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

I was wrong, we need crypto

world.hey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 336 posts

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#301

Post by datadata »

qalmakka wrote: post #281
datadata wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the digging example, the goal is to complete the tunnel. If the tunnel is not completed, the project would be a failure. You say that PoW works and makes cryptocurrency doable, yet you conclude that it is a failure. But you don't define what the goal of it is. What specific goal would you want crypto to achieve to falsify your belief that it is a failure?

PoW makes cryptocurrencies doable (i.e. they somewhat work), but not viable . PoW only simulates the creation of value, it does not create it. Yes, sure, fiat currency has also its value made out of thin air, but that value often corresponds to the strength of country's government, economy or fiscal system. Sure, for instance the Yen may become hyper or underinflated, but as long as Japan is an industrial power it's…

Scarcity by itself is not sufficient to make something have value, completely agree. But scarcity is necessary for value, so it is still important!

There are two notions of scarcity: Scarcity of bitcoin themselves (21 million), and scarcity around being able to create different cryptocurrency. Clearly the only weakness is in the later. Two points on this: Bitcoin commands a majority of proof of work energy. This does tie the digital scarcity of bitcoin to something in the physical world. You can't create another bitcoin without spending a similar amount on PoW. It's not that the scarcity of energy consumed translates to value in bitcoin directly, but rather it gives a high cost for creating an alternative to bitcoin. This is not unlike state issue fiats-- the Yen has value because Japan is a large state. I wouldn't trust a fiat from a state that was just created and had no citizens. So the scarcity of powerful states translates into a scarcity of fiat. Second, Bitcoin was the original invention of true digital scarcity. This makes it a natural place for a focal point. This by itself does not mean bitcoin has value, but it should be better at becoming valuable than other cryptocurrencies.

But bitcoin is also used for transactions and payments. It has growing links to the real economy just like other fiat currencies. The trend here is growing. If the trend continues-- meaning more and more businesses and workers take bitcoin as payment, surely you must conclude at some point bitcoin would then have real value, just like the Yen example?

> Bitcoin is not a real currency, is just a very complicated bank with extra steps, based on an asset whose value basically depends by the biggest Ponzi scheme ever known to man.

I think this is disingenuous-- A ponzi means that through intentional and planned deception invested funds are stolen. Sure, bitcoin is volatile and might crash again. But there is no structured fraud here, it is a free market, nothing like a Ponzi.

You still didn't define a falsifiable goal-- What would have to happen for you to consider cryptocurrencies to be successful, what is the end of the tunnel? It feels to me like you are assuming it will fail (it is a ponzi!), and then working backwards from that assumption to find how to justify it.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#302

Post by jqpabc123 »

datadata wrote: post #299
jqpabc123 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't look now but the market value of most web sites is zero. People pay nothing to use them.

And stocks also? There are more than 10,000 stocks, therefore the value of stocks much also must go to zero as the market is saturated.

Now you're just making up ever more absurd analogies by ignoring most of the context.

You don't have 10,000 companies all producing the same type of product. If you did, the value of most of them would go to zero really fast.

Also, you can't easily clone most listed companies at no cost. There are significant barriers to entry in the stock market --- which explains why you don't have 10,000 companies all doing the same thing.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#303

Post by greyface- »

woodruffw wrote: post #271
greyface- wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SARs[1] Link? I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report but this describes a process where a bank makes a report to the feds, not a process where the feds make a report to the bank. And account closure is not mentioned.

The federal government does not make a report to the bank. They mandate that the bank makes reports on any currency transaction over $10,000 USD, including special activity reports when the transaction is flagged for other reasons. The liability associated with maintaining a bank account after submitting an SAR is high, which is why banks immediately freeze those accounts.

> The liability associated with maintaining a bank account after submitting an SAR is high, which is why banks immediately freeze those accounts.

Again, do you have a source on this? It would seem to be at odds with the requirement that a bank keeps the filing of SARs secret from the accountholder. Skimming the BSA, there seem to be a lot of liability carveouts for banks that file SARs. I can't find anything that would increase bank liability in a situation where a SAR is filed.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#304

Post by jqpabc123 »

mateuszf wrote: post #296
jqpabc123 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can "make" money, you can buy anything. Yes and anyone can easily make money just like Bitcoin --- just clone it.

As easy as making Facebook clone. Good luck with getting people to use it.

PT Barnum --- *"There's a sucker born every minute."*

How many Bitcoin clones and forks are being used in the crypto-market right now?

Too many to easily keep inventory in your head.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#305

Post by mateuszf »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #304
mateuszf wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As easy as making Facebook clone. Good luck with getting people to use it.

PT Barnum --- *"There's a sucker born every minute."* How many Bitcoin clones and forks are being used in the crypto-market right now? Too many to easily keep inventory in your head.

