

It offers you nothing of what buying shares of the company will (except when explicitly specified in the token sale) : no dividend, no voting power...

Expecting to earn money by buying tokens in an ICO is pure speculation, as you expect the token to go up. But this goes against the real user's will to use the service: they want a fixed price (who wants to use a service which price changes every day?)

To sum up, buy tokens as you would buy presales in Kickstarter, to support the company, but don't expect to earn money with it if you really it to be a real service / product. And avoid ICO that make you the promise of earning quick money.

Re: Fools and their crypto

#59

Post by marban »

teekert wrote: post #57
animex wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, unless you're Wall Street.

Recommended watching: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/

..."People want an authority to tell them how to value things, but they choose this authority not based on facts or results. They choose it because it feels authoritative and familiar."

Re: Fools and their crypto

#60

Post by ncallaway »

richardknop wrote: post #55
KasianFranks wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's early days. Think Netscape.

It's not so early. People have been developing apps on top of Bitcoin Blockchain for years now. Ethereum has been almost 2 and half years ago. I am not expecting any unicorns like Google/Facebook but at least couple of dapps with actual customers (e.g. not couple hundred crypto fanatics that sign up to every dapp just to pump the price) that are growing revenue and customer base and seem like a legitimate business. I…

Think back to when people had been building websites for 2 years on the internet.

It's still early days. 2 years feels like a long time, but it's not that long.

Post reply on HN