The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency • Hacker News Board

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#141

Post by intev » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:50 AM UTC

dkshdkjshdk wrote: post #124

skohan wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that was essentially the original question to begin with. You can make a pedantic distinction between "Bitcoin" and "blockchain", but your comments make it clear you are arguing in bad faith here.

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…

Lol you got suckered in just like me again. They made it clear that nothing can convince them. It's like trying to convince a Christian to be Muslim. Nothing you say or do can change their view. It's incredibly frustrating because the goal posts keep moving and they will refuse to even say what will convince them - primarily because nothing can convince them. So why bother right...

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#142

Post by detaro » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:58 AM UTC

mattdesl wrote: post #140

Traster wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nam…

> and the art I make is better experienced digitally.

That's where it breaks down when buying stuff for me personally. Prints admittedly run into the issue of "walls get full", but I have not figured out a way to regularly enjoy digital art, especially since everything comes in different sizes and scales. Plenty artists I follow (you included ;)) now are on HEN, but that has kept me from getting into any of it, even though I get the limitations of prints.

There have been combinations of screen + digital art "subscription" in the past, which I never liked because of their closed nature, but maybe some amount of standardization/embedded display hints/... towards a more open variant of that will develop.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#143

Post by rostigerpudel » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:59 AM UTC

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…

Just looked it up for Western Union: To transfer 2000€ from Germany to a Chilean bank account, you pay a fee of 0.90€. The currency exchange spread adds 13.32€ to the costs. Transfer time is between 0-4 work days.

If you want to have cash in hand within minutes, they offer that too, albeit with a hefty surcharge.

With Bitcoin, you have to pay an on-ramp and an off-ramp because EUR->Bitcoin->CLP, which will be hard to get done cheaper than the WU currency exchange spread (introductory offers don't count, so keep your anecdote). Given current Bitcoin volatility you need to do the currency exchange quickly or you may have a hodl moment and have to wait for Bitcoin to regain its value.

I really fail to see where the great savings from carrying out such a transaction via Bitcoin are supposed to come from, in particular when take into account the number of intermediaries I have to interact with and trust and the technical complexity involved in handling Bitcoin. People are always willing to pay a small fee for comfort and security.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#144

Post by mattdesl » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:05 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #139

mattdesl wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The distributed ledger adds security, longevity, ownership, and provenance: eg. a token is purchased from an artist, and it can be held and traded (ie. "owned") for as many years as the blockchain continues to survive. Unlike the ownership of a file or record in a centralized database, which are mutable and based on a single source of trust, the blockchain acts as a social consensus mechanism, i.e. we can all agree that "wallet X owns digital token Y".

To your second point: much of today's art is not manifested by a single physical artefact. Conceptual art has been around for a long time; ownership of conceptual art is not new[1], but the advent of blockchain gives a new vehicle and distribution mechanism for it, in particular digital and software art.

[1] - https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-conceptual-art...

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#145

Post by creshal » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:09 PM UTC

mypastself wrote: post #132

creshal wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When already decommissioned fossil power plants get reactivated to mine bitcoin, I think it's safe to say that a ban of cryptocurrencies would have a significant impact.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#146

Post by creshal » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:18 PM UTC

mattdesl wrote: post #144

creshal wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The distributed ledger adds security, longevity, ownership, and provenance: eg. a token is purchased from an artist, and it can be held and traded (ie. "owned") for as many years as the blockchain continues to survive. Unlike the ownership of a file or record in a centralized database, which are mutable and based on a single source of trust, the blockchain acts as a social consensus mechanism, i.e. we can all agree t…

> The distributed ledger adds security, longevity, ownership, and provenance: eg. a token is purchased from an artist, and it can be held and traded (ie. "owned") for as many years as the blockchain continues to survive. Unlike the ownership of a file or record in a centralized database, which are mutable and based on a single source of trust, the blockchain acts as a social consensus mechanism, i.e. we can all agree that "wallet X owns digital token Y."

Is there any advantage over a traditional certificate signed by PKI? I'd say the risk of X.509 PKI in its entirety disappearing is significantly lower than the risk of any individual blockchain startup failing. (How's that for decentralised redundancy!)

> To your second point: much of today's art is not manifested by a single physical artefact. Conceptual art has been around for a long time; ownership of conceptual art is not new[1] but the advent of blockchain gives a new vehicle and distribution mechanism for it, in particular digital and software art.

So we're back to hype for the sake of hype, detached from any technical merit.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#147

Post by Traster » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:27 PM UTC

mattdesl wrote: post #140

Traster wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nam…

Sorry I meant specifically, you could just sell digital copies of your artwork on shopify, along with a little pdf from you saying "Mattdesl hereby certifies this artwork as edition N of M". What value is the NFT providing? As far as I can tell the only value is that people are willing to trade in NFTs but are less willing ot accept the shopify solution. But they're both equal measures of ownership. Once you've minted your NFT on Hicetnunc you still have to sell it, and that's likely to go via a crypto exchange in exactly the same way that your credit card transaction goes via shopify?

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#148

Post by mattdesl » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:28 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #146

mattdesl wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distributed ledger adds security, longevity, ownership, and provenance: eg. a token is purchased from an artist, and it can be held and traded (ie. "owned") for as many years as the blockchain continues to survive. Unlike the ownership of a file or record in a centralized database, which are mutable and based on a single source of trust, the blockchain acts as a social consensus mechanism, i.e. we can all agree t…

> The distributed ledger adds security, longevity, ownership, and provenance: eg. a token is purchased from an artist, and it can be held and traded (ie. "owned") for as many years as the blockchain continues to survive. Unlike the ownership of a file or record in a centralized database, which are mutable and based on a single source of trust, the blockchain acts as a social consensus mechanism, i.e. we can all agree…

I don't know much about PKI but it seems to rely on certification authorities (i.e. single source of trust) and there does not seem to be a clear mechanism for artists to sign, trade, and 'own' them.

But, if you were to create a PKI-enabled digital art marketplace that is able to meet the same decentralized structure and benefits of NFT technology, without the need for a distributed ledger and tokenization, I'm sure many artists and creators would welcome that.

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#149

Post by mypastself » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:31 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #145

mypastself wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When already decommissioned fossil power plants get reactivated to mine bitcoin, I think it's safe to say that a ban of cryptocurrencies would have a significant impact.

I’m aware of only one case where a fossil fuel power plant partnered up with crypto miners. But I’m not denying PoW’s environmental impact, just its comparative scope and scale. Do you think we should ban other technologies reliant on dirty energy, such as motor vehicles? The Internet?

Presumably you believe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in those cases. If that’s the case, crypto (PoW, really) would then chiefly be guilty of not being sufficiently beneficial to justify its contribution to climate change?

Re: The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency

#150

Post by Traster » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:34 PM UTC

redpiller wrote: post #63

RandomLensman wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I get this wrong, but doesn't this rely very classically on aligned interests and various parts keeping the other parts in check? No blockchain or tokens required... I did not see anything how profit is verified. Could always use expenses to funnel money out, opex and capex are mixed creatively etc.

It costs real money to buy back tokens from the market and to burn them on the blockchain because they are provably scarce. Because new tokens cannot be created, burning them on the blockchain permanently reduces the remaining circulating supply of tokens so the value of remaining tokens goes up (supply versus demand). Someone could potentially funnel money out from the stream of profits but anyone could independentl…

> but anyone could independently check expected earnings

How? In order to know the earnings of the company I basically need to audit everything. I need to know all the lease agreements, I need to know all the costs etc.

How do I know that the company has made less money this year because we just got unlucky with low occupancy or expensive repair bills, or if one of the people running the company is funneling money via some subcontractor?