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

131–140 of 183 posts

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#131

Post by Traster »

mattdesl wrote: post #114
skohan wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What value does crypto bring to you that a artist running a shopify store does not? It sounds like the NFT is entirely irrelevant in this transaction other than possibly providing a socially acceptable route that is better than a PayPal donate button.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#132

Post by mypastself »

creshal wrote: post #118
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 emb…

It seems to me the technology is one of the contributors/facilitators in both those cases, rather than the cause. Surely the main scourge in your first paragraph are the fossil fuel power plants? Do you think either of these problems would be resolved or even significantly mitigated if cryptocurrencies were banned?

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#133

Post by mattdesl »

creshal wrote: post #127
mattdesl wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar but not equal. Part of the enthusiasm around these platforms is in the idea of decentralization of art assets (which cannot be achieved with a central database). See the latter part of the post you replied to.

How decentralized is it truly when it's all depending on the Hicetnunc brand? If you had Hicetnunc-branded certificates of authenticity, you'd have the same "decentralized" trade opportunities, and in both cases the only value these trades have derive from the branding attached to them.

The premise of this space is that the tokens hold value because of who distributed the tokens (the artist), and what they conceptually represent (the artwork), and this value can exist beyond the scope of the website or platform that originally facilitated their distribution.

For example, some artists on Ethereum are deploying their own token contracts[1], without the need for a distribution platform like Hicetnunc, SuperRare, etc. Once minted, these tokens can be traded on a secondary marketplace such as OpenSea (which may not have taken part in the initial distribution). If those secondary markets fail, the source of truth still lies in the blockchain, and the tokens can still be traded via any new marketplaces that emerge, or via smart contract queries through blockchain explorers like Etherscan, or even via one's own command-line (the web merely acts as a thin interface over these distributed endpoints).

I do agree that artists on Tezos are becoming too centralized to Hicetnunc (compared to, say, NFTs on Ethereum, which tend to be very diverse), but I believe this to be a solvable problem[2].

[1] - https://www.deafbeef.com/

[2] - https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1412713480893960195

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#134

Post by rostigerpudel »

dkshdkjshdk wrote: post #110
rostigerpudel wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...]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.

This making money has nothing to do with any intrinsic use-case or value of Bitcoin. As an intermediary (under which I also comprehend banks in terms of "tulip storage") you always make money whether your client wins, loses or absent-mindedly walks over a monetary cliff.

Making money trading or storing something does not mean that something has a use-case (hence the tulips example). So the fact that people make money off other people who think Bitcoin is the best thing since sliced bread does not mean Bitcoin has any use-case or intrinsic value.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#135

Post by [deleted] »

intev wrote: post #123
skohan wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This is a common tactic to best understand if I am wasting my time. Seems like I am. Hope you have a good rest of the day.

[deleted]

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#136

Post by dkshdkjshdk »

skohan wrote: post #129
dkshdkjshdk wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm arguing in bad faith, according to you, even though I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made. Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud"), and still haven't replied to the question I made 4 or 5 times already: 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 va…

> I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made. Oh come on, look at your comment above mine in this thread. You're splitting hairs and trying to find minute flaws in the arguments against you instead of actually arguing the points. It certainly makes it look like you cannot defend your actual arguments. > Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentia…

> Oh come on, look at your comment above mine in this thread.

Was that comment addressed at you? Please point out an actual example of me engaging in bad-faith argumentation with you. This is what you said, right? That I was engaging in bad-faith argumentation with you (not a third-party: you).

> You're splitting hairs and trying to find minute flaws in the arguments against you instead of actually arguing the points.

Uh... finding flaws in other people's arguments is how rational people argue. If you have a flaw in your argument, it's not a good argument.

Again, please point out a situation in which I'm needlessly splitting hairs with you and avoiding a question you asked.

> I never said all stablecoins, but some certainly look like they are.

Ah! So now that you figured out how bad your argument is, you decide to move the goalposts. You say "stablecoins are essentially fraud", and I'm supposed to interpret that as "some stablecoins are essentially fraud", rather than "all stablecoins are essentially fraud"? Sigh.

If you're not arguing in bad faith, it sure seems like you're going out of your way to make it seem like you are.

