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

Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 202 posts

Re: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

#131

Post by carlivar »

bko wrote: post #47
carlivar wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is legally preventing people from owning dollars different from banning Bitcoin (or gold)? Isn't the latter one of the main risks to Bitcoin?

It's not but its a lot easier and safer to hold digital currency than wads of cash in your floorboards. Easier to acquire, receive from abroad and verify as well. It allows for a form of civil disobedience against unjust laws

Various weights of gold or silver are the better comparison versus wads of cash, but your point is taken since I guess the completely digital acquisition is the difference.

Re: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

#132

Post by CryptoPunk »

goesnowhere wrote: post #118
Qasaur wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>From my point of view serfdom is the (block)chain. Only people with enough stake or those who pays are in control. I disagree with this but even if one assumes this to be the case, I'd much rather prefer a monetary system subject to the control of free market forces rather than the modern monetary system which is subject to a small group of unelected and unaccountable technocrats operating under the feeble assumptio…

Look up wildcat banking. Being "subject to the control of free market forces" is not a good thing for working class folks who only hold onto currency.

Wildcat banking is a trope

https://www.alt-m.org/2021/07/06/the-fable-of-the-cats/

Re: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

#133

Post by badwolf »

mjdesa wrote: post #83
throw__away7391 wrote: post #46

Let's be real. The vast majority of pro-cryptocurrency arguments break down to something like this: "I have Bitcoin, I want it to become the currency of the future so that the price will go up an I will become rich. Here are $reasons why that should become true, which all my fellow Bitcoin hodlers agree are very good reasons". We are now many years past not only the creation of Bitcoin but also past it going "mainstr…

I owned a pretty decent amount of crypto back in 2012, but sold all of it and own essentially none now. I think what you’re missing here is that there is actually potential in the space and that there are a decent amount of people trying to solve real problems that exist today. The two big ones I can think of are payments and ownership. Payments has always been a difficult part of the web. Multi billion dollar compan…

Just a side note about your digital movies: You can connect your various accounts and share your library across services with Movies Anyhwhere: https://moviesanywhere.com

Re: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

#134

Post by thr0wawayf00 »

aww_dang wrote: post #120
thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boom and bust cycles are inherent to capitalist markets, you can't have capitalism without it. Blaming it all on the Fed isn't accurate. Markets boomed and busted long before the Fed existed. > hardly a bastion of price stability Relative to BTC, USD is much, much more stable. This is what I don't get about these kinds of arguments. What are you comparing the Fed to in this case?

I'd go even further than that. The mismanagement of markets by central planners set the stage for cryptocurrencies. We're living in an era of speculative mania. Savings accounts have a negative real interest rate. This currency must go somewhere. Centralized payment services are vulnerable to regulators, see eGold and Liberty Reserve. Note that BTC emerged shortly after these services were destroyed. Anti-terror legi…

> Centralized payment services are vulnerable to regulators, see eGold and Liberty Reserve. Note that BTC emerged shortly after these services were destroyed. Anti-terror legislation was used.

According to Wikipedia, Liberty Reserve was used to launder over $6B stolen from offshore banks. That sounds like a pretty legitimate reason to shut a service like that down to me. You argue that central banks are incompetent and need to be disrupted, yet you don't hold services like these to the same standard. Instead, you argue that they're victims of regulatory overreach and that we should create that allow this kind of activity to thrive. Where's the anti-money laundering mechanism in crypto? It doesn't exist.

I truly do not believe that the full anonymity provided by crypto does anything but benefit those with the most resources in the system. As long as that remains true, how do we expect it result in a more fair system than what we already have?

Re: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

#135

Post by CryptoPunk »

latexr wrote: post #69
CryptoPunk wrote: post #2

>>Let’s start with this: Venmo is a free service to transfer dollars, and bitcoin transfers are not free. Is the author really unaware of the horror stories of Venmo and PayPal freezing customer accounts? Articles like this want a return to serfdom, under the control of officialdom. There is no other conceivable reason why someone would not want people to have at least the option of taking custody over their own mone…

> There is no other conceivable reason why Perhaps there is no other reason you can (or are willing to) conceive, but that does not make it fact. A major issue with cryptocurrency and blockchain discussions is that vocal proponents speak as if they’re arbiters of truth with perfect knowledge of the the world and everyone who doesn’t subscribe to their view is an envious dunce. They speak in insults and talking points…

The only fundamental difference inherent to the respective designs of blockchains and traditional banking, is censorship resistance through genuine self-custody. The former is designed to provide this quality, and the latter is not.

