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

Bitcoin is a disaster

metzdowd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 992 posts

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#451

Post by gruez »

almostdigital wrote: post #383
mindcandy wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin Cash is about trying to make transactions faster and cheaper by increasing the block size (and rate?). Upside: Might be able to use it directly to buy coffee with a reasonable UX. Downside: would likely lead to a small number of huge machines managing the world's blockchain. The Bitcoin Core group really wants people in poor nations to be able to run their own Bitcoin nodes on their cell phones eventually. Th…

No, they want Bitcoin to be a "store of value", whatever that means. Poor people being able to run a full node on a low-end phone is pointless when a transaction fee due to the artificial block size limit is more than a months wages.

>Poor people being able to run a full node on a low-end phone is pointless when a transaction fee due to the artificial block size limit is more than a months wages.

or just wait for a lull in the transaction volume and pay pennies per tx? eg https://blockstream.info/tx/3b9ce26a827b014e5f6cda461f5fa112... from last block only paid 14 cents.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#452

Post by jackcosgrove »

yunesj wrote: post #402

Bitcoin's value prop isn't in its anonymity. Early adopters weren't enthusiastic about bitcoin because they hoped it would end fractional reserve banking or any other financial product. Rather, it was incredible to see the entire financial industry quickly rebuilt on top of sound money. I agree that small transactions and mining can be (and are being) improved, but not for the same reasons. It's silly to blame bitcoi…

> Rather, it was incredible to see the entire financial industry quickly rebuilt on top of sound money.

What is your definition of sound money?

It has been said many times but it bears repeating that a money supply that grows more slowly than the economy it is traded in will be deflationary. Deflation inhibits economic activity because money saved is worth more tomorrow than today even when not invested in productive enterprise. Deflation enriches existing asset holders at the expense of new entrants, even if those asset holders are just stuffing their money in the proverbial mattress. Economists consider deflation a terrible outcome for an economy; Japan has experienced it for thirty years now.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#454

Post by xapata »

beaner wrote: post #316
xapata wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> collusion It doesn't take 100% collusion, but certainly no more than 51%, and I've read speculation (though no proof) that less is sufficient. > middlemen A mining cartel can't edit a blockchain, but they can choose to accept a different blockchain, which is effectively the same thing. Do you accept the premise that a sufficiently large cartel can exist, by state intervention in the price of electricity? [Apologies…

It requires 100% because it only takes one miner to include the transaction for it to eventually be included. Chain splits do not "edit" blockchains, they still require their own proof of work, and they cannot modify transactions, only drop them. Honest participants in a chain that is orphaned will not have had their money spent in the new chain, leaving it available to spend again. That's all that can be done. It re…

> continued attacks ... practically impossible

I agree that continued attacks makes a complicated situation, given the cartel participants would probably hold a significant amount of coin and would risk devaluing themselves against some other currency (though in the end-game scenario, what other currency matters?).

Let's imagine that the majority of domestic and international trade is conducted in Bitcoin, with maybe some alterations to the protocol to enable hundreds of thousands of transactions per second at essentially zero cost from the perspective of an individual actor (non-miner), even bursting up to tens of millions of transactions per second, somehow. Suppose then that two large governments, say the Unites States of America and the People's Republic of China, get into a little tiff about some boats hanging around the Taiwan Strait. Would these societies (in aggregate) prefer that their domestic and international trade be conducted in Bitcoin, or in a domestically-controlled currency?

A cartel could lock out a set of accounts from the Bitcoin network. Perhaps only temporarily, but long enough to have serious effects.

> power themselves off-grid through renewables

That'd be cool, but I doubt that off-grid will ever reach the efficiency and scale that on-grid will provide, due to fluctuations in the power sources and the economies of scale. It's hard to make a currency choice by betting on that technology, especially as the calculation could swap as the technology changes.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#455

Post by reactspa »

rkagerer wrote: post #324

I bought my smartphone from Hong Kong, in part because I wanted a specific variant that would be more likely to work with open-source ROM's. The seller initially requested payment via Transferwise, who sought crazy amounts of personal information and bullied me into a privacy-hostile customer agreement. Days went by and they still hadn't activated my account. Growing frustrated, I convinced the seller to accept Bitco…

Interesting story.

Question: was there any possibility of escrow here? What if the phone never showed up?

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#456

Post by toyg »

bconnorwhite wrote: post #416

Most of the criticisms in this thread seem to be missing that Bitcoin is only layer 1. Bitcoin isn't Visa or cash - its gold. Rather than shipping gold across the Atlantic, large institutions will settle in a few minutes in Bitcoin. L2/L3/L4 solutions (built into Apple Pay, etc.) will allow for instant payments for coffee, allow for privacy similar to physical cash, etc. Before this is possible, the price has to stab…

Except Bitcoin has no way to “stabilize”. Without central banks’ intervention and governance, even regular currencies would fluctuate like crazy. Unless the bitcoin world can come up with a Federal Reserve / ECB equivalent, it will continue to be a wild ride, which will effectively impede further uses. It will always be a speculation vehicle rather than a store of value.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#457

Post by drschwabe »

addicted wrote: post #95
hombre_fatal wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the irony. The point is that Bitcoin has introduced an actual "digital cash" currency without institutional/governmental middlemen. That institutions can be built on top of that, and that some people want such institutions, doesn't change the novel utility of finally having a currency that functions like digital cash. It's like saying it's ironic that people use physical USD for anonymous p2p transactions…

No one treats Bitcoin as a currency. It’s treated as an investment vehicle. And the reason behind that is obvious. Something whose value may double in a month or whose value may halve within weeks is a terrible currency. If I expect it’s value to increase then I would be a fool to spend it. If I expect it’s value to drop I would be a fool to accept it. Cryptocurrencies are anything but currencies.

As a freelance programmer/UX designer I offer my clients to pay in Bitcoin (yes, as a currency).

So far over the course of my decade-ish long career most invoices are paid via fiat but actually my record sale was paid in Bitcoin. The client paid for approx 500 consulting hours in BTC (and is still a client to this day, paying for many more hours than that batch in subsequent purchases albeit sometimes in fiat).

I prefer Bitcoin over government fiat currency when doing large transactions like that because of the risk that a bank will freeze the funds or hold the transaction arbitrarily without warning and on either side of the equation; ie- you don't know if the party sending or receiving may be subject to the freeze.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#458

Post by lottin »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #165
exclusiv wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of ways. And the banks reconcile the cash movement behind the scenes. As I understand it, in a simple example, if you send $1k to someone. And someone at their bank sends $1k to someone at your bank, there's nothing that the banks need to do other than record it.

That you brought up banking is precisely my point. Imagine if you needed a bank account to give someone $100 cash. Or to spend a few bucks at a street hotdog vendor. Most people take it for granted that they need a bank to do anything, and they don't really consider how powerless they are over their own money. Like how it's illegal to carry too much cash (and it can simply be taken away). And how your bank can impose…

> Most people take it for granted that they need a bank to do anything, and they don't really consider how powerless they are over their own money

People use banks because they provide financial services. You don't have to use banks, if for some reason you want to avoid them, but then you're left without access to those services. As far as I know, Bitcoin doesn't provide financial services, so it's not a replacement for banking.

Post reply on HN