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

61–70 of 234 posts

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#61

Post by astoor »

seibelj wrote: post #29
astoor wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Something is only a sound investment if you know all sides are bound by rule of law. If you were to put money into a shell game at the local unlicenced market, then that would not be classed as a sound investment (even if you did know how to "beat the system" there's a good chance an accomplice would mug you for your winnings after you walked away). Or if you received a cold call from someone claiming to be a stockbroker with "insider knowledge" encouraging you to buy shares that they "know" are about become very valuable, that would not be classed as a sound investment.

With cryptocurrency it is the same. The combination of zero consumer protection and anonymity is the perfect breeding ground for fraud. If you were being charitable, you could call converting fiat money into cryptocurrency a gamble, but certainly not a sound investment. The only people who will try to convince you otherwise are those set to gain from the fraud.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#62

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

I’d argue that the first rule of growing and preserving wealth is to avoid quasi-religious entanglements with it.

Arguments about sovereignty and control are all ultimately specious, as they depend on a global infrastructure paid for by “fiat” dollars to exist. Your “sovereignty” over a random number is meaningless without the network that facilitates its transfer.

To date, crypto has proven to be a uniquely awful store of wealth. It was initially a magical way to transfer value cheaply, but the growth of it got rid of the “cheap” part.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#63

Post by lottin »

smeej wrote: post #39
bin_bash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who keeps a large percentage of their wealth in cash?

I don't know, but they're comparable in sophistication and foresight to people who keep a large percentage of their crypto wealth in a single-signature wallet. Neither one is a good idea. It isn't difficult to set up multisignature wallets, where you can lose some subset of the keys and still retain access to the funds. (It's not easy either, but it's not difficult, and there are companies like Casa and Unchained mak…

> It isn't difficult to set up multisignature wallets

I don't think setting up the wallet is the hardest part. The hardest part would be to get into a legally binding agreement with the other parties, that you depend on from now on to access your "wealth", the very situation that crypto-currencies were supposed to avert.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#64

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

justinpowers wrote: post #44
bin_bash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who keeps a large percentage of their wealth in cash?

~22% of the US population if you equate being unbanked or underbanked with holding your wealth in cash. Worldwide, the percentage is similar. Of course being unbanked isn’t equivalent but it’s likely very nearly so. Not to mention, the chances of being unbanked are higher for vulnerable populations, especially those who might benefit from uncensorable money.

Given the required internet access, transaction fees, and general tech sophistication required to use crypto (even more to use it safely), does it seem like it would be a good fit for those people?

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#65

Post by Spooky23 »

game_the0ry wrote: post #54
enkid wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's value is always only meaningful when at least two people agree on it's value. Is it not totally obvious that bitcoin has market value? If not, consider these points - bitcoin was not created by MIT and Uchicago STEM and econ PhDs, it was born out of an anonymous internet "white paper." It proved itself as a type of "money" in the internet dark markets, and continues to do so. It wasn't "lab tested," it was tes…

> bitcoin was not created by MIT and Uchicago STEM and econ PhDs

How do you know?

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#66

Post by bluepnume »

chinathrow wrote: post #53

> Crypto-assets like Bitcoin have real cultural and structural advantages that make them powerful assets worth holding and using. Not for me. Why would an asset, which I can lose, have no direct control over it or even better, whose storage places are hacked on a weekly basis, earn my trust? And no, I am not even starting about the energy waste most crypto-assets are.

You don't like it because it's possible to lose? Are all of your other physical possessions immune from being lost?

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#67

Post by giraffe_lady »

buildbuildbuild wrote: post #3

It's no coincidence that some of the strongest criticism against cryptocurrency happens here, in a community mostly of banked, relatively prosperous people in stable countries. May you never personally experience being unbanked or otherwise financially oppressed.

If you're going to claim to be speaking for an oppressed group I think you should be specific about which one, and what your relationship to that group is.

My experience with poverty in the US, having both experienced it myself and continuing to associate with many people experiencing it now, is that the main issue faced by poor people is having money, not having access to the money they do have.

Even for the "unbanked" or people who use high fee check cashing and similar products, that is largely a way to avoid unpredictable fees charged by banks, or simply because banks aren't willing to provide the services they need unbundled from other services you need more resources to access.

Plus the neobanks have really changed these dynamics in the last 5 or so years. If you're still working off pre-2018 conceptions of what the intersections of poverty and banking look like that can steer you way wrong here.

But anyway these are policy choices and we could make them different if we decided to. A complex technical solution is a poor first choice for solving this problem.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#68

Post by zhynn »

cinntaile wrote: post #18
rideontime wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your comment. Is there a meaningful difference between having "access to your wallet's funds" and being able to "transact"?

Well the parent claimed they would be rendered penniless. If you're temporarily unable to transact you're not penniless.

Or put another way, you are temporarily penniless. As long as that situation persists (which you may have no control over) you are penniless. You will rely on the charity or labor wages for resources in whatever local currency is used.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#69

Post by bluepnume »

ALittleLight wrote: post #57
seibelj wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think crypto is a pyramid scheme and your statement is an opinion not a fact.

Literally the only way you can profit with crypto is if people keep buying in at higher prices. It's the perfect instantiation of a pyramid scheme.

Literally the only way you can profit with real estate is if people keep buying in at higher prices. It's the perfect instantiation of a pyramid scheme.

Literally the only way you can profit with stocks is if people keep buying in at higher prices. It's the perfect instantiation of a pyramid scheme.

Post reply on HN