101–110 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sad to see HN become a place where people pat each other on the back for “burns”. (And I think GP makes a good point.) edit for context: parent originally started with “BURN!” before edit
General Practitioner?
It was getting there. I remember Bitcoin was getting a wider adoption for payment back in 2013ish. I paid for my domain from namecheap in Bitcoin back then. But it then blew up and everyone treated it more as a store of value and it made all the shops stop accepting it as payment due to its volatility.
Well, this is baked into the limited number of transactions per second. At 10 transactions per second max, the usefulness as a day to day currency is inversely proportional to its popularity. Our favorite joke coin, DogeCoin, does 10 times better at 100/sec with faster blocks, but it’s still too slow. Visa is like 2000-100,000 transactions per second depending on if you use average or theoretical maximum. Anything wh…
This + micropayments, (i.e. negligible fees so it makes sense to send 0.01USD to someone, every day, or w/e.
Bitcoin is a protocol ; it’s not going anywhere. Like nearly all mainstream articles, this one is quite shortsighted. It’s like saying the TCP/IP protocol has failed in the early 90s when there were many competitors that were more popular. I’m old enough to remember when you had to install a TCP/IP as an add-on to Mac OS and Windows. Let’s look back at this article when Fidelity’s bitcoin ETF is approved later this y…
We should hope that happens because it’s holding up progress. It’s like people are flying around in replicas of the Wright brothers’ first airplane. Sure, put it in a museum but don’t fly the thing.
It was getting there. I remember Bitcoin was getting a wider adoption for payment back in 2013ish. I paid for my domain from namecheap in Bitcoin back then. But it then blew up and everyone treated it more as a store of value and it made all the shops stop accepting it as payment due to its volatility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much. If bitcoin (or any cypto) can be a stable currency, I would jump on it. Otherwise, it is just a gambling tool at the moment. I don't gamble with things I don't understand (unless I am in Vegas and willing to lose a few bucks for fun). So it is a hard pass for me at the moment.
There are stablecoins on top of Ethereum. Some are backed by off-chain bank accounts, others are based on price feeds and on-chain derivatives over ETH.
It was getting there. I remember Bitcoin was getting a wider adoption for payment back in 2013ish. I paid for my domain from namecheap in Bitcoin back then. But it then blew up and everyone treated it more as a store of value and it made all the shops stop accepting it as payment due to its volatility.
Well, this is baked into the limited number of transactions per second. At 10 transactions per second max, the usefulness as a day to day currency is inversely proportional to its popularity. Our favorite joke coin, DogeCoin, does 10 times better at 100/sec with faster blocks, but it’s still too slow. Visa is like 2000-100,000 transactions per second depending on if you use average or theoretical maximum. Anything wh…
I believe we have now reached the point where more time has passed since the Lightning whitepaper than between the Bitcoin and Lightning whitepapers.
It was never in any danger of becoming the future of money. The entire power of a modern market democracy rests in the ability to control its currency. If you remove that power, the state itself has no legitimacy. Bitcoin was never ever going to be blessed as an alternative to the USD, no matter how much sense it made on paper. Bitcoin is a pure sentiment asset. It rises when people think it should rise, and falls wh…
> The entire power of a modern market democracy rests in the ability to control its currency. State monopoly over money is a good thing or a bad thing? > If you remove that power, the state itself has no legitimacy. We've had "legitimate" states since the dawn of time, before fiat currencies. Many kings and republics ruled and minted coins, but they were always limited by what they had, and could not arbitrarily crea…
I still don't understand this mindset of Bitcoin becoming the future of money. It isn't. It never was meant to be, and it never advertised itself as such. Bitcoin solves the issue of trust. Bitocin itself will never work as a currency that governments can rely. First reason for that is that governments want control over their money. There has to be a central authority for multiple reasons. Banks need bailing out? As…
Totally untrue. Read Satoshi's emails--it was in the title of his first email about Bitcoin, and the first sentence in the whitepaper! The current bitcoin core devs took over from Gavin who also shared the "cash" vision. They booted everyone with plans for making it cash, and censored or blocked everyone in the bitcoin subreddit who said anything about cash or large block sizes.
https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-October...
Bitcoin is a protocol ; it’s not going anywhere. Like nearly all mainstream articles, this one is quite shortsighted. It’s like saying the TCP/IP protocol has failed in the early 90s when there were many competitors that were more popular. I’m old enough to remember when you had to install a TCP/IP as an add-on to Mac OS and Windows. Let’s look back at this article when Fidelity’s bitcoin ETF is approved later this y…
the article does not say bitcoin will disappear.
the article just claims that bitcoin is not the future of money, and makes some reasonable observations regarding this. especially that it is so easily manipulated by billionaires.
so I think your point is m00t.
Is it? Let's check back in ten years. I don't know that Bitcoin-as-in-BTC will be 'the future of money' by then, but I would bet that money will continue to look more like Bitcoin than it does like today's dollar. Like it or not, and I know a lot of you don't, cryptocurrencies aren't censorable (governments can't stop you from sending or receiving them), are hard to seize, and can't just be inflated away from storing…
so not Bitcoin. Thats the authors point.
> Like it or not, and I know a lot of you don't, cryptocurrencies aren't censorable (governments can't stop you from sending or receiving them), are hard to seize, and can't just be inflated away from storing value. These are attractive properties to a lot of people.
I agree. It is however getting harder and harder to get BTC without disclosing the full identity. Here in the Netherlands at least its super hard. This does indeed make certain use cases much more harder. It's not outright banning but I bet that more and more restrictions will come around it that only some smart asses will be able to bypass through (semi-)illegal moves.