That's cool we agree on Bitcoin clones value. They don't matter.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#306

Post by seanp2k2 »

defaultname wrote: post #230
MichaelZuo wrote: post #207

Discussing the politics of a country that the vast majority of HN readers do not understand in-deth in response to a rant by someone else who also only has cursory understanding is adding useless noise to HN. Canada has never been about ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, bar a small minority. In many areas it is closer to the EU than the U.S. In fact these rants are self-defeating as they convince ever mo…

It is sobering whenever this topic appears on HN (though thankfully this time it seemed to be flagged directly off the first three pages immediately, and perhaps DHH's low quality pablum has been properly binned) because it really resets my perception of the quality of comments here. Like reading a newspaper or magazine article on a field you happen to know in detail, making you realize that what you thought were con…

Media these days is just about exposure to sell ad space. The only credential required to be an influencer is the ability to influence via any means.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#307

Post by datadata »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #302
datadata wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And stocks also? There are more than 10,000 stocks, therefore the value of stocks much also must go to zero as the market is saturated.

Now you're just making up ever more absurd analogies by ignoring most of the context. You don't have 10,000 companies all producing the same type of product. If you did, the value of most of them would go to zero really fast. Also, you can't easily clone most listed companies at no cost. There are significant barriers to entry in the stock market --- which explains why you don't have 10,000 companies all doing the sa…

I'm making analogies so that you have to substantiate your argument. It isn't clear that just because there is a large number of something, the entire ecosystem must be worthless, which is what you originally said.

You can't clone bitcoin at no cost. To clone bitcoin you would have to invest the same amount of energy that has been expended thus far to proof of work.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#308

Post by jqpabc123 »

datadata wrote: post #307
jqpabc123 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you're just making up ever more absurd analogies by ignoring most of the context. You don't have 10,000 companies all producing the same type of product. If you did, the value of most of them would go to zero really fast. Also, you can't easily clone most listed companies at no cost. There are significant barriers to entry in the stock market --- which explains why you don't have 10,000 companies all doing the sa…

I'm making analogies so that you have to substantiate your argument. It isn't clear that just because there is a large number of something, the entire ecosystem must be worthless, which is what you originally said. You can't clone bitcoin at no cost. To clone bitcoin you would have to invest the same amount of energy that has been expended thus far to proof of work.

It isn't clear that just because there is a large number of something, the entire ecosystem must be worthless, which is what you originally said.

You're misinterpreting my original statement and ignoring my explanation.

   If too many people can easily make the product, the 
   market quickly becomes saturated ...
There are not 10,000 companies listed in the stock market all producing the same type of product.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#309

Post by spiritbone »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #289
nathanielks wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the part where people were being sleep deprived . It's not just a bit of honk honk lulz.

You missed the part where businesses were burnt to the ground and in some cases people were burnt alive inside those business So spare me your pity on their sleeplessness. Its hardly comparable. And it's amazing what gets the sympathy based on nothing more than what political wing finds that pity advantageous as opposed to inconvenient

It's rather straightforward though for any further away observer; if you're referring to the BLM protests they were clearly embodying a concrete universal in the historical moment, whereas here it is much harder to argue that having been the case.

Moreover, American political movements against vaccination have to my mind without much doubt led to many, many avoidable deaths in the past few years, even if direct causality is harder to establish. So it is not so puzzling or amazing to observe where people's sympathies align at this point of the pandemic.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#310

Post by woodruffw »

greyface- wrote: post #303
woodruffw wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal government does not make a report to the bank. They mandate that the bank makes reports on any currency transaction over $10,000 USD, including special activity reports when the transaction is flagged for other reasons. The liability associated with maintaining a bank account after submitting an SAR is high, which is why banks immediately freeze those accounts.

> The liability associated with maintaining a bank account after submitting an SAR is high, which is why banks immediately freeze those accounts. Again, do you have a source on this? It would seem to be at odds with the requirement that a bank keeps the filing of SARs secret from the accountholder. Skimming the BSA, there seem to be a lot of liability carveouts for banks that file SARs. I can't find anything that wou…

> It would seem to be at odds with the requirement that a bank keeps the filing of SARs secret from the accountholder.

If you have a SAR filed against your account, your bank will not tell you. They'll tell you that they've closed your account for internal policy or compliance reasons. And they won't be lying: the BSA doesn't require them to close the account.

The liabilities in question are both regulatory and financial.

On the regulatory side: bank employees are instructed never to tell a customer about the presence of a SAR, but mistakes can happen (and thus open the bank up to regulatory scrutiny or punishment). Similarly, the FDIC and Fed track SAR patterns, and may increase their scrutiny of a bank if customers who have historically received SARs at other banks successfully maintain accounts with a different bank.

On the financial side: SARs are filed for all kinds of crimes, including crimes against financial institutions themselves. It's a financial risk to keep those accounts around, because their rotating value might not reflect their actual "ultimate" settled value.

As for sources: here is a FAQ on SARs from the NCUA[1]. I don't have a pre-existing source for banks immediately closing accounts on SARs. Here's one I randomly found that states that a little over 1/4th of all SARs lead to account closure[2].

[1]: https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2021/ncua-federa...

[2]: https://bpi.com/the-truth-about-suspicious-activity-reports/

Post reply on HN