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

91–100 of 234 posts

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#91

Post by michael_j_ward »

pygy_ wrote: post #59
michael_j_ward wrote: post #26

The Defense of Toxicity section reads to me like a defense of Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman.

Torvalds has apologized for past toxic and the damage it incurred, behavior and has vowed to do better from then on.

Vitalik proposed a theory that the toxicity is a valid and perhaps even necessary defense mechanism.

I don't pretend to know whether Vitalik's theory is true, but it certainly seems plausible. And defending linux from bad actors is a herculean task. If Torvald's toxicity helped him in that endeavor, his apology would be a negative development.

Interestingly, the Rust community has had incredible success being explicitly anti-toxic. It's a wonderful community that I enjoy. Rust is also now reaching a level importance that it will be a target to be coopted as described by Vitalik, as prominent members of the Rust community have expressed concern over [0].

[0] https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#92

Post by JumpCrisscross »

game_the0ry wrote: post #85
popcorncowboy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that you're wrong about anything that you've said, but your implication (and that of the blockchain punditry) is that somehow crypto is the solution here, without ever exaplaining "how". The idea that crypto is "out of reach" of governments, regulators, law and oppressive regimes is one of the fairy tales that crypto pundits believe that is simply not true. In a country that is unbanked and financially oppressed,…

> no-one explains how they'll just "bypass" the financial system, tax system, government regulators or the people with guns Here's one explanation - when the people with guns realize they are paid in a fiat currency that their bosses keep inflating for their own benefit, what do you think they will do? Another - who will the people with guns shoot at when they can't identify an anonymous crypto wallet?

> when the people with guns realize they are paid in a fiat currency that their bosses keep inflating for their own benefit, what do you think they will do?

Same thing that happens in Venezuela. You pay your army in real assets and hard currency.

> who will the people with guns shoot at when they can't identify an anonymous crypto wallet?

Which is a false assumption, given recent history.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#93

Post by NikolaNovak »

plsbenice34 wrote: post #43
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?

Did you see the videos of Russians lining up all day to try to withdraw tiny amounts of cash from an ATM?

But I'm not in Russia and it feels I have to do

A) huge amount of research

B) huge amount of risk / personal responsibility

C) and Still trust some or multiple 3rd party services to practically obtain or withdraw bitcoin, which have same or more power or likelihood to cut me off

I (think) understand the dream. I don't see the reality of seamlessly easily practically safely cheaply transacting bitcoin. As a mediocre techie, every time I ponder getting some bitcoin for giggle, I get lost in conolex how tos and run screaming away from complexity and risk.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#94

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vageli wrote: post #73
ALittleLight wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crypto is if people keep buying in at higher prices. It's the perfect instantiation of a pyramid scheme. How does that differ from other commodities trading? The only way to profit in the futures market is to buy low and sell high, too, for instance.

> differ from other commodities trading

It doesn’t. Trading is zero sum. It supports the extraction, processing and delivery of useful things, however, which is positive sum.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#95

Post by kragen »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #64
justinpowers wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~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?

I know a lot of "those people" who are using Bitcoin already, but I would never refer to unbanked people as "those people," being for all practical purposes one of them. We mostly aren't using it safely (a lot of us don't know the difference between Binance and Bitcoin) but we are using it.

The last transaction fee I paid was 33¢, and the average transaction in the last Bitcoin block was 913 bytes, so your internet access speed isn't an obstacle to sending a transaction as long as it's above about 20 bits per second; if you want to run a full node you need at least 17000 bits per second of internet access unless you're using the Blockstream satellite.

Typically I pay US$5 a month for cellphone internet access when I have it, but more commonly I use Wi-Fi in various places.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#96

Post by JumpCrisscross »

game_the0ry wrote: post #38
shafyy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nearly impossible to fully enforce via tech - there are many ways around a tech ban. Decentralized exchanges, TOR, VPNs, etc. can get a round a tech ban. A policy ban is also an implicit admission that the government's position on money and finance is weak - if the US bans bitcoin, that implies that the dollar can't compete against bitcoin on its own merit, without the enforcement of violence.

> policy ban is also an implicit admission that the government's position on money and finance is weak

Every country with capital controls already does this.

Most of them (e.g. Egypt, Iraq, Bangladesh and China) hand banned or heavily restricted (e.g. India) crypto. The same way they restrict hard currencies. America has an open capital account, so the threat is less present.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#97

Post by caffeine »

popcorncowboy wrote: post #45
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.

Not that you're wrong about anything that you've said, but your implication (and that of the blockchain punditry) is that somehow crypto is the solution here, without ever exaplaining "how". The idea that crypto is "out of reach" of governments, regulators, law and oppressive regimes is one of the fairy tales that crypto pundits believe that is simply not true. In a country that is unbanked and financially oppressed,…

Real-world situations aren’t binary. They don’t just automatically go to the extreme edge case. It’s a common mistake of programmers whose brains are trained to think that way (mine included!)

So when the government is bad people who have guns, it might be tempting to think “There is no mitigation for this because they have guns! They can just exert infinite leverage at any point to squelch any mitigation to their corruption!”

But reality is there are only so many bad guys with guns and they can’t be everywhere all the time. Every additional tool people have to circumvent corruption helps.

Can they access the internet and read content from free countries? Educate themselves? It helps. Even if it invites persecution, it helps.

Can they access some way of storing value their corrupt leaders can’t just steal or print away? It helps. Sure someone can come to the door with a gun and demand your wallet key, but until then, it helps.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#98

Post by justinpowers »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #64
justinpowers wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~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?

The fit of alternatives was not the focus of the comment I was replying to.

The fact is that many people hold their wealth in cash, and many of the same people are part of vulnerable populations.

One shouldn’t remove another’s alternatives simply because it’s assumed that the other lacks access or sophistication. Even if true, both potential deficiencies are fully reparable and do not permanently negate the benefits of uncensorable money.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#99

Post by game_the0ry »

Spooky23 wrote: post #65
game_the0ry wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Bc there is no way academics would not take credit for it. That's like expecting a fish not to swim.
Post reply on HN