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

The Crypto-Chernobyl

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 156 posts

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#91

Post by Apocryphon »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #89
Apocryphon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume bandwagoners have outnumbered the "enthusiasts" at this point. And the bandwagoners are just as enthusiastic about bitcoin as the true believers, as they have skin in the game. It just happens to be monetary instead of ideological.

Without any source of data, there’s no way to know. There’s just no reason to believe that bitcoiners would have a worse understanding of fiat currency than non-bitcoiners. That would be like saying people who watch nascar don’t seem to understand how tires contribute to traction.

But on the flip side, your original statement of "In fact bitcoin enthusiasts are likely to have a better understanding of fiat than the average person, due to the value proposition of cryptocurrencies." is just as dubious due to the lack of data.

It seems presumptive to think that this entire enterprise is being sustained by ideological purity and noble goals, rather than a ton of people interested in trading a valuable (in fiat!) asset, facilitating capital flight from restrictive regimes, attempting to justify Tesla's stock price, etc. Occam's razor would suggest more people are driven by the profit motive from bitcoin than actually realizing a utopian future.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#92

Post by tal8d »

Apocryphon wrote: post #87
tal8d wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets just take the shortcut: Who assigns the the proofing unit? The metric doesn't even matter, it is a question of who. Now, who controls that? Once you figure that out you'll realize that you are trusting parties that you either didn't know you were trusting, or you kinda knew but didn't want to think too hard about because nobody really cares about chucky cheese coin. You can't be rewarded for performing useful co…

Okay, thank you for deigning to explain your objections in detail. That is actually quite helpful, as it has decreased my interest in GRC. I appreciate your time in reading the whitepaper and pointing out the deficiencies in the design.

Full disclosure: I didn't read the entire paper, I just know where the landmines are in these "Better than POW with no downside!1!!" altcoin papers - as they've been around for a long time. After the 5th or 6th time scrutinizing a self-styled bitcoin killer, it gets pretty familiar. But I certainly encourage everyone to read the whitepaper (and genuinely understand) for whatever cryptocurrency they're looking at, and then examine the source. That is the way it was done in the beginning, and those that did were always better off for having done it. Also, final bit of unsolicited advice: if somebody tells you to diversify your crypto portfolio, they're either dumb or they think you are.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#93

Post by cosmotic »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #90
paulryanrogers wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Key part being "while BTC is appreciating". Which seems based more on the greater fool theory than a sustainable asset or currency. (Lightning network not withstanding)

> Key part being "while BTC is appreciating". Which seems based more on the greater fool theory than a sustainable asset or currency. Thats just a failure to understand the value proposition of bitcoin. Its a medium of exchange that has a hard limit on inflation, no greater fool required. Hence, the comparison of ice cubes and fiat currency.

The 7 transactions per second limit would suggest it is not a suitable replacement. Considering the energy cost and environmental consequences this article references, we'd need the ice anyway.

Edit: this (older?) article says 4.6 transactions per second and a propagation (read: transaction) time of 14 seconds. This is with near-zero percent of transactions in the world taking place in btc. https://hackernoon.com/the-blockchain-scalability-problem-th...

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#94

Post by chordalkeyboard »

Apocryphon wrote: post #91
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without any source of data, there’s no way to know. There’s just no reason to believe that bitcoiners would have a worse understanding of fiat currency than non-bitcoiners. That would be like saying people who watch nascar don’t seem to understand how tires contribute to traction.

But on the flip side, your original statement of "In fact bitcoin enthusiasts are likely to have a better understanding of fiat than the average person, due to the value proposition of cryptocurrencies." is just as dubious due to the lack of data. It seems presumptive to think that this entire enterprise is being sustained by ideological purity and noble goals, rather than a ton of people interested in trading a valu…

> In fact bitcoin enthusiasts are likely to have a better understanding of fiat than the average person, due to the value proposition of cryptocurrencies." is just as dubious due to the lack of data.

We have plenty of data, we have the discussions and promotion efforts surrounding bitcoin where the contrast between the hard cap on bitcoins and the continually depreciating fiat currency was a prominent selling point.

> It seems presumptive to think that this entire enterprise is being sustained by ideological purity and noble goals, rather than a ton of people interested in trading a valuable (in fiat!) asset, facilitating capital flight from restrictive regimes, attempting to justify Tesla's stock price,

Its not really ideological purity to be aware of the fact that one asset is designed to depreciate and another asset is not. Its just basic fundamentals. Why would enthusiasts and bandwagoners sink money into bitcoin in order to support tesla’s stock price? That sounds like a conspiracy theory.

> facilitating capital flight from restrictive regimes

Thats certainly another value proposition that appears alongside the hard cap on units.

> than a ton of people interested in trading a valuable (in fiat!) asset

Why would a ton of people be interested in trading an asset? What indication do you have that they are unaware of the implications of the asset trending higher and higher relative to fiat?

> Occam's razor would suggest more people are driven by the profit motive from bitcoin than actually realizing a utopian future.

Doubtful. The simplest explanation is that they are purchasing based on the stated reasons that people have purchased up until now. Your alternate hypothesis is more complicated, so Occam’s razor does not suggest this.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#95

Post by chordalkeyboard »

cosmotic wrote: post #93
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Key part being "while BTC is appreciating". Which seems based more on the greater fool theory than a sustainable asset or currency. Thats just a failure to understand the value proposition of bitcoin. Its a medium of exchange that has a hard limit on inflation, no greater fool required. Hence, the comparison of ice cubes and fiat currency.

