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

101–110 of 234 posts

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#101

Post by short_sells_poo »

ekianjo wrote: post #90
ineedasername wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is not a physical possession. My money right now is (mostly) not a physical possession either. It exists as a non-blockchain ledger entry in bank's computer system, and cannot be lost as easily as crypto currency, even if I make a mistake like forgetting my password.

Dont worry it will be slowly lost to inflation anyway without you doing anything about it

Which is why people are encouraged not to keep their wealth in money. We can get bogged down in endless discussions about the theory of money, but my view is that money is not meant to be an appreciating asset. It is meant to be an easily fungible currency that discourages hoarding so that it's always put to work.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#102

Post by prions »

So the author points to a link claiming 12% of Ukrainians own crypto, yet triple-a creates a circular reference in trying to substantiate this claim:

- The author refers to: https://triple-a.io/crypto-ownership-ukraine/

- This link calls it an estimate: "It is estimated that over 5.5 million people, 12.7% of Ukraine’s total population, currently own cryptocurrency.(1)"

- Link (1) points to https://triple-a.io/crypto-ownership/

- The link under "Ukraine" in that list points back to the first claim: https://triple-a.io/crypto-ownership-ukraine/

At the bottom of their data page: "The data contained or reflected herein are proprietary of TripleA."

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#103

Post by djbebs »

prions wrote: post #102

So the author points to a link claiming 12% of Ukrainians own crypto, yet triple-a creates a circular reference in trying to substantiate this claim: - The author refers to: https://triple-a.io/crypto-ownership-ukraine/ - This link calls it an estimate: "It is estimated that over 5.5 million people, 12.7% of Ukraine’s total population, currently own cryptocurrency.(1)" - Link (1) points to https://triple-a.io/crypto-…

This is literally an april fools joke...

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#104

Post by stickfigure »

ineedasername wrote: post #80
bluepnume wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bitcoin is not a physical possession. My money right now is (mostly) not a physical possession either. It exists as a non-blockchain ledger entry in bank's computer system, and cannot be lost as easily as crypto currency, even if I make a mistake like forgetting my password.

You have the luxury of living in a high-trust society with a stable banking system. Even if you assume that current stable banking systems will remain that way in perpetuity, half the world's population does not live under these conditions. Their risk calculations will be different from yours. That alone is enough to sustain the value of cryptocurrencies.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#105

Post by prions »

djbebs wrote: post #103
prions wrote: post #102

So the author points to a link claiming 12% of Ukrainians own crypto, yet triple-a creates a circular reference in trying to substantiate this claim: - The author refers to: https://triple-a.io/crypto-ownership-ukraine/ - This link calls it an estimate: "It is estimated that over 5.5 million people, 12.7% of Ukraine’s total population, currently own cryptocurrency.(1)" - Link (1) points to https://triple-a.io/crypto-…

This is literally an april fools joke...

So all of the data for https://triple-a.io/crypto-ownership/ is fake?

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#106

Post by TomSwirly »

prohobo wrote: post #84

People still don't understand cryptocurrencies, and at this point it seems more like intentional obtuseness for political reasons. At the same time, cryptocurrencies still haven't provided a killer app that shuts everyone up. So, IMO that's the only real thing that matters. Either you build something with it that's useful - or it isn't useful. I understand that it's difficult because of all the infrastructure require…

> People still don't understand cryptocurrencies, and at this point it seems more like intentional obtuseness for political reasons.

Your assumption that the only reason to hate cryptocurrencies is ignorance is not reasonable.

> in order to make them decentralized

"Decentralized" and "blockchain" are not synonyms. Blockchain technology is a wildly, insanely expensive way to decentralize an application: https://www.usenix.org/publications/loginonline/web3-fraud

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#107

Post by ineedasername »

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…

What about the sovereign part? No one has total power over their money because its utility is always based in another's willingness to participate in the transaction.

If bitcoin existed before the Civil Rights movement in the US, it would not have helped people of color spend their money in "whites only" establishments or buy houses in white neighborhoods when (prior to 1948) a covenant could legally exclude a person of color from owning certain homes. And after 1948 the legal system could still be weaponized against such purchases, or if all else failed the buyer harassed or worse.

These are more extreme examples, but that sort of thing does still go on in places both in the US and elsewhere. Bitcoin or other crypto fall short of solving monetary censorship.

Separately, why does it matter where bitcoin was created? (especially given that we really don't know who created it anyway).

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#108

Post by skybrian »

nadahalli wrote: post #2

I started reading the article assuming it was an April fool's joke. After a bit into it, I thought it was not a joke. When the self-deprecation began, I was again convinced it was a joke - but at the end of the article, I think this is not a joke. It's a rather good take on why Bitcoin maximalism is what it is. Some degree of ETH-maximalism will be required in the future given the sheer number of pretender L-1 blockc…

It seems that Vitalik decided to write the best defense he could of Bitcoin and publish it on April 1st. And that's the joke.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#109

Post by mirntyfirty »

djbebs wrote: post #103
prions wrote: post #102

So the author points to a link claiming 12% of Ukrainians own crypto, yet triple-a creates a circular reference in trying to substantiate this claim: - The author refers to: https://triple-a.io/crypto-ownership-ukraine/ - This link calls it an estimate: "It is estimated that over 5.5 million people, 12.7% of Ukraine’s total population, currently own cryptocurrency.(1)" - Link (1) points to https://triple-a.io/crypto-…

This is literally an april fools joke...

True, and the concerning thing is that it’s indistinguishable from the normal PR and marketing pieces. The Matt Damon commercials are ridiculous.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#110

Post by TomSwirly »

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.

The reason people are unbanked is nearly always because they don't have any money.

People with very little money are not going to put it into "some phone app", as they will see it.

I've heard this idea that cryptocurrency is going to help people in poor countries for almost ten years. At this point, absent even one concrete example, I'm comfortable calling it a falsehood.

Trying to guilt us into liking your Dunning-Krugerands by implying we are somehow unsympathetic to the plight of the poor is not very nice. Please stop doing that.

Post reply on HN