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

The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 183 posts

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#101

Post by dkshdkjshdk »

RandomLensman wrote: post #95
dkshdkjshdk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. So... if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things, it kind of becomes hard to hold on to the idea that there aren't actually any use-cases outside of crime and speculation. EDIT: Just to address your edit... > On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets) And will they be willing to talk to a person that only wants to put 100 EUR + 100 USD into it? I…

Wasn't my claim. And speculation is fine anyway, because it is at the heart of any new business etc.

Yes, I know. But it was the original claim that triggered the current thread.

Either way, thanks for the insight and information you brought to the discussion.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#102

Post by rostigerpudel »

dkshdkjshdk wrote: post #88
RandomLensman wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets) Depending on which country you are in, things like bitcoin savings accounts are starting to emerge. Also funds might be able to invest. And yes, traditional finance is starting to see value in providing services for these things (and has so for a while) - not strictly the same as seeing value in the underlyings, but separate…

Ok. So... if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things, it kind of becomes hard to hold on to the idea that there aren't actually any use-cases outside of crime and speculation. EDIT: Just to address your edit... > On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets) And will they be willing to talk to a person that only wants to put 100 EUR + 100 USD into it? I…

> [...]if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things,[...]

All this means is there is money to be made. It does not mean that any particular use-case exists. So no, this does not make it hard to hold on to the idea above - no use-cases outside of crime and speculation.

If you provide storage for people's stuff and someone wants specialized storage for tulips you probably do not care whether the tulips are worth anything or useful. You rent them the space to store their tulips if you can make money that way.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#103

Post by dkshdkjshdk »

skohan wrote: post #97
intev wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you seem to be arguing in good faith I'll engage; at which point will you accept that the value of BTC is > $0? It's coming up on a decade of showing seemingly limitless upside with the bottom constantly rising. The tulip mania everyone loves to cite lasted about 3 years. This is going on for more than 3x. At what point would you consider you are maybe wrong? Personally speaking, I was on the other side of this…

There are indeed people willing to trade USD for BTC, so there is a market price for BTC. However, there are three major risks in my opinion which I think could make BTC worthless in the next 10 years: 1) There seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud, and Tether makes up a massive portion of the BTC market cap 2) Ransomware is becoming increasingly prevalent, and has…

> in my opinion

> I think could

Who is speculating about the value of things here? Wasn't speculation supposed to be bad?

None of the things you mentioned support the hypothesis that the value of BTC is literally zero (not 0.00000000000001 USD, but literally zero).

> 1) There seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud, and Tether makes up a massive portion of the BTC market cap

I have a hard time even parsing this ("Tether makes up a massive portion of the BTC market cap"), and it sounds more like an appeal to emotion than an actual argument. Please explain in which ways are DAI and USDC "essentially fraud". Perhaps you should contact US authorities, and complain about the fraudulent Coinbase, if you really believe that to be the case (and if you're not just engaging in unfounded speculation).

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#104

Post by janekm »

mattdesl wrote: post #9

Blockchains and crypto tech does seem to provide solutions to many challenging problems: distributed ledgers, immutable and decentralized data, ownerless contracts and program execution, secure and decentralized ownership of a digital asset (eg: owning a domain name), programmable free markets, preventing the double spend problem, etc. These may not be problems the author is interested in, but it does not mean the te…

I think it would be fun for someone to write a short story / novel around a rogue AI emerging within the ecosystem created by "ownerless contracts and program execution" and "programmable free markets".

Imagine a programmer creating a genetic algorithm for crypto-trading. They enable to code to purchase new VMs to execute itself when it has a positive balance (on a cloud service that allows crypto / ownerless payments). The successful variants propagate to new VMs, the unsuccessful ones die off.

The code pays a certain percentage out to the creator's wallet.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#105

Post by lmm »

denton-scratch wrote: post #79
lmm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's worked for gold and diamonds for generations. Gold has literally millennia of tradition. Diamonds have minimal resale value and are not bought as investments. > Not to mention pretty much every artwork or other concoction human beings create and then collect. > There's not a lot of cash flow from first edition Marvel comics, but there are an awful lot of them stored in plastic bags. Right, and IMO that kind of…

> Diamonds have minimal resale value and are not bought as investments. Could I please have a quote for some of your minimal-price used diamonds?

I don't own any diamonds. If you're offering to buy used diamonds at something close to the original sale price then I'll remember to send friends your way.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#106

Post by skohan »

mattdesl wrote: post #84
skohan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I would agree that this marketplace is creating profit for artists. Whether there is real value creation happening I would consider debatable. NFT's themselves are a highly speculative asset, and I would not count on this marketplace continuing to grow and thrive a decade from now. In other words, a lot of people probably made a very good profit operating tulip markets in Holland in the 1600's, but that doesn't me…

That’s an interesting argument. What defines “value” in your mind? The platform brings value to artists (financial freedom to create more art), value to collectors (digital ownership over a scarce conceptual artwork), and value to the art world (more digital art being created by a more diverse group of people). Not all may agree with these values, and perhaps this platform and it’s tokens will not persist after some…

Value is a tricky thing to define, but I would probably define value in terms of utility: you are able to create value for someone if you allow them to solve a problem or gain satisfaction, using less resources than they otherwise could.

