Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s New Cryptocurrency Gets Big Backers

wsj.com

171–180 of 277 posts

Re: Facebook’s New Cryptocurrency Gets Big Backers

#171
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? You should. Bitcoin offers a public audit trail less commonly known as triple-entry bookkeeping or momentum accounting. Chase still uses double entry. What's more Chase charges $25 per month to keep an open checking account, keeps only a small portion of your funds on hand and may both lock you out of your account and freeze your funds on a whim whereas Bitcoin won't.

Having a bank also means having security, reversibility and a whole host of other great things. Bitcoin cannot compete on this.

Cash can't do those things either. It would be relatively easy to have a regulated bitcoin bank that offers such services. Coinbase is heading that way.

Re: Facebook’s New Cryptocurrency Gets Big Backers

#172
post #122
post #102

> It has been a decade since bitcoin was born, yet consumers hardly use it—or the hundreds of other cryptocurrencies—to pay for things. And why would they? Adding two extra steps to paying someone -- the buyer converting local currency to bitcoin, and then the seller converting bitcoin to local currency -- can never compete with just transferring local currency directly. Cryptocurrency was meant to be much more than…

As someone with a split existence between North America and the Euro Zone, I was sincerely hoping that cryptocurrency would at a minimum be a reliable medium of exchange: i.e. a way to convert dollars into euros and vice-versa in a matter of minutes with very low fees. I never needed it to be an investment vehicle. Unfortunately, bitcoin's utility in that respect seems to have gotten worse since I was playing around…

> As someone with a split existence between North America and the Euro Zone, I was sincerely hoping that cryptocurrency would at a minimum be a reliable medium of exchange: i.e. a way to convert dollars into euros and vice-versa in a matter of minutes with very low fees.

You're not looking for a new currency, you're looking for a regular currency exchange. Whatever fees your currency exchange charges for going from EUR to USD (and back) can only increase if you need to involve another exchange (for the bitcoin-conversion).

Re: Facebook’s New Cryptocurrency Gets Big Backers

#173

If Facebook can pull this off they will have brought about the first universal internet currency, which would be a stunning achievement and could revolutionalize the web as we know it. Failed projects give us some idea of what their challenges will be. Cryptocurrencies right now have a trade off between scalability and decentralization. Bitcoin is theoretically decentralized even though the reality is more complex. B…

The choice of consensus algorithm (PoW/PoS) has nothing to do with scalability (tx/s)

The computational complexity per transaction does not affect the number of transactions.... wow.

Re: Facebook’s New Cryptocurrency Gets Big Backers

#174

This is good for the ecosystem. Next phase would be a crypto backed by government(s).

If govts actually introduced crypto, it would be completely isolated from existing ecosystems. Unlike other players, govts. (western specifically) have a mandate to protect user privacy on their systems.

Re: Facebook’s New Cryptocurrency Gets Big Backers

#175

Everyone here is debating is it crypot or not... but does it matter? it's Facebook after all, we are (the typical techy user) not the target audience. Unfortunately, it's going to sell just because it's the big old facebook, your non-techy friend probably don't know the difference between crypto and food stamps all they know it's points for money, one is a boring piece of paper and the other is cool futuristic out of…

Didn't Facebook try something like this years and years ago in the form of Facebook credits, going so far as to even disallowing apps from having their own currency?

I wonder how this is different, besides the whole "blockchain" bit, because otherwise it's just a rehashed idea with makeup on it.

Re: Facebook’s New Cryptocurrency Gets Big Backers

#176
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what anyone in the space calls centralized. It's actually called "decentralized" by everyone because the way this consensus is kept and changed happens decentralized (to some degree). Right now it seems: If you don't have central consensus you can't have digital currency. Since everybody needs to be on the same line regards to who owns what. This is different from cash in the current world. Where nobody ne…

They are calling it decentralised but it really isn't. Transactions with physical cash are fully decentralised, anonymous (save for finger prints etc.) and asynchronous. In terms of convenience credit cards, apple pay and PayPal are hard to beat. I do not know of a single use case for consumer facing crypto currencies that is compelling to me.

> I do not know of a single use case for consumer facing crypto currencies that is compelling to me.

Try buying something you are not allowed to buy. Personally I use it a lot while traveling abroad.

