Live data from Hacker News

The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger of Crypto

stephendiehl.com

631–640 of 704 posts

Re: The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger of Crypto

#631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiat is backed by the insistence of the issuing government that you pay your taxes in that denomination. It has very little to do with pension systems, except to the extent that the government runs those also denominated in dollars. But the US could end social security tomorrow and as long as it still required taxes and tariffs in the form of dollars, the dollar would still have value.

Zimbabwe required taxes and tariffs in the form of Zimbabwean dollars... You need a little more than just taxes and tariffs for a fiat currency to have value... You need a hard money that is not going to be devalued also. This is where all fiat falls short and has done since the demise of the gold standard.

Ok, but Zimbabwean dollar is not a Ponzi scheme either… the claim is about Ponzi scheme, not other things.

Re: The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger of Crypto

#632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the phrase "woo woo" along with various strawmen & many omissions of why crypto is being adopted was the extent of his criticism, hence low quality. He does not understand crypto & is trying to sell his competing product. If he were to talk about decentralization/distribution vs centralization along with who controls the fiat money supply & who benefits & who does not benefit from the fiat central bank policies…

> He does not understand crypto & is trying to sell his competing product. This is the repeated refrain of crypto believers. "You just don't get it." And yet when I ask someone to explain it to me (not the technology, the economics) I get hand-waving, self-contradicting promises (e.g. universal identity + resistance to censorship), and appeals to greed ("you must like being poor"). When faced with this, I'm often rem…

The resource / explanation that really sold me on crypto was this specific podcast episode: Welcome to Bankless 2021 edition. I'm curious to know what you think after listening to it.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1SI7tFrzOXyeQ8NLVFgIRU?si=o...

Re: The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger of Crypto

#633

This particular source is extremely low quality and is motivated by the author's undisclosed competing product. I would like to see higher quality sources on the front page of hacker news one day.

Thank you for sharing in detail why you think the article is so low quality. What can be stated without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

No problem. Let's have a look at a high-qualify evidence-backed paragraph of the fine article:

> A stablecoin bank would be subject to exactly the same FinCEN and OFAC money movement restrictions and compliance checks as banks; so know your customer gating, counter-terrorism financing, sanctions enforcement, and anti-money laundering enforcement. And these compliance requirements are the almost always the bottleneck consumers may encounter when doing cross-border transactions, and it’s not a technology issue.

I'm not sure what the fine author means by "A stablecoin bank," and he doesn't really tell us, but it seems like he means a stablecoin issuer who processes creations and redemptions, but doesn't control the use of stablecoins otherwise. In this case, an example of "a completely legal and above-board stablecoin (which doesn’t exist today)" might be GUSD. I'm also not sure why he thinks DAI is illegal, because again he just throws out a bunch of claims without substantiating them.

Anyway, he was actually talking about how stablecoins don't provide any benefit for international settlements. For whatever reason, I have bank accounts in the US and Japan, and I often have to move funds to Japan to pay bills. This takes about a week and costs about 50 basis points. The fine author would like us to know that the 1-week delay and 50 basis point charge are required by law. While this is not my area of expertise, my impression is that none of the regulations mentioned by the author require this process to take 1 week and cost 50 basis points when I am remitting funds *to myself*. I am under the impression, which may be wrong, that I am not breaking the law if I pay for goods in SPL USDC instead of waiting a week to move dollars from FTX to account at Shinsei bank via my US bank and Transferwise at the cost of taking a phone call at 2am and paying 50 basis points plus 20 dollars.

> Nothing about stablecoins is either necessary nor desirable, and any alleged improvement these systems may offer at the moment are purely illusory and derived only from the unstable situation that they temporarily inhabit a yet-unregulated shadow banking system that is either non-compliant or entirely scofflawing.

This seems like an unsubstantiated claim that it's a crime to pay for goods and services using SPL USDC in every country. I don't think that's true, but maybe if the fine author could elaborate I could learn more here.

> A regulated stablecoin bank is just a bank, but with a core ledger built on a terribly inefficient and bizarre piece of software not built for that purpose. All this while guzzling entire nation states worth of energy for no reason. Using inefficient blockchain as core banking software makes old legacy core banking solutions like Jack Henry look like a Ferrari by comparison. Our European allies all built extremely reliable real time payments like SEPA that work marvelously and they didn’t need any stablecoins.

The fine author seems unaware that there are currently deployed blockchains that can process the transaction volume of Visa and use less energy than Visa. That's discouraging, given that the fine author has chosen to write in such an authoritative tone about these technologies.