The sticking point for me with your proposed value proposition is here:

> value to collectors (digital ownership over a scarce conceptual artwork)

My question would be: is it really digital ownership that collectors are interested in? Or is it the chance for future profit on the assumption that these NFTs may increase in value.

I suspect in most cases it is the latter, and in this case we don't have value creation, we have speculation. Essentially it's just a bet with a very significant downside risk. Speculation, especially in an atmosphere of irrational exuberance, is much more likely to result in the destruction of value than the creation of it.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#107

Post by intev »

skohan wrote: post #97
intev wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you seem to be arguing in good faith I'll engage; at which point will you accept that the value of BTC is > $0? It's coming up on a decade of showing seemingly limitless upside with the bottom constantly rising. The tulip mania everyone loves to cite lasted about 3 years. This is going on for more than 3x. At what point would you consider you are maybe wrong? Personally speaking, I was on the other side of this…

There are indeed people willing to trade USD for BTC, so there is a market price for BTC. However, there are three major risks in my opinion which I think could make BTC worthless in the next 10 years: 1) There seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud, and Tether makes up a massive portion of the BTC market cap 2) Ransomware is becoming increasingly prevalent, and has…

1) Seems like a random point to me. I agree with some stablecoins there are fishy things going on, and others not so much. But again I'm failing to see the relevance of this point. Also I'd like to point out, the SEC loves to go after crypto. It's quite clear where they stand. Somehow they are ignoring this "very credible evidence". At what point does this becomes a conspiracy theory? Or is the SEC in cahoots with them? Or do they not care? (can't be this because they demonstrated with XRP they really do care).

2) Yea I see this as a risk. Might reduce the value but tbd on how much. On the flip side you have entire countries trying to adopt it as currency.

3) This current change is much needed IMO for btc to evolve and I'm glad its happening sooner rather than later. BTC mining getting kicked out of China is great. If BTC can't survive without fossil fuel consumption it doesn't deserve to exist. This is forced evolution and I'm pretty optimistic about it.

My initial question still stands. At what point will you think you are wrong with regards to the value? Will you constantly move goal posts, as I did for years, or have a line in the sand after which you will adopt it.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#108

Post by dkshdkjshdk »

skohan wrote: post #100
dkshdkjshdk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because if 1 BTC = 0 USD... A big assumption here. I can also hypothesize that 1 USD = 0 EUR, at some point in the future, and, thus, holding or buying USD is pure speculation and there is no compelling reason to try to acquire more USD. Under this logic, I shouldn't ever buy or hold anything (forex, stocks, etc.), lest its market value goes to zero. Also, thanks for ignoring the rest of my point: What if I choose…

For 1 USD = 0 EUR to become a reality, we would have to imagine a massive geopolitical shift has taken place. For 1 BTC = 0 USD, all you need is one government, which has been the victim or ransomware attacks, to regulate BTC out of existence.

> For 1 USD = 0 EUR to become a reality, we would have to imagine a massive geopolitical shift has taken place.

Which is a possibility (the same way that 1 BTC = 0 USD is also a possibility; just a very unlikely possibility).

> For 1 BTC = 0 USD, all you need is one government, which has been the victim or ransomware attacks, to regulate BTC out of existence.

Unfortunately, reality proves you wrong. Here [0] is an example of one government regulating BTC out of existence (or trying to)... but I'm sure you can find others.

What's the price of BTC today? (hint: not zero)

I think there's not much point in continuing this discussion, since you seem pretty convinced that the ultimate value of BTC is zero (even though you admit that there probably are legitimate use-cases for such things). If you already pre-decided that it is the case (and you are totally within your right to speculate on the value of BTC), nothing I can say will change it.

Also, thanks for ignoring the rest of my point: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/15/india-plans-cryptocurrency-b...

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#109

Post by yunohn »

denton-scratch wrote: post #79
lmm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's worked for gold and diamonds for generations. Gold has literally millennia of tradition. Diamonds have minimal resale value and are not bought as investments. > Not to mention pretty much every artwork or other concoction human beings create and then collect. > There's not a lot of cash flow from first edition Marvel comics, but there are an awful lot of them stored in plastic bags. Right, and IMO that kind of…

> Diamonds have minimal resale value and are not bought as investments. Could I please have a quote for some of your minimal-price used diamonds?

“A diamond engagement ring or other diamond jewelry will have a resale value of between 20 and 60% of the amount it cost when it was new“

- https://www.diamonds.pro/guides/diamond-resale-value/

Lots of similar sources if you google “diamond resale value”. Read up on De Beers and their entire scammy (blood) diamond market manipulation.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#110

Post by dkshdkjshdk »

rostigerpudel wrote: post #102
dkshdkjshdk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. So... if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things, it kind of becomes hard to hold on to the idea that there aren't actually any use-cases outside of crime and speculation. EDIT: Just to address your edit... > On EURUSD, you could look at currency funds (not strictly the same, but as close as it gets) And will they be willing to talk to a person that only wants to put 100 EUR + 100 USD into it? I…

> [...]if even traditional finance is slowly adopting these things,[...] All this means is there is money to be made. It does not mean that any particular use-case exists. So no, this does not make it hard to hold on to the idea above - no use-cases outside of crime and speculation. If you provide storage for people's stuff and someone wants specialized storage for tulips you probably do not care whether the tulips a…

And "making money" does not sound like a use-case to you? Ok.

And tulips are not worthless... they just aren't as valuable as people thought they were, during the tulip mania.

Post reply on HN