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

In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

vitalik.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 234 posts

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#21

Post by astoor »

NoblePublius wrote: post #9

Why is uncensorable money worth the risk of permanently losing your money because you forgot a password or lost a thumb drive?

In my view, how you earn your money affects how you value it.

Many with cryptocurrency haven't had to do any hard honest work to obtain it, e.g. the early joiners who have just had to wait as their "wealth" accrues from later joiners, or even newer joiners who have made their "wealth" from scams or rugpulls or wash trading to artificially inflate the value of their NFTs or whatever. These people tend not to value their "wealth" in the same way as the "greater fools" who have had to work hard at honest jobs to earn their fiat prior to converting it to cryptocurrency, and so don't have such a problem with the constant risk of losing everything via loss or theft or market crash or whatever.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#22

Post by enkid »

game_the0ry wrote: post #13
NoblePublius wrote: post #9

Why is uncensorable money worth the risk of permanently losing your money because you forgot a password or lost a thumb drive?

Trade offs - bitcoin is not a free lunch. If you want to be fully sovereign with your wealth, you have to accept full responsibility of that wealth. If that is not a responsibility you want bc you believe it is too risky, then do not buy bitcoin. Or, you can trust centralized authority (a bank) with that responsibility; obviously, the trade off is you lose full control of your wealth. Additionally, how you approach o…

What does being fully sovereign mean for something that's only used as a medium of exchange? It's value is always only meaningful when at least two people agree on it's value. At best you only control half of the equation.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#23

Post by bko »

NoblePublius wrote: post #9

Why is uncensorable money worth the risk of permanently losing your money because you forgot a password or lost a thumb drive?

You could make the same argument against cash. You could easily lose your cash or have it stolen. That doesn't mean we should force everyone on a centralized digital ledger. You would be given some assurances in case of stolen funds through reversals. But there's a difference between accidentally losing your wallet and having your funds stolen because someone in power doesn't like you. The answer is to allow for both.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#24

Post by vel0city »

game_the0ry wrote: post #11
tgv wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's because the people on a tech forum see the problems of a tech hammer banging on everything it perceives as a nail better than others?

My friend, I worked in the tech side of a big bank that you might have an account with, so I have seen how the sausage is made. I would trust Google, Apple, and many other tech companies with my money. A better analogy - tech improves the hammer, it does not have to re-invent it. Example: open your phone and marvel at how easily you can send and receive funds from you banking app; 10+ years ago, you would have to go…

> 10+ years ago, you would have to go to a bank to do that

I've been doing 100% online/mail banking for >20 years. I've never actually set foot inside a bank that I was a routine customer of.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#25

Post by plsbenice34 »

shafyy wrote: post #15
game_the0ry wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you know your private key and / or seed phrase, you will always have access to your wallet's funds. As soon as you get network access, you can transact. You literally have to cut off the internet to stop crypto - that is part of what makes it so compelling.

No, an authoritarian government can always make it illegal to own crypto and/or to exchange crypto to fiat.

Unenforceable laws aren't that relevant here

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#27

Post by bin_bash »

bko wrote: post #23
NoblePublius wrote: post #9

Why is uncensorable money worth the risk of permanently losing your money because you forgot a password or lost a thumb drive?

You could make the same argument against cash. You could easily lose your cash or have it stolen. That doesn't mean we should force everyone on a centralized digital ledger. You would be given some assurances in case of stolen funds through reversals. But there's a difference between accidentally losing your wallet and having your funds stolen because someone in power doesn't like you. The answer is to allow for both…

Who keeps a large percentage of their wealth in cash?

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#28

Post by game_the0ry »

rtkwe wrote: post #17
game_the0ry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend, I worked in the tech side of a big bank that you might have an account with, so I have seen how the sausage is made. I would trust Google, Apple, and many other tech companies with my money. A better analogy - tech improves the hammer, it does not have to re-invent it. Example: open your phone and marvel at how easily you can send and receive funds from you banking app; 10+ years ago, you would have to go…

My rule of thumb for tech companies is they're all a mess under the covers so every company looks bad from the inside compared to the outside. > I would trust Google, Apple, and many other tech companies with my money. When I have a problem and need to call my bank I can usually get an actual person or even go to a branch where I can annoy someone in person, where as Google acts like categorically opposed to support…

I agree with your point about customer service, but I am more concerned about poor security practices at banks, like the Capital 1 / AWS incident.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#29

Post by seibelj »

astoor wrote: post #21
NoblePublius wrote: post #9

Why is uncensorable money worth the risk of permanently losing your money because you forgot a password or lost a thumb drive?

In my view, how you earn your money affects how you value it. Many with cryptocurrency haven't had to do any hard honest work to obtain it, e.g. the early joiners who have just had to wait as their "wealth" accrues from later joiners, or even newer joiners who have made their "wealth" from scams or rugpulls or wash trading to artificially inflate the value of their NFTs or whatever. These people tend not to value the…

Putting a significant amount of money into something that the vast majority of "intelligent" people say is a scam (as you do), is reward for taking risk. No different than an investor looking at small cap stocks to pick winners and throwing a lot of money in. It seems you are criticizing the concept of investing.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#30

Post by smeej »

shafyy wrote: post #15
game_the0ry wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you know your private key and / or seed phrase, you will always have access to your wallet's funds. As soon as you get network access, you can transact. You literally have to cut off the internet to stop crypto - that is part of what makes it so compelling.

No, an authoritarian government can always make it illegal to own crypto and/or to exchange crypto to fiat.

But can they make it impossible? That's the important question.

The hope of people who believe in a future switch to crypto as the monetary standard are hoping the technology is strong enough to withstand enforcement of laws against it, hoping that all the laws in the world won't be able to stop it.

Whether that happens remains to be seen, but it's important to understand that this is part of the hope and the goal.

Post reply on HN