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

131–140 of 234 posts

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#131

Post by uncletammy »

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…

> At the same time, cryptocurrencies still haven't provided a killer app that shuts everyone up.

I disagree. The killer app is cash and that use case was intentionally killed by the bitcoin maximalists.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#133

Post by giraffe_lady »

koonsolo wrote: post #115
giraffe_lady wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "unbank…

> poverty in the US Here is where you go in the wrong direction. It's not about poor people in a stable country, it's about rich people in an unstable country. So the use-case is actually the complete opposite.

No that's pretty much the point I was making. The person I was responding to implies they have firsthand knowledge of the needs of the unbanked and "financially oppressed" globally.

I don't think knowledge that broad is possible and so it's largely a rhetorical move ("WHAT SO YOU HATE THE POOR & OPPRESSED??"). I have firsthand knowledge of at least one group in this category that isn't helped by this technology so I shared it.

The needs of the rich anywhere aren't an interest of mine so I don't know what their use case is. My point is that there are many use cases, and if you're going to assert one you should be specific about who it applies to.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#134

Post by smeej »

astoor wrote: post #61
seibelj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stockbr…

I don't think it's "rule of law" here, but information parity.

How you become sure you have as much information about the subject as the person you're dealing with (i.e., whether that's because it is required by law and you expect to have some recourse if it's violated, or because you are confident that you've had access to the relevant information for some other reason) isn't really important.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#135

Post by tastyfreeze »

rethab wrote: post #82
motohagiography wrote: post #71

I'm seriously considering a career pivot to being a freelance editor for cryptocurrency bloggers as not-having one appears to be one of the few things crypto millionaires can no longer afford. Given it's April Fools day, I think this may be GPT-3 trained on crypto subreddits and rationalist blogs.

Reads very much like written by GPT-3

Well, Vitalik is a robot...

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#136

Post by smeej »

Spooky23 wrote: post #62
game_the0ry wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

> To date, crypto has proven to be a uniquely awful store of wealth.

This is a striking claim about the asset class that has gone up in value more than any other in the years since its creation.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#137

Post by JumpCrisscross »

someguydave wrote: post #128
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Trading is only zero sum at an instant in time and space. Moving or holding commodities can change the sum of the trade.

> Trading is only zero sum at an instant in time and space. Moving or holding commodities can change the sum of the trade.

Trading between financial participants is, cetiris paribus, always zero sum. Irrespective of the timeline.

Buyer's gains are the seller's opportunity cost; buyer's losses were avoided by the seller. (Paribus violation is when parties have different funding costs.)

Moving commodities around isn't trading per se; it's logistics. Again, value adding.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#138

Post by ______-_-______ »

zzzeek wrote: post #5
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.

correct me if I'm wrong but people using bitcoin in oppressed countries will basically be rendered penniless by simply cutting off network access. source: https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/the-technological-case-ag...

A single node with a 20kb/s link is all it takes to keep the network in sync in both directions. In a country with 100 million people, surely one or two of them have a satellite dish. You cannot partition an entire population from the sky.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#139

Post by memish »

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.

It's unfortunate. Linus should have held his ground and told the crybully mob to pound sand. His strong personality is what led to Linux and git in the first place!

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#140

Post by smeej »

lottin wrote: post #63
smeej wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is that any harder than getting into a legally binding agreement with anyone else about anything else under the existing system?

You can make sure they don't have enough of the keys to move your funds without your consent. Making a legally binding agreement that they have to give you access to the key they have if/when you demand it is no more complex a legal task than any other instance where you trust someone to custody something for you.

Post reply on HN