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

Decentralized Woo Hoo

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 295 posts

Re: Decentralized Woo Hoo

#281

Post by PeterisP »

throwaway6977 wrote: post #152
api wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone got the web, chat, or social networks, but loads of people did and people from all backgrounds. Things like Geocities, AIM, MySpace, early Facebook, early search engines, etc. had millions of users very rapidly. They penetrated beyond the tech-savvy early adopters within years. Cryptocurrency is more than 10 years old and hasn't seen anything like this. The vast majority of what I see in cryptocurrency i…

I strongly suggest doing a comparison of O(log n)-style adoption curves between Bitcoin, and say- cell phones, computer networking, or really any innovation that became ubiquitous and for which we have the data... I think you'd be surprised at the similarities.

If I look at the adoption curves of cell phones or computer networking, I see a steady increase.

If I look at the adoption curve of Bitcoin as means for payment, the peak was multiple years ago when many companies in my area experimented with accepting it as payment - I could order a pizza with Bitcoin, I could buy an airline ticket, etc; but now those companies have stopped accepting them. There are multiple niches of business which do accept Bitcoin, but overall there has been a significant decrease at least in practical use - there has been some upsurge in digital asset related transactions, but in any case the adoption is certainly not growing exponentially like for other growing technologies, if we look at transaction rates at e.g. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/transactions-per-secon... then we're at the same level as of 2017, and below the peak.

Re: Decentralized Woo Hoo

#282

Post by CJefferson »

deweller wrote: post #117
CJefferson wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, if there is a "court intervention" clause that just lets you say "Transfer X money from Y to Z", then why bother with full blockchain/crypto? You have effectively central control.

I agree that would be a useless smart contract. If that is your intention, then don't use a smart contract. If, however, there are a limited number of known possible outcomes, then smart contracts offer advantages over court-based settlements.

Can you give a concrete example? I can't think of anything where you wouldn't need a fallback "human takes control".

Re: Decentralized Woo Hoo

#283

Post by PeterisP »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #71
kethinov wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that is an ideological argument (government controlling currency is bad) masquerading as a technogical argument: https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/crypto-absurd.html

The interesting technical feature isn't that it's a separate currency, it's permissionless transactions. We're heading to a world where authoritarian governments want to eliminate cash. Handing the Stasi the ability to prevent people from so much as buying food from a grocer without their permission is catastrophic, much less the impact from such a comprehensive level of surveillance as takes place when every purchas…

Well, permissionless transactions is the exact thing that is not going to happen in scale. With cash, you are required to deanonymize transactions unless they're small (In effect there would be a bifurcation - you can either have permissionless transactions, or you can interact with the real world; since all the legitimate businesses and law-abiding people would have to avoid the "permissionless" system unless they can break the anonymity of the transaction and verify that any required filters have been applied.

Re: Decentralized Woo Hoo

#284

Post by AnthonyMouse »

PeterisP wrote: post #283
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting technical feature isn't that it's a separate currency, it's permissionless transactions. We're heading to a world where authoritarian governments want to eliminate cash. Handing the Stasi the ability to prevent people from so much as buying food from a grocer without their permission is catastrophic, much less the impact from such a comprehensive level of surveillance as takes place when every purchas…

Well, permissionless transactions is the exact thing that is not going to happen in scale. With cash, you are required to deanonymize transactions unless they're small ( In effect there would be a bifurcation - you can either have permissionless transactions, or you can interact with the real world; since all the legitimate businesses and law-abiding people would have to avoid the "permissionless" system unless they…

> With cash, you are required to deanonymize transactions unless they're small (Nearly all transactions are that small, and the ones that aren't (predominantly vehicles and real estate) are already not anonymous for independent reasons.

It generally doesn't cost >$10,000 to buy a sandwich or a book.

Re: Decentralized Woo Hoo

#285

Post by jw1224 »

TomSwirly wrote: post #277
groby_b wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your answer to the statement that most blockchain technology is exploitation of verbal ambiguity and appeal to emotion is... verbal ambiguity and appeal to emotion? The claim is that there is no traditional valuation model that assigns any value to cryptocurrencies. The only way to refute it is to show that yes, such a valuation model exists. Until then, it's Goop but for tech.

