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

A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 839 posts

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#791

Post by SilasX »

intelliderp wrote: post #202
ckastner wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a long way of asking: do you want cryptocurrency to succeed if you knew that you could not profit from it doing so? That is a brilliant question! Instead of all the endless bickering between crypto-fans and -haters reaching from technology to fiscal policy to society, it reduces the conflict to one simple test, as a sort of precondition. Anecdata, but just going through my set of acquaintances, personal pro…

For me it's like asking, would you want Amazon to succeed if you did not profit from it?* Obviously, if I am not personally invested in Amazon, I don't really care that much. But it still could have value for society for other reasons than getting rich off of speculating. For example: https://www.coindesk.com/crypto-gaza-west-bank-bitcoin-pales... * To those people who say, "You can't compare crypto to a company beca…

To answer both questions:

1) I would want Amazon-like businesses to succeed -- in the sense of "someone who finds a sustainable way cut the fat out of retailing" -- even if I could not profit as a shareholder. But I still think I would benefit (as a buyer) from that success.

2) I would want decentralized, arbitrary-money-printing-proof cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin to exist as a shield against governments that inflate away their money (like Venezuela or Zimbabwe) or abuse their central bank status for bailouts (in the first world), even if I could not profit as a holder (sorry, HODLer) of the currency. But I still think I would personally benefit as a prudent saver and (non-politically-connected) investor.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#793

Post by chrisco255 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #726
GrumpyNl wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTC will always be banana money.

I disagree, one day it will be a footnote in a history book about banana money. Sooner than some think.

Let's add this to the list of Bitcoin obituaries that countless people have declared over the past 9 years. Every year that goes on and the network is still kicking is just building its base value. Bitcoin network will out live Hacker News.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#794

Post by chrisco255 »

malloreon wrote: post #16

I have long wondered how cryptocurrency fans would answer the question: ‘Would you be happy if the crypto-utopia you bring up happens in the next 10 years, and all value is stored/transacted through a cryptocurrency, but it was a coin that you do not possess now, nor could you transfer any of you current currencies into it?’ Say tomorrow someone releases the one true coin, but no one notices. All other cryptocurrenci…

Absolutely. When I first read about Bitcoin back in 2010 I loved the concept but didn't buy in until 2013. I've happily supported and followed other crypto projects. I've bought into about 5 but follow about 10-15 of them closely.

An overnight crypto miracle won't happen, by the way. Money is too important and requires too much trust for an overnight success to occur.

Every year that the BTC network runs without a major exploit, is another year of confidence in the network protocol's security. Unlike some software categories that are prone to rapid disruption, money is not one of those things.

Disruption occurs a lot slower for very important reasons. People have to trust in a crypto currency in order to store value in it and exchange value for it. That takes time, to test in production if any major exploits exist.

It's not trivial what Bitcoin has accomplished this far.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#795

Post by ecwilson »

tluyben2 wrote: post #656
orthecreedence wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can memorize 20 words and cross whatever border I want with $100 million in my brain, and full confidence that that money is mine. That's pretty damn cool. No, you can have 30K BTC in your brain, but unfortunately the USD value fluctuates so wildly that as a store of value, it's useless. > It sounds like you're projecting what you think Bitcoin should be. Probably, yes. Bitcoin is a failed project. It spawned man…

> No, you can have 30K BTC in your brain, but unfortunately the USD value fluctuates so wildly that as a store of value, it's useless. Yes, for those amounts. But for several purposes, unfortunately most of them 'evil' (money laundering / terrorism), this works fine. I know it's used a lot for people in countries where getting currency out above a certain threshold is very hard unless you are at the highest level of…

And when the internet was first a thing, shortly after, most traffic was porn, until fairly recently porn was surpassed by social media. And since then, there have been world changing social movements enabled by the internet, and the exposure of horrible abuses (police, clergy, dictators).

Tomorrow, who knows. if North Korea or Russia or China turn half of the US into a nuclear wasteland, the banks are unlikely to function very well for those who remain. There are hundreds of such scenarios that could play out in the next 50 years -- Bitcoin is a great disaster hedge, if nothing else. Everyone should have 1% of their portfolio be crypto, IMO.

The criticisms of its fluctuation are valid, but like you said, there are plenty of people today for whom the fluctuations are tolerable for their use case. As the fluctuations get less, it will become tolerable for even more.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#796

Post by ecwilson »

briatx wrote: post #651
tomglynch wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, you can have 30K BTC in your brain, but unfortunately the USD value fluctuates so wildly that as a store of value, it's useless. From an outside perspective, I don't think it's worth continuing the discussion as is. Perhaps you should both come back in a few hours when everyone is a bit calmer.