Re: Facebook’s New Cryptocurrency Gets Big Backers

#178
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what anyone in the space calls centralized. It's actually called "decentralized" by everyone because the way this consensus is kept and changed happens decentralized (to some degree). Right now it seems: If you don't have central consensus you can't have digital currency. Since everybody needs to be on the same line regards to who owns what. This is different from cash in the current world. Where nobody ne…

I agree that "global" would be a better word than "central", but that doesn't really affect treelovinhippie's point. > If you don't have central consensus you can't have digital currency. From what I can tell, the Holochain developers agree with this: you can't have a single global currency without global consensus. Their approach seems to be: rather than having a single global currency, have a network of IOUs, trust…

I started reading with that article but it doesn't really seem to answer the questions it's claiming to answer. It's talking about how Bitcoin et al. have a shared consensus that's updated once every 10 minutes, and how everyone needs to validate everything which is inefficient (I agree). But while trying to explain how holochain does it different I don't read how except for insect analogies, for example:

> ## Order of Operation Matters

> It turns out when you focus on distributing process first you end up with even more greatly distributed data. This is because each participant holds only their own data. In contrast, blockchains store everybody’s transactions in a single database that every node verifies and copies. The underlying foundation of distributed process enables deeper distribution of data and parallel architectures. Ethereum and smart contracts, are doing this the other way around — layering processes on top of a global ledger.

> By distributing process at the foundation, and leveraging Intrinsic Data Integrity, our approach results in massive improvements in throughput (from parallel simultaneous independent processing), speed, latency, efficiency, and cost of hardware. There is no need to wait 10 minutes to see if your transaction gets committed. This architecture can facilitate huge volumes of even extremely “low value” transactions permitting creative uses for coordinating shared activities that wouldn’t merit the cost or energy of implementing on a blockchain. You also don’t need to incent people to hold their own record — they already want it.

This is all true but the section heading "order of operation matters" - and how holochain deals with this - is simply not addressed. Given HN is a technical community feel free to link to actual research papers or more technical content that actually explains how Holochain solves the problems. This piece looks like a PR piece to me, one that doesn't really have any answers.

Re: Facebook’s New Cryptocurrency Gets Big Backers

#179
post #114
post #102

> It has been a decade since bitcoin was born, yet consumers hardly use it—or the hundreds of other cryptocurrencies—to pay for things. And why would they? Adding two extra steps to paying someone -- the buyer converting local currency to bitcoin, and then the seller converting bitcoin to local currency -- can never compete with just transferring local currency directly. Cryptocurrency was meant to be much more than…

Arguably there already is a global dollar-denominated credit market, it's just highly intermediated. And the risk history of p2p credit shows why the intermediaries are useful. > in order to earn a low-risk return on their money How does the economics of this work - you're claiming lower risk and higher return, but cryptocurrency does nothing to help with default risk?

> Arguably there already is a global dollar-denominated credit market, it's just highly intermediated.

Correct. However, the fact that the Federal Reserve can underbid everyone (with regards to interest) on short term credit causes a destabilization of interest rates (which is why they've been falling for the past ~40 years). There's no point in saving dollars when you can't protest against a too-low rate of interest -- a bank can always tap into the Fed's credit and underbid you. This can't happen with non-centrally produced money.

So the "killer app" here is money for which no central party can control the interest/discount rate.

> How does the economics of this work - you're claiming lower risk and higher return, but cryptocurrency does nothing to help with default risk?

I'm not claiming lower risk. I'm claiming a higher return by not competing with a party (the Fed) that can always underbid you on short-term credit.

The low risk comes from financing consumer goods in high demand sitting on the shelves of retail stores (ie. Bills of Exchange). Unless people suddenly stop eating food, you ought to get your money back (plus the prevailing discount rate).

Re: Facebook’s New Cryptocurrency Gets Big Backers

#180
post #122
post #102

> It has been a decade since bitcoin was born, yet consumers hardly use it—or the hundreds of other cryptocurrencies—to pay for things. And why would they? Adding two extra steps to paying someone -- the buyer converting local currency to bitcoin, and then the seller converting bitcoin to local currency -- can never compete with just transferring local currency directly. Cryptocurrency was meant to be much more than…

As someone with a split existence between North America and the Euro Zone, I was sincerely hoping that cryptocurrency would at a minimum be a reliable medium of exchange: i.e. a way to convert dollars into euros and vice-versa in a matter of minutes with very low fees. I never needed it to be an investment vehicle. Unfortunately, bitcoin's utility in that respect seems to have gotten worse since I was playing around…

> dollars into euros and vice-versa in a matter of minutes with very low fees

I can do that immediately on one of the challenger bank platforms. And yes, the rates seem to be the same ones as what I used to trade institutional FX.

Post reply on HN