I keep forgetting how I'm not supposed to feed the trolls... ah, well...

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#137

Post by intev »

skohan wrote: post #128
intev wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is a common tactic to best understand if I am wasting my time. Seems like I am. Hope you have a good rest of the day.

That's a convenient way not to engage with the actual arguments - seems like you have been wasting everyone's time. A good day to you as well!

> That's a convenient way not to engage with the actual arguments

What actual "argument" did you put forth? You brought up tether and stablecoins, which is a pretty speculative argument. Nothing concrete is happening. The other two points you mentioned I directly addressed.

> seems like you have been wasting everyone's time. A good day to you as well!

lol. How am I wasting anyone's time? You in a long winded way basically said nothing can convince you. So who's wasting whose time? I literally said BTC doesn't deserve to exist if needs to rely on fossil fuels. That's where my line is. What's yours? Nothing. So yes, I am wasting my time while you are arguing religiously with no way to convince you so you are basically wasting everyone else's time.

Also let's not forget other legendary investors like Stanley Druckenmiller don't think the risks you mentioned are substantial enough to not invest. But I'm sure you understand the risks much better than them.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#138

Post by lordnacho »

keymone wrote: post #74
lordnacho wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bitcoin is the biggest invention in financial world since sliced bread Puzzling. Is sliced bread a financial invention? The sliced bread thing has always puzzled me every time I've come across it. Is it saying that there's no real added value, or that the added value in convenience is really big?

https://www.google.com/search?q=best+thing+since+sliced+brea...

But people who use an expression don't always know what it means. Thus googling for it does not tell you whether they really understand what they are saying.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#139

Post by creshal »

mattdesl wrote: post #133
creshal wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How decentralized is it truly when it's all depending on the Hicetnunc brand? If you had Hicetnunc-branded certificates of authenticity, you'd have the same "decentralized" trade opportunities, and in both cases the only value these trades have derive from the branding attached to them.

The premise of this space is that the tokens hold value because of who distributed the tokens (the artist), and what they conceptually represent (the artwork), and this value can exist beyond the scope of the website or platform that originally facilitated their distribution. For example, some artists on Ethereum are deploying their own token contracts[1], without the need for a distribution platform like Hicetnunc,…

> The premise of this space is that the tokens hold value because of who distributed the tokens (the artist), and what they conceptually represent (the artwork), and this value can exist beyond the scope of the website or platform that originally facilitated their distribution.

So what value does a distributed, anonymized ledger add, when the artists are the central authority who determine what is and isn't authentic? In the end, the value comes from the artist saying "I made this, not an impostor", which is the same as any physical artwork in history.

Do people just want to own art without being burdened by the ownership of physical goods? That sounds rather irrational even compared to normal art trades.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#140

Post by mattdesl »

Traster wrote: post #131
mattdesl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What value does crypto bring to you that a artist running a shopify store does not? It sounds like the NFT is entirely irrelevant in this transaction other than possibly providing a socially acceptable route that is better than a PayPal donate button.

I am an artist running a Shopify store (prints), and also have been selling via NFTs on Tezos and Ethereum for the last few months. If NFT continues to be profitable in the long term (even a fraction of what it is currently), there will be no need for me to continue using Shopify.

Consider the fees alone: I pay monthly fees for Shopify, for art printing and shipping, pens and physical materials, hosting my domain name and studio email, and so on. Not to mention the cost of my time (replying to emails, customer support, editing my store's website, etc).

All of this to enable revenue on my primarily digital art. I do enjoy making physical art prints, but I mostly work with software and code, and the art I make is better experienced digitally. Before NFTs, there was no established mechanism to earn revenue on digital art (primarily because there was no established mechanism to 'own' digital art), so I was forced to adopt physical printing and e-commerce despite it's high costs, annoyances, and generally poor return on investment.

In contrast, I can mint an art token on Hicetnunc for less than 25c USD. These fees do not go to a central platform like Shopify, but to the blockchain that helps maintain the provenance and permanence of the tokens I am distributing.

There are many other benefits of blockchain in this digital art space, I have written about it extensively[1].

[1] - https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/subscapes-part-1-preface

Post reply on HN