SEPA might be fine if you live in Europe and everyone you ever need to pay or accept payments from lives in Europe and has never lived anywhere else. It just doesn't do much for me personally when I have to move money from the US to Japan to pay living expenses, my lawyer is in Dubai and wants to get paid in Switzerland, and my developer in Japan wants to get paid in Hong Kong. So I just keep paying like $60 and taking phone calls at 2am to send wire transfers to my lawyer and dreaming of the day I can pay less than a penny and not take any phone calls at 2am if my lawyer adopts existing technology. The fine author would like me to know that this isn't actually a problem and I'm just delusional. That's not particularly helpful.

For the rest of the things the fine author has ever written, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Re: The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger of Crypto

#634
post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it these layer 2 solutions typically require a resolution transaction in order to actually extract value, which has similar costs to a normal on-chain transaction. In the ideal world folks would be able to use the existing infrastructure of established Bitcoin atms to make transactions with low fees, but that doesn’t seem like it will happen any time soon. Things like the Twitter solution aren’t great…

Not sure what you mean about layer 2 solutions being similar in cost to layer 1 transactions. See here: https://l2fees.info . Arbitrum and Optimism are both running in "safe mode" so their tx cost will continue to go down. I agree that the twitter solution isn't great. Just pointing out that Lightning network is a tech that can be used for cheap transactions. 100% agree that none of these solutions are accessible to…

So I may be wrong here but my understanding is that you can’t go directly from fiat to L2 transacting. My goal is to minimize the loss from patron’s bank account to creator’s bank account, and every extra step along the way is a couple percent out of the creator’s bank account and into exchanges/miners’.

Edit: put more simply, a hundred people each want to give $5 to a single person. What path do they follow to ensure that the person can get as close to $500 in their bank account as soon as possible. Bonus question: what is the relation between how much they can get into their bank account and how long they wait?

Re: The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger of Crypto

#635
post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a transaction need to be a network scale operation in a decentralized scheme? The ultimate decentralized payment mechanism is bartering, in which the transaction only includes the people making the transaction. Now, I don’t know how to translate that to the digital world, but there’s no clear reason why a decentralized network must inform the entire network of everything that happens in it.

In this context we're referring specifically to decentralized finance, currency, etc.

Sure, but still I can transact using currency in the real world without (directly) involving a central authority, announcing my transaction to the whole world, or paying any fees. I cannot do that in the digital world.

Re: The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger of Crypto

#636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is impossible: the numbers on your bankaccount are multiplied, thanks to fractional reserve. The cash in your hand is not. Maybe not a big deal now, but at some point it might be. And then it's "surprise! The numbers on your account != cash in your hand"

But we have insurance on deposits in the US/Canada. Also DAO are trying to replicate fraction reserve lending. So basically we have protections against this problem in the traditional system and the crypto system is trying to replicate fractional reserves. Tether also is engaging in massive fractional reserve lending. Apparently only 3% of Tethers are backed by cash holdings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2715…

> the crypto system is trying to replicate fractional reserves.

That is not a fair statement and you know it. Only a fraction of cryptos maybe. Most do not.

Re: The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger of Crypto

#637
post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get it do you? There is no point in giving arguments to people who don't understand. All this HN discussions have proven that already, no? Do you really think at this point you or me are going to change someones opinion with arguments?

That is not a logical argument. No crypto booster has an answer to: It is not useful Or It is a huge waste of energy Or All the technology involved has better counterparts I do not think I will change your mind, but others are reading this

All your questions have been answered plenty of times. The fact that the same stuff keeps being repeated says enough about the discussion.

Re: The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger of Crypto

#638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your value is always in some sort of market. Or do you think fiat is not in a market? Anyway, when you keep it in cash, you're one of the losers as the current high inflation is clearly indicating.

I'm saying the best way to be a loser in the crypto market is to stay out of crypto entirely. And pointing out that people who make that decision aren't typically quiet about it at all.

Ah sorry I misinterpreted your response :).

Re: The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger of Crypto

#639
post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zimbabwe required taxes and tariffs in the form of Zimbabwean dollars... You need a little more than just taxes and tariffs for a fiat currency to have value... You need a hard money that is not going to be devalued also. This is where all fiat falls short and has done since the demise of the gold standard.

Ok, but Zimbabwean dollar is not a Ponzi scheme either… the claim is about Ponzi scheme, not other things.

It's the best example of a fiat Ponzi scheme. Keep printing money to keep the guys near the printer (at the top of the pyramid) flush.

USD and other fiats are doing the same. Just at a much slower rate.

Edit:

It's basically just the Cantillion Effect[1] by another name.

[1] https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/the-cantillion-effect

Post reply on HN