> No, you can have 30K BTC in your brain, but unfortunately the USD value fluctuates so wildly that as a store of value, it's useless. No, this is an important distinction. Bitcoin isn't liquid enough to count as actual money and proponents of the idea that sending bitcoin is the same as sending money are glossing over the cost to buy bitcoin, and the cost of transferring it back to actual money on the other side. Ha…

You can exchange 30k bitcoin with less slippage than you think OTC.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#797

Post by tim333 »

whytaka wrote: post #9
akerro wrote: post #4

There are a few cryptocurrencies out there on market and usable with big communities that use 99% less energy and data that bitcoin

I should do my own research but I’d appreciate if you can name a few of them.

The biggest on coinmarketcap that are not proof of work:

XRP, EOS, Tether, Stellar, Tron, Cardano.

All with >$1bn cap.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#798

Post by Nursie »

naasking wrote: post #779
Nursie wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently? No I don't believe that this infrastructure comes close to providing the functions of the financial industry, and as such the energy comparison are completely spurious. The smart contracts languages can have whatever intent they like, the fact is that comparing the power use of a full financial system to something which is effectively operating as a bad payment processor is so wrong it's funny.

You seem to be missing the fact that the infrastructure in place is sufficient to not only specify but also enforce the properties needed for all the functions you describe. So while you call the comparison spurious, the fact is that no additional energy would be required to achieve the functions you think are missing. So the comparison is not as spurious as you imply.

> So while you call the comparison spurious, the fact is that no additional energy would be required to achieve the functions you think are missing.

Really, none at all to, for instance, provide physical cash? A function of current financial systems and in some countries commercial banks?

Interesting.

No more to run mobile phone wallet apps?

No more to run PoS systems?

No offices full of traders?

No helplines, advisors or support for customers?

No teams of developers puttig together trading strategies and algorithms, and building smart contracts?

No datacenters opportunistically precalculating smart-contract outcomes to try to get ahead of the market?

You're once again only looking at a tiny part of a system, and comparing it to something much more complex.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#799

Post by darkpuma »

topmonk wrote: post #699
darkpuma wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're supposing the government doesn't know you bought those bitcoins (or at the least doesn't know that you are somehow hiding a lot of money without knowing the details) and isn't willing to beat it out of you. Most cryptoanarchists are deluded nerds who would fold in less than 5 minutes of waterboarding. Do you think these thugs who are willing to look up your ass for a few pieces of gold aren't willing to violat…

Tell me how anything you just said shows how it could be easier to smuggle physical currency out of the country than digital currency, which was the point that I was refuting.

> it could be easier to smuggle physical currency out of the country than digital currency, which was the point that I was refuting.

Then you were refuting a position I never espoused. My point wasn't that gold is easier to exfiltrate, but rather that BTC isn't necessarily easier to get out. If the border agents of the tyrannical government you're fleeing know you to have wealth, and are informed about bitcoin, they have many options available to them to prevent you from leaving with your wealth, including simply forbidding you from leaving at all. At that point, you'll have to smuggle your body out, so smuggling a few pieces of gold along with your body isn't a huge inconvenience.

If on the other hand the border agents don't know that you're trying to smuggle wealth out of the country, then it shouldn't be to hard to get through the border no matter what method you choose.

The one scenario in which BTC seems clearly superior is when the border guards are simultaneously alert but ignorant. Looking very carefully for money, but totally oblivious to the possibility of BTC. This might work during the present, but don't count on this remaining true forever. If enough people start using BTC for this, tyrannical governments will wisen up pretty quick.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#800

Post by Nursie »

keymone wrote: post #780
Nursie wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nope, you're the one talking nonsense. when your bank tells you you have $100 on your account - it's a lie, all you have is a record in a database and never actual $100 in a safe to back that up. Don't care. > all you have is trust that the bank will provide you $100 when you ask for it. Yup, turns out this trust is pretty good, it's backed up by all sorts of regulations and insurance, all sorts of protections and…

> When I have $100 in my wallet, I actually have $100 yeah, tell that to Venezuelans. > You completely fail to address the point - when making a transaction, removing the bank from the picture actually hurts purchasers and demands far more trust. that wasn't actually the point, or at least was completely off target, but sure, i can address it - banks are providing some useful services, banks won't stop providing thos…

>yeah, tell that to Venezuelans

Or BTC hodlers who've seen an 80% crash, perhaps.

> banks are providing some useful services, banks won't stop providing those services on top of cryptocurrencies

Then they, and I, have no incentive to use cryptocurrency.

>finally, if you're fine trusting politicians to run your financial system and regularly screw you up with inflation, financial meltdowns, bankruptcies, etc

So far the current sytems in western democracies have outperformed any other system, ever. Further, having a centrally controlled currency is a good thing, yes, it allows monetary supply to be altered and manipulated to support the economy. Unlike, say, gold, which turned out to be a bad choice for a currency.

I'd far rather have monetary policy set by a government, or a quasi-independent entity like the Bank of England, than by some geeks and a bunch of miners.

> claim nothing should be attempted to fix ...

Your 'fix' doesn't actually fix anything and it makes a lot of things worse. That's why you get called on it.

Post reply on HN