Live data from Hacker News

Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

threadreaderapp.com

201–210 of 272 posts

Re: Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

#201
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Bitcoin is not backed by government force, then why is it worth anything? > Because no one can be compelled to accept Bitcoin to extinguish my debts to them (i.e. by the courts) and I can't pay my taxes in Bitcoin to my local government (no, "just-in-time currency exchange doesn't count). Imagine that! People are willing to accept my bitcoin as a payment for their services voluntarily , and not because they are…

Unless the electricity company accepts Bitcoin, then you've got a problem. In fact you have a problem even if they did - because the hard-cap on the number of Bitcoins means eventually, every Bitcoin will be held by the electricity company. In fact it's worse then that - since the value of early Bitcoins is less then the value of later Bitcoins, but all Bitcoins are going up in buying power, the electricity company i…

The electricity company has bills to pay. If some company can find a way to make unlimited energy without expending resources, then yes, they will become the richest entity in the world, regardless of the presence of Bitcoin or not.

Your assumptions are all resting on the idea that Bitcoin can't be used to pay taxes. This is already pretty flawed in a few places where it is possible. It will be flawed in many places fairly soon, because governments don't want to miss the boat either.

But Bitcoin maximalists don't actually care about this government thing. They would rather it collapse in on itself so that they can instead spend their money with businesses which make much better use of it than politicians.

For that reason, there is a demand for Bitcoin, and while the demand exists, people are willing to pay more to acquire it. At this point, they have to pay more because they're buying from a market with reduced liquidity, largely because existing hodlers would rather keep hold of it because they're pretty confident it will continue to appreciate in value over time.

And in the current world, where the government sanctioned financial services (paypal, mastercard etc) are actively unpersoning people for having unorthodox political views, there is clearly a growing market for an alternative financial instrument which this cartel does not control.

Re: Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding that a full sync in Bitcoin means something different than a full sync on Ethereum. Bitcoin's database is modeled on UTXO ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspent_transaction_output ) therefore all clients need to validate all transactions from genesis to calculate final balances. Meanwhile, Ethereum is account based and state is global, and to determine the balances you only need to check the merkl…

Bitcoin nodes could download the most recent UTXO index too. Validating the entire history is necessary in both if you want to trust nothing except the client code you're given. An archival node in Ethereum goes beyond a full node, and stores data not needed to do full validation. A full node in Ethereum needs to download about 80 GB I believe, which is a tenth of what an archival node needs to download and store.

archival node doesn't need to download anything extra. It just reconstructs everything just from the blocks.

Re: Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

#203
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes me about a day to sync parity on a consumer desktop with an ssd and a 7 year old i5 Intel cpu

I guess you're not doing a full sync. Here's an example of a person trying to do it: https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/37348/parity-fu...

Ssd is needed (or enough ram) due to random access of state. See my reddit post from a year ago, full sync took 25 hours: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/7n4v64/correcting...

There's a lot of misinformation, some originating due to genuine problems (trying to use a hdd or geth with barely working garbage collector) and misunderstandings, some from intentional lies (especially two r/bitcoin moderators - thieflar and stopanddecrypt).

Re: Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you're not doing a full sync. Here's an example of a person trying to do it: https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/37348/parity-fu...

An archival node goes beyond a full node and downloads data not needed for full validation.

It doesn't download them, the state history is generated from the blockchain locally. The blockchain itself is 68GB (uncompressed, decimal G)

Re: Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

#205
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the electricity company accepts Bitcoin, then you've got a problem. In fact you have a problem even if they did - because the hard-cap on the number of Bitcoins means eventually, every Bitcoin will be held by the electricity company. In fact it's worse then that - since the value of early Bitcoins is less then the value of later Bitcoins, but all Bitcoins are going up in buying power, the electricity company i…

The electricity company has bills to pay. If some company can find a way to make unlimited energy without expending resources, then yes, they will become the richest entity in the world, regardless of the presence of Bitcoin or not. Your assumptions are all resting on the idea that Bitcoin can't be used to pay taxes. This is already pretty flawed in a few places where it is possible. It will be flawed in many places…

> The electricity company has bills to pay. If some company can find a way to make unlimited energy without expending resources, then yes, they will become the richest entity in the world, regardless of the presence of Bitcoin or not.

There is a finite amount of Bitcoin total by nature of the protocol. The electricity company is vital to Bitcoin being usable since it's a digital currency. The miners might be necessary too, but they need huge amounts of electricity - which if they had to pay in Bitcoin, means they are paying some portion of the dwindling number of Bitcoins to the electricity company. As is every Bitcoin user. And every bit of Bitcoin they get is worth slightly more after they get it then it was when it was paid, so their purchasing power is going up and up and up. You can't even found a new electricity company and try to compete on price, because beyond some point the original buyer can buy your new cheaper electricity without measurably reducing their spending power, and to capture the market they need to somehow not enrich you too much while doing it. And then of course, best case you just have 2 big electricity companies controlling all the wealth forever. Deflationary currencies are bad.