> The only way to refute it is to show that yes, such a valuation model exists. Ah, a rational person. Yes, I thought that argument would be unbeatable, but the counter-argument goes like this: "Valuation models are worthless because all money is imaginary anyway." It's really hard to refute someone who says that, like it's hard to refute someone who believes the world is entirely imaginary.

If we didn’t have currency, our only means of exchange would be through bartering: I have food, you have clothes. I need clothes, and you need food.

I’ll swap you 5 bags of corn for 3 pairs of socks.

Do we have a deal?

>> The only way to refute it is to show that yes, such a valuation model exists.

It’s complex and inconvenient to barter all day long. So, “we” (society) created a “token” (e.g. USD) to represent the value of our economic goods.

I believe 5 bags of corn is worth about $10. You believe 3 pairs of socks is also worth about $10. Now we have a deal, unambiguously, because we have a mutually-agreed asset from which we can both continue to derive value in other markets.

So, both statements are true: “all money is imaginary” — because it has no inherent value (OK… I guess I can wipe my ass with it, or light a fire… but I can’t feed or clothe myself with a $10 bill).

But, at the same time, it’s not worthless — as we mutually agree to assign it worth, on the basis that others are willing to do so too.

> It's really hard to refute someone who says that

There’s a good reason it’s hard to refute this… because it’s a fundamental economic principle! As more and more people “agree” that Bitcoin has value, its value grows.

A mutually-agreed representation of value (i.e. a “valuation model”), therefore, exists.

Re: Decentralized Woo Hoo

#286

Post by olalonde »

spiralx wrote: post #236
dcist wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, you can pay taxes with fiat currency.

And use it to participate in the economy to obtain little things such as housing and food. Not to mention a computer and an internet connection.

Intrinsic value in this context would mean something's value outside of its exchange value. Both fiat and Bitcoin have arguably very little to no intrinsic value within that definition.

Re: Decentralized Woo Hoo

#287

Post by spiralx »

olalonde wrote: post #286
spiralx wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And use it to participate in the economy to obtain little things such as housing and food. Not to mention a computer and an internet connection.

Intrinsic value in this context would mean something's value outside of its exchange value. Both fiat and Bitcoin have arguably very little to no intrinsic value within that definition.

I was talking about its utility, not value. The whole point of a currency is being useful, not in being valuable.

Re: Decentralized Woo Hoo

#288

Post by robertlagrant »

> If you see tech monopolies as a fundamental societal problem … you’ll find an answer in decentralization. If you see income inequality as a fundamental societal problem … you’ll find an answer in decentralization. If you see government overreach as a fundamental societal problem … you’ll find an answer in decentralization. If you see monetary policy as a fundamental societal problem, you’ll find an answer in decentralization. There is no meme that you won’t find an answer for because how someone sees decentralization is like a Rorschach for their fears and tragic flaws.

This is sort of true, but also there are lots of problems that on their face don't make sense with decentralisation (e.g. the problem of how hard it is to disseminate expert information, which is enabled in part by decentralisation). This is just a list of problems that decentralisation could actually help with.

Re: Decentralized Woo Hoo

#290

Post by didericis »

lottin wrote: post #254
didericis wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold was the world reserve currency for millennia and acted similarly to bitcoin and other crypto currencies. You can still have emergent government structures many of the bitcoin people would hate on top of a base store of value which is not centrally produced by governments.

I agree. But the promises that bitcoin makes can only become reality if anarcho-capitalism itself becomes a reality. Otherwise, if the government continues to tax you, and banks continue to hold fractional reserves, what is the point of using something so anti-economical and impractical as bitcoin, when you can just use a more convenient currency?

If the supply of money is distributed it becomes more difficult to manipulate.

Fractional reserves in a world backed by bitcoin can’t be bailed out if banks screw up. If people want to exchange whatever government backed medium might sit on top of it to actual bitcoin the banks wouldn’t be able to if they spread themselves too thin.

It would create more accountability.

Post reply on HN