The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency • Hacker News Board

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#111

Post by yunohn » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:23 AM UTC

elisbce wrote: post #89

skohan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name an example of a tangible use-case where a blockchain has been used to create real value, and is competitive against conventional technologies in the same space? There has been a lot of talk about the potential of blockchain, but so far all I have seen it used for is crime and speculation. Would love to be shown I'm wrong on this.

Let me give you a real-world example. China has a tight control over not only the currency exchange rate, but also the very action of exchanging or even withdrawing foreign currencies. The current policy is that you can only send/receive $50k USD per year per person regardless of the channels, even if they are completely legitimate via wire transfers. This is obviously not enough for a student who goes to the US for…

Chinese students have been studying abroad for decades now, in countries all over the world. Are you suggesting all of them use BTC to be able to pay their tuition?

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#112

Post by creshal » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:28 AM UTC

neolog wrote: post #96

creshal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git is not a blockchain, there's no distributed consensus algorithm. The consensus on what's the main branch and what's the authoritative history lies with Linus Torvalds. > The "Bitcoin" application is a tool useful for buying and selling recreational drugs without exposure to the physical risk posed by cash transactions. It hasn't been since at least 2018; authorities regularly seize millions worth of bitcoins toge…

clarified above, I mean interparty violence, not legal threat > what's the authoritative history lies with Linus Torvalds. I agree with your point about distributed consensus in general, but there isn't really a single authoritative history of linux, there are tons of important forks simultaneously maintained. As for deanonymization, that doesn't seem to be very common. Compare to the rate at which people get busted…

> I agree with your point about distributed consensus in general, but there isn't really a single authoritative history of linux, there are tons of important forks simultaneously maintained.

What does that have to do with blockchain? Is bittorrent to you "blockchain for downloads" just because it's decentralized and has hashes?

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#113

Post by creshal » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:29 AM UTC

alephu5 wrote: post #59

creshal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Emphasis on "seem". These aren't even problems in the practical sense, but rathe…

This. I've read many accounts of people advocating for use of blockchains in industry or government, which mostly boil down to different entities emitting documents in a verifiable way, e.g. for property ownership. As you've said this can be handled using boring PKIs and the like.

Cynic mode: You can't handle it the boring way because nobody is funding boring solutions. We already know those won't make you a billionaire overnight.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#114

Post by mattdesl » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:35 AM UTC

skohan wrote: post #106

mattdesl wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you may be viewing this through the lens of high priced NFTs that are in the millions, and are mostly speculative assets for a crypto trader’s portfolio.

When I buy a digital art token worth 1 XTZ (around 2-3 USD), it is closer to skipping my morning coffee for the chance to support an artist’s latest work, perhaps from an artist that I have been following for years on Twitter or Instagram without giving them any support besides Likes and Retweets (“exposure”). I have no intention of flipping or speculating on the art — but of course if there is demand for that token I may consider trading it, as it would give me even more XTZ funds to continue supporting other artists in this way.

I have not yet re-sold any Tezos NFTs, and I have bought hundreds from many different artists and illustrators. If none of these ever sell, I won’t feel like I have lost anything, because the value I see in this is not in the speculative nature of the asset.

And to your question: yes, many collectors appreciate the digital ownership aspect, and enjoy building out carefully curated galleries and showcases of their owned tokens, much like many traditional art collectors take pride in owning and displaying their collection.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#115

Post by mclightning » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:37 AM UTC

weikju wrote: post #50

jiriknesl wrote: post #42

> The notion that these technologies can transform financial services in any way is laughable, because there is no mechanism or specific problem they aim to address that is not currently better done with a simpler solution. Well, he hasn't obviously tried to send money from Europe to Latin America. On $2000 transaction. $25-40 bank transfer (takes up to 5 days). $80 Payoneer (can be fast, but can also take 2 days) $1…

How much to get your $2000 in and out of a bitcoin wallet/exchange?

some exchanges offer credit cards which means you can use the amount directly.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#116

Post by skohan » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:37 AM UTC

intev wrote: post #107

skohan wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

1) As far as I know there are legal proceedings ongoing agains Tether - I don't think this is a conspiracy theory.