> Your assumptions are all resting on the idea that Bitcoin can't be used to pay taxes. This is already pretty flawed in a few places where it is possible.

"Just in time" Bitcoin -> currency conversions do not count. They don't count because they depend on an exchange rate (and are provided by a private company in all examples). The government's tax office is not accepting Bitcoin - it's letting someone act as a payment provider but the payment provider is still paying them in the local currency (and taxes are being assessed in local currency, not Bitcoin).

If the price of Bitcoin collapses, you'll owe more Bitcoins. If my local currency collapses, I'm still only taxed on the portion of my earnings in that currency.

> But Bitcoin maximalists don't actually care about this government thing.

However governments care a lot if you don't pay your taxes. And the utilities care a lot if you don't pay them.

Re: Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

#206
post #196
post #39

> state channels (ETH’s version of Lightning), but it is unclear whether main-chain issued ERC20 type tokens will be portable to this environment. The Raiden project is the closest thing to Lightning, was recently deployed to the main chain, and explicitly supports any ERC20 token. The article says Plasma is dead because...Peter Todd, a Bitcoin dev, claims they had a similar idea and rejected it? Meanwhile, on Ethere…

People like Tuur are so frustrating, because they complained about ethereum since day one (while lobbing lots of cheap shots at it) and now that it has turned into a big successful project, they are still around and say "see! I was right! It still hasn't cured world hunger!"

What is successful about ethereum? The price?

Re: Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

#207
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Try and be less literal - spending is suppressed. At every point there's an incentive to avoid spending as much as possible, and it's exponentially regressive - with enough wealth, and no investment - your wealth continues to increase beyond the amount you need to spend to survive. If you use the same argument in reverse for an inflationary economy it doesn't add up. The argument would be that everyone would avoid…

> Small amounts of inflation are manageable. The same is true for deflation. Only in the presence of a Reserve Bank, which Bitcoin doesn't have. There's no ability for any authority to increase the number of Bitcoins possible, which means it's permanently deflationary. Inflationary currencies pay interest via Reserve Bank policies in order to be managed. Bitcoin has no such mechanisms, nor can any be implemented. > T…

> Only in the presence of a Reserve Bank, which Bitcoin doesn't have. There's no ability for any authority to increase the number of Bitcoins possible, which means it's permanently deflationary.

Thank god there is no reserve bank. Markets do a far better job than individual people nearly every time.

Eventually, deflation in bitcoin will be very low and will be only down to people losing their private keys. In practice, I think this will become less common as people realize the importance of having redundant and secure storage of keys, perhaps involving several distinct parties.

If the human population begins to shrink, which is expected after a while based on observations from developed economies of reduced birth rates, then eventually bitcoin may have less demand and therefore lose purchasing power. Before then, we will see demand which far outpaces the rate of supply.

> Which is why ICOs are so popular. Why pay tribute to the original Bitcoin miners when you can just become you're own, recognizing that the only thing holding up the value is irrational in the first place (doesn't mean it's not a real way to get people to part with their money).

Yes, people want to get rich, and ICOs will continue to be a think for as long as people get away with it. I think many people have begun to realize the nature of them though, because they've had their gambles and been left holding useless bags. Some get rich, some lose money. You can't prevent greed, nor stupidity. Some people don't learn after repeated failure, as we see with gambling addicts all over. Those are fine, because they're throwing away their money at government sanctioned businesses. (Unlicensed gambling not OK of course!)

The desire to get rich is not the only usecase for bitcoin though - it is just a particularly prevalent attitude towards the currency because most people do not understand austrian economics and its practical use as a medium to enable free trade in a way that existing currencies do not.

Bitcoin also enables an economy of microtransactions which were previously not possible. People will be able to pay per article they read, per video they watch, in real time.

> Deflationary currency means the currency is worth more against everything in the economy with each passing day. So not only will I not buy a computer with it, I will also not put it in a bank (why risk it?), not buy stocks, bonds, or even really loan it to anyone. In fact the right thing to do (if there was anything pinning it's value) would be to first spend all my non-Bitcoin money on necessities, and acquire and sit on, in offline wallets, as much Bitcoin as possible. But Bitcoin is a currency - to even be useful people have to actually use it.

People will use Bitcoin when they want goods or services from people who accept it. They'll also hodl it, because most of them have a low time preference. Also, given they hold both bitcoin and fiat, they will typically spend the fiat before digging into their Bitcoin. This is Gresham's Law - bitcoin is the better money.

As I've mentioned. People will still pay for goods and services which are useful and valuable to them. They will be more reluctant to spend if deflation is high. If deflation is low, they will probably not pay much attention similar to how people generally pay little attention to low inflation.

