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

141–150 of 234 posts

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#141

Post by uncletammy »

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #119
kragen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can live in real estate and get dividends from stocks. Cryptocurrencies are more similar to commodities: gold, wheat, coal. (You can consume wheat and coal, yes, but that consumes them and then you don't have them anymore; that's not profit.)

Yes, except gold, wheat, and coal have inherent value as physical items whereas crypto does not.

You see no value in having a currency that can't be inflated on a whim by your government? As in, the printing of money that reduces the purchasing power of the money sitting in your bank account. Really?

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#142

Post by smeej »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #56
smeej wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. If you know the mechanism for potential reversal of the transaction and trust the process responsible for making the decision about when to reverse a transaction, you've known the rules and the context from the start. It would have to be a well-designed process to earn your trust, but it's not an unsolvable problem. To my knowledge, there aren't any smart contracts that have implemented such a system…

Well, I'd be interest in how this turns out - the only way I can envision it is either both parties need to agree to a return (which can already be done by agreement), one party has to agree (taking agency away from the other), or a "higher power" needs to agree (removing the freedom from governance that these technologies propose to offer). In most of these cases there's self-determination being lost.

The third party has to demonstrate trustworthiness, but isn't that always how arbitration of a disagreement works? Even in the existing monetary system with all its clawbacks, someone has to decide whether you're actually eligible to get your money back.

At least in this system, you could have whole services that build a track record based on publicly identifiable information. You can't flood them with reviews to skew the results because you can cryptographically verify whether the reviewer was party to the disputed transaction.

There are a thousand theoretical variants on the same basic idea, but it's at least no worse than the existing system.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#143

Post by smeej »

rabidvermin wrote: post #129
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?

There's a reason people keep their financial assets in a bank or other such institution, rather than cash under the mattress.

IF they live in a place where this is perceived as safe.

How many Canadians are now rethinking that decision after the government banned people from using their own money if they supported a cause the rulers found objectionable? It's not everyone, certainly, but it's also not no one.

Banks are safe until they aren't. If you're lucky enough to live somewhere they are, for now, great! Enjoy that while it lasts.

But recognize that it isn't true everywhere, and it isn't necessarily true always even where it's true presently. Just because it's a reasonable thing for you to do right now, that doesn't make it a reasonable thing for all or even most people to do now, much less indefinitely.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#144

Post by kobalsky »

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,…

looks like that until you can instantly pay by winking to each other at 0 fees for 100% of your use cases on a proof-of-orphans-being-adopted or proof-of-cancer-being-cured blockchain, crypto deniers won't be satisfied.

the system doesn't have to be perfect and you don't have to be 100% invested for it to work, you can still be helped by crypto in a financially oppressed country even if you don't use it for everyday transactions, even if you don't use for all your money, even if you use it once per year.

like any other options, you use the best one for each situation, and crypto fills a huge gap here, fees included.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#146

Post by someguydave »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #137
someguydave wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

>Trading between financial participants is, cetiris paribus, always zero sum.

Only if you consider the trade in the quantity of the goods traded, and not in a prevailing unit of accounting.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#148

Post by JumpCrisscross »

someguydave wrote: post #146
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

>Trading between financial participants is, cetiris paribus, always zero sum. Only if you consider the trade in the quantity of the goods traded, and not in a prevailing unit of accounting.

> Only if you consider the trade in the quantity of the goods traded, and not in a prevailing unit of accounting

Nope, this is microeconomics. If you and I have the same funding costs and we trade a commodity derivative, any gain you have is a gain I gave up. Any loss you have is one I avoided.

This is true irrespective of the unit of account of point in time at which one measures it; it's an identity. The only

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#149

Post by pgwhalen »

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…

As someone who works in finance and sees the messiness, my takeaway is the exact opposite: the bad tech is evidence that the maintenance of the monetary system is largely not a tech concern, it’s an institutional and societal trust concern. And that’s why banks are actually pretty decent at it.

I’m not saying there aren’t major improvements to be made in fintech, but I think by and large crypto is trying to improve parts of finance that are not actually improved by technology.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#150

Post by not_kurt_godel »

uncletammy wrote: post #141
not_kurt_godel wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, except gold, wheat, and coal have inherent value as physical items whereas crypto does not.

You see no value in having a currency that can't be inflated on a whim by your government? As in, the printing of money that reduces the purchasing power of the money sitting in your bank account. Really?

Bitcoin is not and never can be currency.
Post reply on HN