> 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.

I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind. I don't know what would change my mind, but we're certainly not there yet as long as the risks which I cited still exist.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#117

Post by creshal » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:38 AM UTC

mattdesl wrote: post #49

skohan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name an example of a tangible use-case where a blockchain has been used to create real value, and is competitive against conventional technologies in the same space? There has been a lot of talk about the potential of blockchain, but so far all I have seen it used for is crime and speculation. Would love to be shown I'm wrong on this.

I would point to Hicetnunc as one example[1], which provides real value for many artists on the platform. I’m sure it’s possible to build a similar platform with a central database handling transactions and Stripe payouts, but I’m not sure it would be met with the same enthusiasm (and, despite the possibility of this with past tech, no pre-blockchain digital art marketplace has come close to meeting it in sales). Due…

> I’m sure it’s possible to build a similar platform with a central database handling transactions and Stripe payouts, but I’m not sure it would be met with the same enthusiasm (and, despite the possibility of this with past tech, no pre-blockchain digital art marketplace has come close to meeting it in sales).

So blockchain itself is completely useless here, and all the value lies in the hype. And once the hype goes away, there's nothing underwriting the value of the system.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#118

Post by creshal » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:45 AM UTC

mypastself wrote: post #44

> Ending this scourge on civilization is one of most important political problems facing the international community these days What is it about this topic that always brings out the most extreme voices on either side? It seems like both proponents and detractors wildly overestimate the technology’s importance. This particular blog post drops the above quoted bomb right at the start, and then goes on to argue the com…

PoW undermines our attempts to fight climate change, there's tons of examples of fossil fuel power plants being used for the sole purpose of running "crypto" "currencies". That is a very direct threat to our survival as a species.

Additionally, unregulated currency in general undermines the international political system itself, by allowing rogue states and terrorist organisations to completely bypass attempts at embargoing them. Or in case of organisations like the CIA, any attempts at governmental oversight – the situation was already bad before bitcoin, it's completely hopeless now.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#119

Post by redpiller » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:47 AM UTC

lottin wrote: post #48

redpiller wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We came up with a way to allow investors to independently verify how much profit a business makes with certainty without having to trust company directors or accountants. Clearly this is a value-add for new/small companies which don't yet have a reputation as it reduces risk for the investor. It's also a value-add for investors of big companies as it prevents them from being mislead about quarterly profits. In our sp…

Nothing of what you say suggests that you have "come up with a way to allow investors to independently verify how much profit a business makes with absolute certainty without having to trust company directors or accountants".

Imagine if there was a tamper-proof ledger of who owns what shares of what companies in such a way that no new shares could be issued and existing shareholders could not be diluted in any way. Tamper-proof in this case means that even the company directors themselves could not modify it, even if all of them wanted to.

Now imagine if all share buybacks (which were purchased by the company on the open market in exchange for real money and then permanently taken out of circulation) where recorded on this ledger in such a way that it could not possibly have been faked (can be independently verified using cryptography).

If you see the value in this hypothetical scenario above, then you see the value of our use case.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#120

Post by dkshdkjshdk » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:50 AM UTC

skohan wrote: post #116

intev wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

1) As far as I know there are legal proceedings ongoing agains Tether - I don't think this is a conspiracy theory. > 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. I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change thei…

> As far as I know there are legal proceedings ongoing agains Tether - I don't think this is a conspiracy theory.

Even so, how do you go from "there are legal proceedings against Tether" to "there seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud"?

Being hyperbolic does not help your argument here... it just makes it seem like you don't know what you are talking about (i.e. you don't know the difference between USDT, USDC and DAI, for example).

> I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind.

You seem to be under the impression that people are trying to change your mind, rather than simply pointing out the flaws, leaps-of-faith and speculation in your argumentation.

Trust me... you also did not convince anyone that the value of BTC is literally zero (except the ones that were already convinced).