101–110 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you are welcome, but that would be the "ordinary" claim
I assert with exactly as much evidence as you (zero) that it is the extraordinary claim. Show me a so-called "decentralized" coin that is designed to not just be dominated by a handful of miners. It's a natural consequence of proof of work, isn't it? Large-scale miners will always be able to buy electricity for cheaper than your average person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Edit: It was during the Obama administration but implemented by the Fed, which is independent of the White House administration (thank god.)" I was half-listening to Jerome Powell (Fed Chairman) testify before congress today and one congresswoman (CW) asked him (JP) something like: CW: Are there any tools you need that we can give you? JP: No, we have all the tools we need at the moment. CW: Well what about direct…
How did she respond to that last statement? Do you have the transcript?
I think it was probably in the last half of it.
Edit: Found it. Starts at 1:33:45
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Are you aware that all commodities are basically deflation? Do you think it is "evil" to buy commodities? This is all about freedom of choice. If you don't like the properties of certain products, then buy the one that you like. But lots of people would apparently prefer to spend their own money on deflationary assets. Who are you to say it is evil to do this with assets that one owns?
Who are you to police me for saying that it's evil? You're welcome to your opinions, and I'm going to have mine. As you said, freedom of choice. Personally I think that modern fractional reserve banking and the Fed are great, and bitcoin maximalists are overall not very smart.
Instead I was calling your opinion bad and in opposition to free choice.
How is owning crypto any different than just owning a commodity, which can be deflationary?
And why would owning a commodity be "evil"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you are welcome, but that would be the "ordinary" claim
I assert with exactly as much evidence as you (zero) that it is the extraordinary claim. Show me a so-called "decentralized" coin that is designed to not just be dominated by a handful of miners. It's a natural consequence of proof of work, isn't it? Large-scale miners will always be able to buy electricity for cheaper than your average person.
If we define "decentralized" as "the ability to send transactions that are unlikely to be censored", then pretty much all cryptos fulfill this requirement.
Transaction censorship just isn't something that is happening on most cryptos. You can send whatever transactions that you want, and it almost certainly isn't going to be stopped by any centralized parties.
Cryptocurrency and blockchain technology have opened up permissionless innovation in an industry that has been so choked by regulation that previously only the largest, most well-connected players could get in the door: finance. You can, right this second, create a smart contract that allows extremely sophisticated financial instruments and attract real users. The initial shoots of innovation are already happening, such as MakerDao's Collatorized Debt Positions (CDPs)[0] and Compound Finance for money market crypto instruments.[1]
Regulators and governments can stick their fingers in their ears, outlaw the technology, and drive everything offshore or underground. The point is that these technologies are permissionless and unstoppable. As long as the internet exists, you can't eliminate such technology and behavior.
Rather than knee-jerk outlaw progress in the industry by projects such as Libra, governments need to let the industry mature and eventually pass laws that protect consumers without stifling innovation. HN users especially need to embrace their so-called "hacker" roots and stop lobbying for the state to crush such innovative technology in its infancy.
Seriously - the outrage to blockchain and crypto on HN is entirely absurd. This is cool, interesting technology and entrepreneurs should be analyzing it for its disruptive potential rather than whining that there aren't enough licenses and bureaucrats involved.
Posted this in an older Libra hatefest but I'll post it again: Cryptocurrency and blockchain technology have opened up permissionless innovation in an industry that has been so choked by regulation that previously only the largest, most well-connected players could get in the door: finance. You can, right this second, create a smart contract that allows extremely sophisticated financial instruments and attract real u…
The truth is that crypto is very scammy and that its value run-up in 2018 was a massive bubble, but that doesn’t mean the tech behind that bubble is worthless. Anyone who got rich off of crypto essentially got lucky, but that says nothing about how good that technology is or is not. Crypto can be good technology and a bad investment while still allowing risk takers to make millions.
Posted this in an older Libra hatefest but I'll post it again: Cryptocurrency and blockchain technology have opened up permissionless innovation in an industry that has been so choked by regulation that previously only the largest, most well-connected players could get in the door: finance. You can, right this second, create a smart contract that allows extremely sophisticated financial instruments and attract real u…
Personally I think a lot of the hate is because users here knew about the technology early but didn’t invest in any meaningful way. They don’t want to think they made the wrong choice, so they call it a scam or a ponzi scheme to try to justify the decision not to invest. The truth is that crypto is very scammy and that its value run-up in 2018 was a massive bubble, but that doesn’t mean the tech behind that bubble is…
My main concern about libra is that, by being strongly tied to real currencies, libra issuers (not just facebook, all of them) have effectively assumed the role of unsanctioned mints, with the ability to damage the stability of each currency because libra is not tied to the international exchange system: if you pay facebook, or anyone else, $10 and they convert that into libra, now they have $10 that they will absolu…
There's a difference that could be important: Libra is effectively a bank, and like other banks creates money, but the new money is not denominated in dollars, it's in Libra. If American banks create too many dollars, that's a problem for every American, since Americans up to now have been pretty much stuck with using dollars. If Libra mismanages their supply and reserves, the main effect will be on the market price…
(I'm not sure if the plan is that those dollars have to sit in reserve like some gold standard, but presumably eventually the temptation to use a fractional reserve would be too great.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assert with exactly as much evidence as you (zero) that it is the extraordinary claim. Show me a so-called "decentralized" coin that is designed to not just be dominated by a handful of miners. It's a natural consequence of proof of work, isn't it? Large-scale miners will always be able to buy electricity for cheaper than your average person.
Very few crypto currencies are censoring transactions. If we define "decentralized" as "the ability to send transactions that are unlikely to be censored", then pretty much all cryptos fulfill this requirement. Transaction censorship just isn't something that is happening on most cryptos. You can send whatever transactions that you want, and it almost certainly isn't going to be stopped by any centralized parties.
A truly decentralized currency would have built-in protections against any sort of concentration of power, whether it's based on the ability to buy electricity in bulk cheaply or based on the ability to censor transactions. To date no currency is decentralized.