Live data from Hacker News

Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

wave.com

151–160 of 227 posts

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you not read my GP comment?

Yes, the logic doesn't add up, it's a chicken egg problem. It has to be stable before it's used for pricing any serious amount of IRL goods. Given how it's usage has evolved, I don't see a path to a stable Bitcoin.

It will likely be the same kind of path civilization had to using gold and silver as its primary currency for thousands of years.

If it happened for those metals, why do you think it's so unbelievable that it can happen for a superior form of digital gold?

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you recommend against using a modern distributed database? Call me maybe. This is a newer technology and the growing pains have been dramatic. I assume you've followed Jespen? https://aphyr.com/tags/jepsen I use MongoDB all the time, for a lot of projects. But I'm also keenly aware of how many years they have struggled to pass the Jespen tests. I can also recall several times engineers from MongoDB have said…

I'm not sure "struggled to pass" is the right characterisation. The Jepsen tests are part of the MongoDB test suite. They have found some bugs in the past and we have fixed them and incorporated into our test suite. Am I about to say Jepsen will never find another bug in MongoDB? No. But if they do we will fix those as well.

And I understand that MongoDB are also testing with Antithesis [1] and getting lots of assurance from that, right?

That gives me confidence.

[1] https://github.com/mongodb/mongo/wiki/Testing-MongoDB-with-A...

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All true, however, by using the dollar as your primary currency, you are effectively a vassal state of the United States, your currency getting regularly devalued without getting any direct benefit of that devaluation like American citizens get, and also no representation in the government that controls that implicit tax that is currency debasement. I'm not Salvadorian, so it's obviously not my place to say what you…

Your comment is less a criticism of monetary policy and more a review of the reality of life in a small, weak nation. No monetary decision can change the more fundamental reality of belonging to a small, weak nation. Reality must be confronted as reality. When the nations of Europe decided they wanted to establish a rival to the USA, they realized they could only do it by joining together, which was one of the drivin…

> They decided to break apart into many small, weak nations, due to the selfish interests of the different types of agricultural interests being pursued in each area

We've had some advances in integration. Many of them in the early 2000s when most of the Central American governments were at the moment right wing.

Unfortunately the left/right wing divide slowed down many integration attempts.

> But they could borrow ideas from the EU. They couuld reunify.

We've tried to do some of them, with the SICA (our EU equivalent) with varying degrees of success or failure.

Some of the successful ones are having our electricity grid interconnected, and the uniform customs regulation for Central America.

Some of them have great potential but are not widely used or promoted, like SIPA, the regional interbank payments that could be like the EU's SEPA but is not widely known, as even if banks use them internally, they still charge SWIFT prices to the end customers.

Others like the CA4, our Schengen free-movement-like-agreement, have been reinterpreted so many times that the spirit of the agreement is now only a fraction of what it originally was.

Then we have some private initiatives like Claro's popular free voice and data roaming in all Central America except Belize.

Others used to be great, but have been limited in the past year due to excessive regulations, like some private banking groups Central Ameican banking services, which used to offer easy and affordable inter country bank transfers but now they are very limited and expensive.

Some we lack completely, like the easier mobility between countries that EU citizens have. Even now, moving countries between Central America without family ties is expensive, difficult or even next to impossible.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Crypto crowdsourced the Ukrainian war effort faster and easier than the fiat rails did. No. Crypto sent a bunch of meaningless novelty coins to a country that has no chance in hell of converting them into food, water, transportation etc.

If that's true, then why did their government solicit people to send them these "meaningless novelty coins" on social media? Just for fun?

No idea. Perhaps grabbing at straws.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty regularly [1], depending on the bank. Every year, there will be several hour-long outages or out right data loss incidents (not all get publicized). https://www.wcjb.com/2020/08/05/bank-of-america-glitch-accou... Would you also class going to pay for something and not being able to because the payment network is down as "forgetting your bank balance"? Because those happen even more frequently; the cause being…

Having an outage is not the same as forgetting your bank balance, even if you see a scary $0 when you log in during the outage. But I agree it's definitely a thing that can prevent you accomplishing the thing you want to do with your money, during the outage. But if we're talking "outage" then bitcoin fees going over $25 is probably also fair to classify as an outage as a currency. And that happens too.