The 7 transactions per second limit would suggest it is not a suitable replacement. Considering the energy cost and environmental consequences this article references, we'd need the ice anyway. Edit: this (older?) article says 4.6 transactions per second and a propagation (read: transaction) time of 14 seconds. This is with near-zero percent of transactions in the world taking place in btc. https://hackernoon.com/the…

> The 7 transactions per second limit would suggest it is not a suitable replacement.

Thats something people will have to decide for themselves.

> Considering the energy cost and environmental consequences this article references, we'd need the ice anyway.

Don’t worry, when it melts they will make more.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#96

Post by wsinks »

borland wrote: post #46
wsinks wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter argument to this that I've seen and has me thinking about Bitcoin's value again is this one: Right now Bitcoin is an additive to the financial system, and actually promotes more usage of fiat. So if you were to compare the manifold energy consumption to Bitcoin, you need to somewhere also calculate those other effects. I can't find a reference, but there's a good phrase that talked about how for every new…

Let's all agree that yes, it's complicated and that Bitcoin interacts with fiat currency, and that SOME of bitcoin's energy waste could be attributed to external factors. That still leaves us with bitcoin being an environmental disaster and a net loss for humanity, apart from the few people who are benefitting from the pyramid scheme right now; Thus, changing none of the arguments against it.

Yes, I'm in agreement with you.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#97

Post by Apocryphon »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #94
Apocryphon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But on the flip side, your original statement of "In fact bitcoin enthusiasts are likely to have a better understanding of fiat than the average person, due to the value proposition of cryptocurrencies." is just as dubious due to the lack of data. It seems presumptive to think that this entire enterprise is being sustained by ideological purity and noble goals, rather than a ton of people interested in trading a valu…

> In fact bitcoin enthusiasts are likely to have a better understanding of fiat than the average person, due to the value proposition of cryptocurrencies." is just as dubious due to the lack of data. We have plenty of data, we have the discussions and promotion efforts surrounding bitcoin where the contrast between the hard cap on bitcoins and the continually depreciating fiat currency was a prominent selling point.…

> we have the discussions and promotion efforts surrounding bitcoin

The best promotion for BTC is simply its price, the ease of setting up a Coinbase account, and mooning memes of $100k/coin.

> Why would enthusiasts and bandwagoners sink money into bitcoin in order to support tesla’s stock price?

Tesla, currently less than 1% of the global auto market, is worth more than several of the largest automakers combined. Musk pushing "to further diversify and maximize returns on our cash that is not required to maintain adequate operating liquidity" by buying into an asset which is currently in a bull cycle is a good way to attempt to justify that price.

> Why would a ton of people be interested in trading an asset? What indication do you have that they are unaware of the implications of the asset trending higher and higher relative to fiat?

Simply compare the price of BTC now to where it was a year ago, and take a look at its trajectory on the chart.

> Your alternate hypothesis is more complicated, so Occam’s razor does not suggest this.

Animal spirits are self-explanatory.

https://qz.com/1971100/buying-bitcoin-after-an-elon-musk-twe...

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#98

Post by chordalkeyboard »

Apocryphon wrote: post #97
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact bitcoin enthusiasts are likely to have a better understanding of fiat than the average person, due to the value proposition of cryptocurrencies." is just as dubious due to the lack of data. We have plenty of data, we have the discussions and promotion efforts surrounding bitcoin where the contrast between the hard cap on bitcoins and the continually depreciating fiat currency was a prominent selling point.…

> we have the discussions and promotion efforts surrounding bitcoin The best promotion for BTC is simply its price, the ease of setting up a Coinbase account, and mooning memes of $100k/coin. > Why would enthusiasts and bandwagoners sink money into bitcoin in order to support tesla’s stock price? Tesla, currently less than 1% of the global auto market, is worth more than several of the largest automakers combined. Mu…

> The best promotion for BTC is simply its price

How is the astronomical price a promotion? People want thing when they can get them for less, not pay a record price for them. If you think bitcoin is a good deal at its current price then you must believe there’s some underlying fundamental that makes it worth tens of thousands of dollars.

> the ease of setting up a Coinbase account, and mooning memes of $100k/coin.

There’s no value proposition to having a coinbase account except acquiring cryptocurrency. One doesn’t even need to hold btc to post or enjoy memes. These have little and nothing to do with the cause of the high price.

> Tesla, currently less than 1% of the global auto market, is worth more than several of the largest automakers combined. Musk pushing "to further diversify and maximize returns on our cash that is not required to maintain adequate operating liquidity" by buying into an asset which is currently in a bull cycle is a good way to attempt to justify that price.

That explains why Musk would buy it. That does not explain why anyone else would buy it.

> Simply compare the price of BTC now to where it was a year ago, and take a look at its trajectory on the chart.

Obviously, if there weren’t fundamentals, now would be a good time to sell.

> Animal spirits are self-explanatory.

Animal spirits are an unnecessary hypothesis for this event.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#99

Post by [deleted] »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #73
paulryanrogers wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the volatility and poor fundamentals of BTC I think your ice cube analogy might be reversed.

Considering the value proposition of BTC is to avoid keeping your money in fiat currency that is constantly depreciating while BTC is appreciating, the analogy is apt.

[deleted]

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#100

Post by donclark »

atweiden wrote: post #30

> And what is there to show for all this waste? The safest safe haven asset: a global currency of fixed supply controlled by computer algorithms. Essentially the author posits Earth’s ecosystems don't have room for another Argentina. But they arguably don't even have room for half of the current human population. Particularly a human population that exploits nature to the tune of millions of acres of clearcut forests…

> Perhaps it’s time one of these systems came to an end.

You mean the USD?

Post reply on HN