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

What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

coindesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 224 posts

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#101

Post by andrewjl »

DennisP wrote: post #77
slickrick216 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ The question then is whether 7 tx/sec really is sufficient to support broad global adoption, even if it's just for savings. Dollars and physical gold have no such limits.” Yes they do, it takes even longer to move physical dollars or gold around and depending on where and who you are sending them too it might be impossible. Sure in some mainstream cases you can send the digital derivative of gold and dollars to som…

Their latency is high but they are massively parallel. There's no practical limit on global throughput. To get low latency on dollars/gold you have to go with centralized digital representations, but Bitcoin has to do the same to get more than 7 tx/sec. I might still be a fan if that were the only option, but with other blockchains eliminating this restriction I have a hard time seeing the long-term value proposition…

You'd be surprised at the complexity involved moving 1-5MM USD across borders, even those without capital controls. And there is definitely a limit on global throughput of dollar movement, which is roughly the slowest processing rate of all the bank compliance divisions involved in the transfer. For complex cross-border transfers there may be more than 2 banks involved.

Greater amounts still would attract even more scrutiny due to AML and KYC regulations in most jurisdictions.

If you're dealing with capital controls, which many large economies now have, the complexity is exponentially higher. You're also assuming that telecommunications networks, physical infrastructure, particularly power, are in good working order when you want to do the transfer. That may be the case 99.99% of the time, but the edge case should also be a consideration.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#102

Post by trident1000 »

DennisP wrote: post #70
formalsystem wrote: post #24

It's important to remember that the main thing Bitcoin needs to maintain is it's monetary policy and you can find it at any time right here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validatio... Anyone can query at any time the total amount of Bitcoin that have been issued without relying on anyone. After downloading the Bitcoin client just run gettxoutsetinfo You can try to guess how many dollars have been…

The fact that bitcoins can be transferred is the only reason they have value at all. You have to be able to exchange them for something else or they're worthless. The question then is whether 7 tx/sec really is sufficient to support broad global adoption, even if it's just for savings. Dollars and physical gold have no such limits. Other blockchains are vastly expanding scalability, as well as eliminating the energy…

Theres a few issues here. One is that Bitcoin is largely a settling layer where batched transactions occur. Its not 1 transaction per tx even right now. Layer 2 networks of all kinds are handling the vast majority of traffic of bitcoin. More bitcoin moves on the ethereum blockchain than the bitcoin blockchain. And then we get cash app, paypal, the crypto exchanges, etc. Even hardware wallets like Ledger could batch transactions potentially in the future. So bitcoin frequent transactions largely run through top layer systems until its time to settle on the main chain which is infrequent/a small fraction of the total top volume. Also 95% of people who use bitcoin dont even have a hardware wallet, they just use the exchanges...for better or worse. Then you get into things like the lighting network.

As for the Princeton study...Ill have to look at it but I'm skeptical they consider things like more batched transaction volume per tx in the future which could be harnessed to also have a more concentrated fee structure providing stability to the chain. Also changes can be made through consensus if needed...like segwit.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#103

Post by ojnabieoot »

rusk wrote: post #64
ojnabieoot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but if you view it as a savings technology then it's the best one that's ever been created. I am sorry but this is just silly and reckless. Although bitcoin is somewhat less noisy than it used to be, it is still a volatile and extremely high-risk investment. Whatever merit bitcoin might have on the long-term economic fundamentals, right now bitcoin is mostly a speculative instrument, or an investment on computing t…

The price has continuously gone up overall at a rate greater than inflation. Yes if you had bought at a peak you would have lost out alright,but overall it has been steady. That said, yeah it’s probs not a good idea putting all your money in it. Black swans abound with any new technology.

> The price has continuously gone up overall at a rate greater than inflation.

This is true but a) there's no reason to think this will be true for another 10 years, and b) if you had invested in November 2013, you wouldn't have seen a profit until 2017. 4 years of being in the red is a hard pill to swallow if you're not diversified.

Things that might look really bad for months, but work out in the end are better investments than savings. I think it's just silly to pretend Bitcoin is anything but

a) an interesting technology that enables a lot of cool internet finance tech and helps people who live in countries with profoundly unstable economies

b) a risky speculative investment on something that's correlated with the price of CPUs, graphics cards, and electricity, and is prone to major supply shocks

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#104

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

martinko wrote: post #46
ChomskyNormal4m wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> inflation protection and avoiding capital controls are arguably the most impactful innovation since the internet Inflation protection? Bitcoin lost one third of its value in the past three years. How is that inflation protection? You would have done better to hold most commodities or most currencies in that time period to protect from inflation, other than Bitcoin.