So yes, I maintain people opposed to blockchain on principle - as opposed to problematic elements within the contemporary blockchain space - oppose individual liberty, which I characterize as desiring for the population to be under a technocratic form of serfdom.

Re: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

#136

Post by goesnowhere »

bko wrote: post #123
goesnowhere wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the exception not the rule. Also making this as your main argument for why crypto is a net positive is telling because you understand that there are 0 uses for crypto in a functional democratic society.

You have a very limited view of the history of capital controls. In the history of the world, capital controls are very common. It's a cycle. The state controls the money supply, they debase it through printing (dilution during gold standard), the value depreciates and everyone panics. One of the first things they do is restrict the ability of people to transfer money out of their currency. When everything is stable,…

Fiat currencies are used in literally every country on the planet and have been through the largest economic booms in history. Limited/hard currencies on the other hand, have a 100% failure rate with one ongoing experiment happening right now in El Salvador. Which would I rather bet on?

I bet we agree on many issues including, let people move freely between countries, have less rules, have smaller countries. But there is nothing wrong with the idea of a government backed currency even if you can point to failures like Turkey, Venezuela and many more.

Also are you seriously saying that because you can't rent seek land in Liberia there is a problem with the global economic order?

Re: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

#137

Post by zcw100 »

The article talks about trust but doesn't even mention the insane amount of trust blockchain solutions are expecting you to put on the cryptography that it utilizes. This idea that crypto is some impenetrable fortress is ridiculous. At best it's a well fortified castle that should provide a reasonable assurance that it will keep attackers at bay for long enough that you feel secure. They expect to put all the worlds money on there, insurance contracts, land records and when there's a weakness found in the crypto it all just goes poof?

This would exceed Tyler Durden's wildest dreams.

Re: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

#138

Post by CryptoPunk »

pornel wrote: post #115
CryptoPunk wrote: post #2

>>Let’s start with this: Venmo is a free service to transfer dollars, and bitcoin transfers are not free. Is the author really unaware of the horror stories of Venmo and PayPal freezing customer accounts? Articles like this want a return to serfdom, under the control of officialdom. There is no other conceivable reason why someone would not want people to have at least the option of taking custody over their own mone…

You may not be realizing that PayPal's primary business is fraud detection and dispute resolution, not merely moving money. PayPal is layer above money transfers, providing insurance and reversibility of transactions that cryptocurrencies themselves don't have, and most don't want to have.

PayPal is the closest thing to the cryptocurrency experience in traditional banking. The layer below it - banks and wire transfers - is even more susceptible to financial censorship.

Re: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

#139

Post by cdiddy2 »

ddtaylor wrote: post #15

HN really loves to hate cryptocurrency!

HN is generally well served by the current financial system. Very included in banks/stock grants/VC money/a lot of accredited investors/easy access to world reserve currency, so there really isn't much need for any crypto solutions.

Re: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

#140

Post by bko »

goesnowhere wrote: post #136
bko wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very limited view of the history of capital controls. In the history of the world, capital controls are very common. It's a cycle. The state controls the money supply, they debase it through printing (dilution during gold standard), the value depreciates and everyone panics. One of the first things they do is restrict the ability of people to transfer money out of their currency. When everything is stable,…

Fiat currencies are used in literally every country on the planet and have been through the largest economic booms in history. Limited/hard currencies on the other hand, have a 100% failure rate with one ongoing experiment happening right now in El Salvador. Which would I rather bet on? I bet we agree on many issues including, let people move freely between countries, have less rules, have smaller countries. But ther…

> Fiat currencies are used in literally every country on the planet and have been through the largest economic booms in history. Limited/hard currencies on the other hand, have a 100% failure rate with one ongoing experiment happening right now in El Salvador. Which would I rather bet on?

Something has existed for tens of thousands of years and in the last 50 years has been supplanted by something else. Which would I bet on surviving 1,000 years from now? Hard currency.

Post reply on HN