Bitcoin is currently volatile and moving between inflation and deflation. It is inflationary when demand is not meeting the supply, which is still increasing. It is deflationary when demand exceeds the rate of supply, as was the case throughout 2017. We will see many more such cycles, because the demand for economic freedom exists, and other currencies are not able to provide a solution to it.

> So why don't people do this? For the aforementioned reasons - no one can actually require me to hold Bitcoin to pay taxes or extinguish debts. So just sitting on it is foolish since there's no real way to predict when the irrational market will end - except over the long term, I do know the price must crash since every Bitcoin market participant must eventually cash-out to pay taxes and electricity bills and what have you. So in fact there's nothing holding it up. The only actual reason anyone has to hold Bitcoins is when they get ramsomware'd.

It is that nobody is requiring you to hold bitcoin which is its main selling point. It is voluntary. There is a high demand for voluntary trade, and it is not being provided by governments. This might be mainly black markets or grey markets right now, but those terms are whatever the government wants to label them, which changes all the time. This can be seen for example in Toronto, where not long ago, the narrative was "drugs are bad." Now it's "cannabis good!" (As long as you buy it from a licensed seller so we can collect some of the money, and if you dare try to sell it without a license, we'll send in the guns).

People are fed up of being told what they can and can't do. If they want drugs, they'll get drugs, and they'll acquire the currency the drug sellers take if they have to. The same thing applies to many markets which the government does not allow because of stupid laws, or because they hold the monopoly which they can only maintain with the use of force.

Re: Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

#208
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like Tuur are so frustrating, because they complained about ethereum since day one (while lobbing lots of cheap shots at it) and now that it has turned into a big successful project, they are still around and say "see! I was right! It still hasn't cured world hunger!"

What is successful about ethereum? The price?

What metric interests you? Number of stories in mainstream publications? Number of projects based on the tech in corporations? Amount of developer interest? Market cap?

I agree that it is still in need of mainstream use cases, if that is your metric then you can justifiably argue no cryptocurrency is "successful".

Re: Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

#209
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electricity company has bills to pay. If some company can find a way to make unlimited energy without expending resources, then yes, they will become the richest entity in the world, regardless of the presence of Bitcoin or not. Your assumptions are all resting on the idea that Bitcoin can't be used to pay taxes. This is already pretty flawed in a few places where it is possible. It will be flawed in many places…

> The electricity company has bills to pay. If some company can find a way to make unlimited energy without expending resources, then yes, they will become the richest entity in the world, regardless of the presence of Bitcoin or not. There is a finite amount of Bitcoin total by nature of the protocol. The electricity company is vital to Bitcoin being usable since it's a digital currency. The miners might be necessar…

You seem to think that utilities are monopolies (which is partly true in some cases, where they are granted such monopoly entitlements by a government), and they they don't have expenses. They're not at the bottom of the economy. They need to buy fuels, for example: so they spend money with the fuel companies. Well, the fuel company needs to buy ships, drills and whatnot, and pay its workers. They money comes back into the economy at some point.

If electricity providing is such a lucrative business, then there will be an extremely competitive market for providing that service, and no one company is going to be able to charge silly fees because they will make themselves obsolete. It is only through a government granted monopoly that such companies are able to exist.

Governments care that you pay your tax, but their ability to enforce their tax collection relies on violence, and ability to prove the taxes need paying. Bitcoin creates an economy where the latter is more difficult, perhaps impractical with more private technologies.

It might turn out that governments have to move to being more voluntary models of trade, else they might not be able to acquire enough taxes to fund their operations.

Re: Why I’m so “against” Ethereum

#210
post #166

>Ethereum is becoming increasingly centralized. How do people see the forks, the ‘closed’ meetings, the pivots, the obvious influence that a couple devs have over the entire system - and still walk away with any notion there is decentralization?

Because there are several different kinds of decentralization and it's not black and white. Miner decentralization is important is the whole security model relies on nobody controlling >50% of hashrate. Developer centralization is another important point. BTC arguably fails at this when a small group, combined with extensive propaganda campaigns, artificially constrains Bitcoin's throughput. There are no valid argume…

>Developer centralization is another important point. BTC arguably fails at this when a small group, combined with extensive propaganda campaigns, artificially constrains Bitcoin's throughput. There are no valid arguments against raising the blocksize to 2MB for example.

If a handful of people could effectively destroy a “currency” at any point... it’s not decentralized in any sense of the word that is important for trustworthyness or longevity.

A government could crash its own money, but there is a strong incentive to not do that. Bitcoin or Eth has nothing tied to it, it’s entitely at the whim of some programmers who as I understand it, aren’t economics experts.

That’s the point I made above. You want to say the blockchain and hashing is decentralized, great. But when people use that word, they’re talking about (imo) how it’s “safe” to put money into because “no one owns the crypto coin” and if anyone still believes that latter part, well, they probably aren’t paying attention.

Post reply on HN