Picking arbitrary dates is fun and all, but we are bootstrapping a new financial system. Do you see a way to do that without volatility?

I don't blame Bitcoin for being volatile. I just don't see how its volatility is consistent with the claim that it represents an innovation in protection against inflation.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#105

Post by [deleted] »

trident1000 wrote: post #78
wmf wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Target date funds aren't complicated at all.

Many people in the US and elsewhere dont even know what that is. Know whats way easier? Holding a global non-inflatable reserve currency and forgetting the rest of the BS.

[deleted]

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#106

Post by lmohseni »

andrewjl wrote: post #101
DennisP wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their latency is high but they are massively parallel. There's no practical limit on global throughput. To get low latency on dollars/gold you have to go with centralized digital representations, but Bitcoin has to do the same to get more than 7 tx/sec. I might still be a fan if that were the only option, but with other blockchains eliminating this restriction I have a hard time seeing the long-term value proposition…

You'd be surprised at the complexity involved moving 1-5MM USD across borders, even those without capital controls. And there is definitely a limit on global throughput of dollar movement, which is roughly the slowest processing rate of all the bank compliance divisions involved in the transfer. For complex cross-border transfers there may be more than 2 banks involved. Greater amounts still would attract even more s…

>You're also assuming that telecommunications networks, physical infrastructure, particularly power, are in good working order

the same is true of bitcoin, right? I mean gold will continue to be gold in the absence of power, but will bitcoin even exist?

The most damning critique of bitcoin is that it requires power to be free and infinite.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#107

Post by nmlnn »

UncleDiaz12 wrote: post #63
dudus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anonymous whale sent from one wallet to another just to rotate their address? Or have they actually sent this money to someone else? Was this money acquired legally? Is it being used for illegal activity? A Bank would have to audit it at the very least, so there's value for the people at having banks manage that transfer rather than let them do it anonymously. Also for someone with $166M cost of a large transfer…

Anti-Money Laundering laws only catch 0.5% of illicit funds, yet cost 100x the money recovered. https://www.ledgerinsights.com/anti-money-laundering-has-les... Also, the $10K threshold for additional AML scrutiny has been the same amount for nearly 50 years. It should be close to $50k in today's dollars due to inflation.

In 1970 when these AML thresholds were set a dollar was tied to gold at $35/oz. So based on the gold price today it's actually:

$10,000 (1970) = $10,000 x 1880/35 = ~$537,000 (2020)

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#108

Post by pingec »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34
unnouinceput wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://dailyhodl.com/2020/09/28/big-bitcoin-holder-transfer... Quote from article: "The anonymous whale sent 15,987 Bitcoin worth $166 million, paying a fee of $23.46" Tell me, what bank in the world would charge only $23.46 for transferring $166 M?

> what bank in the world would charge only $23.46 for transferring $166 M? I have never paid for a wire. I’ve also overseen multibillion-dollar wires for which there were zero transfer fees. If you send and receive wires, get a bank account that doesn’t charge for them. (This is almost every account at e.g. Fidelity or First Republic.) Consumer accounts usually optimise for a different basket of needs than large inst…

Please tell me how to send a 10k USD from US bank account to EU bank account for $23.46 or less. Transferwise is one of the cheapest and it costs $50 USD in fees.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#109

Post by andrewjl »

lmohseni wrote: post #106
andrewjl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised at the complexity involved moving 1-5MM USD across borders, even those without capital controls. And there is definitely a limit on global throughput of dollar movement, which is roughly the slowest processing rate of all the bank compliance divisions involved in the transfer. For complex cross-border transfers there may be more than 2 banks involved. Greater amounts still would attract even more s…

>You're also assuming that telecommunications networks, physical infrastructure, particularly power, are in good working order the same is true of bitcoin, right? I mean gold will continue to be gold in the absence of power, but will bitcoin even exist? The most damning critique of bitcoin is that it requires power to be free and infinite.

Not necessarily if you are in possession of your own keys. Which admittedly most people today are not. A hardware wallet can be physically transported in the same way gold can.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#110

Post by [deleted] »

kneel wrote: post #83
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Otherwise it's just numbers hopping around anonymously on a ledger That’s tax evasion. I know it’s chic to be callous about tax fraud in some cryptocurrency circles. But the same has been true of cash, art and bearer bonds for centuries.

It's not tax evasion if the hops are non taxable events, and the privacy of wallets enable anyone to deny it. This is why Bitcoin is an existential threat to government power. I personally think it's empowering and great for the individual, however if you tend towards more statist views then this would seem like anarchy.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN