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

Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 184 posts

Re: Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

#171

Post by cwkoss »

drdeca wrote: post #169
cwkoss wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I personally think using NFTs for gameplay-altering items seems like a bad path that will lead to frustrated holders of useless things, because either meta will shift and they'll have to disable some items or they have to manage permanent power inflation (challenging to do well and will devalue the items anyways). A lot of "Free to play" games get most of their money from cosmetic enhancements. I think cross-ga…

I suppose what I said would be less of an issue for cosmetic items, good point. As for “how to get other games to recognize the tokens for the cosmetic items”, I suppose one reason could be via the use of copyright: grant a license to other games to use the assets for the items, conditional on the requirement that they only allow it for people who have the token in question. If they are high quality assets, and in a…

That's an interesting idea. Cross game cosmetics would be especially interesting if certain items were not made available for sale by the developers, but had to be earned via in-game accomplishments.

Ex. if you kill the final boss in the game, you get a hat that you can sell, but every copy of this hat was earned by someone who beat the game.

Could be an interesting way for game studios to cross promote - if player of Game B wants that fancy hat, they have to either beat Game A or trade with someone who did, incentivizing more people to play Game A. Some number of people would be swayed in which games they chose to play if they could 'cash out' once they were done with it - even if it's only ~$20 for dozens of hours.

So this could be used to not only bring in revenue, it could alternately be structured to build audience.

Re: Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

#172

Post by cwkoss »

noxer wrote: post #168
cwkoss wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Bitcoin is much more volatile, but literally everything you said applies to every other currency or monetary instrument. There is no guarantee that Tesla stock, or t-bills or the dollar will have value in 20 years. Money is a collective hallucination and can disappear as soon as people stop believing in it.

I called out whats wrong in your logic. I never claimed anything about fiat/stock or whatever. Its irrelevant, the only point you made FOR bitcoin (namely that no one can take it away from you) is moot because the value can still go away there is just no one to sue/blame if it happens.

You missed the point.

Bitcoins value can go to zero.

Stocks, bonds, cash: all monetary instruments' value can go to zero. Non-crypto assets can also be taken from you against your will.

Part of why Bitcoin is valuable is because it cannot be seized without consent of the owner (if owner is diligent about security).

Your criticism of Bitcoin broadly applies to all forms of "saving money" or preserving value. Value can go away from any vehicle you park your money. Your argument essentially boils down to "I believe Bitcoin in particular will crash more than other monetary instruments, so it doesn't have value" - which could be correct and you could short BTC if you feel confidently about that, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Re: Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

#173

Post by mkolodny »

Jasper_ wrote: post #136
mkolodny wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof-of-stake is a strategy being used to make some cryptocurrencies more environmentally friendly. Instead of using lots of compute to compete create new bitcoins, cryptocurrencies using proof-of-stake, like Ethereum 2.0, dole out new coins to people relative to the amount of the currency they already own. Proof-of-stake uses orders of magnitude less compute than proof-of-work, so it's far more environmentally frie…

> cryptocurrencies using proof-of-stake, like Ethereum 2.0, dole out new coins to people relative to the amount of the currency they already own Doesn't this mean that those who don't have the funds to be able to safely stake their coins see their balance depreciate as the incoming coins go to people who have the ability to stake their wealth, implying that the most efficient way to use the system is to concentrate w…

> Doesn't this mean that those who don't have the funds to be able to safely stake their coins see their balance depreciate as the incoming coins go to people who have the ability to stake their wealth, implying that the most efficient way to use the system is to concentrate wealth?

Not necessarily. If the currency's market value keeps increasing, then even if you don't stake your coins, your balance will still appreciate.

> The goal of proof-of-work is to prevent supermajorities from taking over the chain's verification by turning verification into a lottery of labor. Proof of stake doesn't seem like it solves that problem.

From the Ethereum website:

"The threat of a 51% attack still exists in proof-of-stake, but it's even more risky for the attackers. To do so, you'd need to control 51% of the staked ETH. Not only is this a lot of money, but it would probably cause ETH's value to drop. There's very little incentive to destroy the value of a currency you have a majority stake in. There are stronger incentives to keep the network secure and healthy.

"Stake slashings, ejections, and other penalties, coordinated by the beacon chain, will exist to prevent other acts of bad behavior." [0]

[0] https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms...

Re: Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

#174

Post by ikerdanzel »

opheliate wrote: post #120
snejad123 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will in 5 years when it's worth 2x that.

So it's actually a speculative instrument then?

There is a reason Fed and central banks exists. Governments just have to ban the transaction of crypto to any hard currencies and there goes the 2x in 5 years. The works to ban are now in the works and will be rolled out within that time frame. Good luck holding it for 2x. It will have values, but not for mass consumers markets. It is a musical chairs except the last one won't really get the chair to sit but more like a spiky seat.

Re: Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

#175

Post by ikerdanzel »

snejad123 wrote: post #137
Jasper_ wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does Ethereum let me run an uber-like taxi app for fractions of a cent and not pay my employees? How does it do that?

I think you fundamentally don't understand what Ethereum is trying to do if you are thinking like this. I suggest you read the documentation and learn about what the infrastructure actually allows you to do. Ethereum will allow you to deploy a smart contract that enables taxi drivers to provide that service to taxi customers. You do not have any employees and rather the taxi drivers will decide whether they wish to u…

After 10 years, which Uber app succeed with Eth? Enlighten me. Can and actual is very different. It is like saying Betamax is superior and yet we see VHS.

Re: Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

#176

Post by whateveracct »

nscalf wrote: post #161
whateveracct wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't call it Web 3.0 - these projects have proven very little to imply they are the true next progression of the "Web." Most of the use-cases don't even especially benefit from decentralization. The main reason they have blockchains and coins is so the project founders can cash out the moment they release a mainnet (thus getting paid by the fans they hype up.) Look at dfinity (ICP) for a recent example. First week o…

That may be a fair criticism of the naming. My point was more that it doesn't make sense to be called cryptocurrency, and less that it's the true next progression of the web. With regards to the cash outs, I think there's probably an argument to be made about web 1.0 and 2.0 companies that were highly unprofitable with no way to ever become profitable. There were investors propping up companies with bad fundamentals,…

True that it isn't crypto specific.

Re: Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

#177

Post by RodgerTheGreat »

xeromal wrote: post #152
lancemurdock wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this would indeed be a serious blow to current price of crypto. Many projects would die and tons of liquidity would leave. Liken to a mass extinction event. But like all gov attempts to ban something, there would still be a cohort who believe in the product and keep it alive. And over time, from the ashes, the value would grow again

Just like POGs. haha

Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue...

Re: Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

#178

Post by agloeregrets »

nscalf wrote: post #165
agloeregrets wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then it flags bitcoin as an environmental hazard, though estimates seem to be ~50-70% of BTC energy use is from renewables. Here is a brilliant idea...What if all of that renewable energy was...not wasted on crypto?

So we can waste it on watching porn, pumping water to golf courses, running the light in your fridge, charging your fitbit, or whatever else you choose to do with it. You can extend that argument to anything that uses power which you don't approve of. Your problem isn't with crypto, it's with the power grid. Here's a brilliant idea: what if you did the leg work to lobby your politicians to push for a power grid that…

No, it's really not. Every single thing you mentioned uses 100-100,000 times less power in whole of the entire world than Crypto uses. Your comment is like saying 'the problem with fossil fuels is not with their pollution but with that our planet is too sensitive to their output, change your planet, keep the fuel!'

If Crypto is innovation than it should innovate itself into making sense on the planet it exists. This is why POS-based crypto is key to the future but there are WAY too many miners and HODLers that don't want to lose their income because it was based on bad choices.

Re: Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

#179

Post by nullsmack »

nyrosis wrote: post #134
verdverm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If BTC uses clean energy, someone else has to use the dirty energy because BTC took the renewable they could have used. Mining has also driven up costs for communities that had cheap renewables. BTC is a waste of energy because it doesn't do any of the things it claims to do. It's highly centralized, far more wealth imbalance, and trending towards custodial accounts if it ever wants to reach mass adoption.

That would depend on where the financial motivation to produce renewable energy is coming from. A logical argument could be made that bitcoin encourages the production and advancment of green energy technologies by rewarding such efforts with wealth generation.

Oh BS I keep hearing about bitcoin farms that get shut down because they are stealing electricity. That is more likely than someone running one on solar and wind. AND that solar/wind would've been better used to offset a fossil fuel source of electricity than being used on completely and utterly fake and worthless "money"

Re: Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

#180

Post by nullsmack »

itake wrote: post #164
lmohseni wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all much better options than a Ponzi scheme/ financial bubble.

This bubble has been going on for 11 years. When does it cease to be a bubble?

Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme started at least as early as 1991 and he was arrested 17 years later in 2008. So I guess these scams can go on quite a while.
Post reply on HN