High fees In 2017 during an explicit attack on the network with spam, such that the spammer doesn’t have much BTC anymore. I haven’t paid over 1sat/vB for years. It’s the cheapest it can be onchain. Negligible. Ethereum on the other hand is broken with it’s gas calculation model with the unit of account being worth so much. Don’t touch ethereum these days, it’s bad.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where in order to buy energy you need to have bitcoin, there is no "buying" bitcoin So when you say "bitcoin is energy money," that's a tautology. It's energy money if oil is priced in bitcoin. > that doesn't depend on the enforcement of the monopoly on violence Violence relieves someone of their Bitcoin keys just as easily as it does their dollars or gold. (At the very least, you can permanently sequester them.)

> Violence relieves someone of their Bitcoin keys just as easily as it does their dollars or gold. Wrong. It is significantly more complicated to use violence to steal bitcoin from people than it is to use violence to steal dollars or gold. With bitcoin, I need to coerce you to give it to me. That could mean torture, sure, but do exist multisig key structures that make it impossible to steal bitcoin by coercing a sin…

> I just shoot you in the head and spend however long it takes to rummage through you house to find where you stashed it

I'm not going to point to them. But there are numerous videos where, at the end of a coup, the deposed executive is held at gunpoint while the incoming regime demands account numbers at the America, Swiss, et cetera banks where the money is held.

Swapping that to a crypto wallet just makes the extortion instantly verifiable and irrevocable. It's decreasing the cost of violent seizure.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#157
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's the most important thing crypto enthusiast always deny or fail to comprehend, it's like famous https://xkcd.com/538/ most enthusiasts do not accept that the blockchain will became unmanageable by most just due to it's ever-growing size. At that point exchange will be mandatory by nature and at that point users will have no more viable means to verify anything. The very same old scam banks have made in the…

> most enthusiasts do not accept that the blockchain will became unmanageable by most just due to it's ever-growing size Some blockchain protocols like Bitcoin make the silly argument that in order for a chain to be worthwhile, a full history of all transactions needs to be maximally available on the network. Other chains either drop, or plan to drop data that's been on the network for over a year or so (EIP-4444, fo…

> Other chains either drop, or plan to drop data that's been on the network for over a year or so

So when the next $625-million exploit happens [1] the hackers would just need to wait a year before any trace of them disappears? Awesome

[1] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=2022-03-29-0

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#158
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can trust my bank + the government to keep my money safe. Trust them to keep your money – yes, you can absolutely rely on that. Trust them to have “your” money back – that’s a taller order. But it it will be safe, sure. At least with cryptocurrency you don’t have to keep it at an exchange, while the governments are pushing for abolishing cash and keeping all the money in banks.

I don't know where this idea that governments want to abolish cash comes from. The crypto-world loves to bandy this about, but in reality a HUGE portion of the people still transact constantly in cash. Granted in the US only about 10-15% of people are "cash-only," but 85-90% use cash daily. Cash isn't going anywhere anytime soon, no matter how great Starlink gets, no matter how much Illuminati-conspiracy the Internet…

The dollar lost 99% of its value in the last 100 years. Eventually folks will wake up and not want to earn or accept money that melts away so quickly. It should take a lot less than 50y at the rate of print.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, some widespread and notable ones have consistently failed to prove they're backed by the reserves they claim to have.

That's true, but it's silly to measure the viability of a whole class of financial instrument by its weakest and shadiest actor (Tether). There are plenty of reputable stablecoins out there that prove their reserves either continuously on-chain or through regular financial audits.

>... but it's silly to measure the viability of a whole class of financial instrument by it's weakest and shadiest actor.

Tether is the weakest actor? What reality are you living in? It has 90% of all stable coin trading volume.

I think it's silly to make arguments which are falsified by a simple google query.

https://coinmarketcap.com/view/stablecoin/

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the logic doesn't add up, it's a chicken egg problem. It has to be stable before it's used for pricing any serious amount of IRL goods. Given how it's usage has evolved, I don't see a path to a stable Bitcoin.

It will likely be the same kind of path civilization had to using gold and silver as its primary currency for thousands of years. If it happened for those metals, why do you think it's so unbelievable that it can happen for a superior form of digital gold?

> the same kind of path civilization had to using gold and silver as its primary currency for thousands of years.

Until we came up with better ways to provide payment for goods and services.

Post reply on HN