In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism • Hacker News Board

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#181

Post by bhaak » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

aaaaaaaaata wrote: post #178

bhaak wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very Vitalik thing to do. For all the heat he gets from Bitcoiners I consider it a net negative that crypto split up into so many different camps. I wonder how the crypto space would have looked like if the Bitcoin space allowed people like Vitalik to work within it instead of being driven away.

When you see Bitcoin and Dogecoin being staked on ETH contracts and services (now) I feel like we haven't lost!

You're praising bridge contracts just a few days after a bridge contract has been drained by hundreds of millions of dollars? :)

Also, who is "we"? Bitcoiners, Etherians, crypto people in general, or some other crypto group?

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#182

Post by tenuousemphasis » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

SubiculumCode wrote: post #145

All the arguments here for BTC maximalism are actually better arguments for Monero, which is also MORE decentralized and is unparalleled in privacy.

Honest question because I don't know much about Monero: can you build layered networks like Lighting on top of Monero as you can with Bitcoin? If not, then Monero seems a non-starter for a global currency/payment system.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#183

Post by lawrenceyan » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 7:51 PM UTC

Vitalik is such a gigachad big brain 4D chess rotator that he can still manage to write an extremely insightful commentary even when it’s as an April Fool’s joke.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#184

Post by tenuousemphasis » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #40

tenuousemphasis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily, there are already mitigations for risk of loss, notably backups and multi-signature wallets. Both have tradeoffs and additional mitigations. Backups are additional single points of failure but can be protected by passphrases. Multi-signature is more complicated but has no single point of failure and redundancy. Future developments like covenants (restricting future spending of a coin) will create even more s…

> systems that allow you to claw back stolen funds using backup keys for example Doesn't that remove the trust in the transaction? Isn't the one of the promised joys of these things that, short of a fork, the transaction is immutable and that people don't have to worry about fraud in the form of charge backs or their money disappearing once they have it?

It doesn't, because the systems I'm talking about don't require trust, they're built from the Bitcoin scripting language (well, proposed changes to it).

https://utxos.org/uses/vaults/

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#185

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 8:50 PM UTC

smeej wrote: post #136

Spooky23 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tomorrow, it could be 50% less valuable than it is today.

It's a highly speculative investment at best, and a pyramid scheme at worst.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#186

Post by namlem » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 9:08 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #108

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.

Meta-irony, I love it

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#187

Post by kragen » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 9:36 PM UTC

bluepnume wrote: post #164

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is not and never can be currency.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Especially when it's an assertion about the definition of a word.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#188

Post by randomhodler84 » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 10:05 PM UTC

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #177

bluepnume wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

What is the max number of transactions per second that Bitcoin can support?

Lightning scales infinitely.

There are people using Bitcoin as a currency, via lightning, right now. More join all the time. The network expands.

It is a currency, is used as a currency, as sats. It is also a long term store of value as Bitcoin. You can ignore reality as much as your like, but the world has moved on from your 2017 era complaints.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#189

Post by ineedasername » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 10:39 PM UTC

bluepnume wrote: post #162

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.

Bitcoin, just like traditional money, can exist as a non-blockchain ledger entry in bank's computer system. This is how most exchanges and custodial wallets work. The difference is, you can also self-custody your Bitcoin. Obviously what's in your custody is just a private key; but for all intents and purposes that is self-custody. You are the sole person in control of those coins. So Bitcoin gives you the choice of h…

Self storage of non crypto assets beyond a certain threshold often end up taking the form of other assets like real estate. Purely from a net worth standpoint it's usually not optimal to have cash (physical or banked) on hand above a certain point.

But I take your meaning and it's a valid point: crypto self storage scales better than traditional cash. If scaling of that sort was an issue for me and self-storage a critical feature I wanted then crypto would fill the need. For the moment I'd still avoid using it for that purpose: I don't consider any coin truly stable at the moment, and if a new one came along tomorrow that appeared to have a rock solid foundation then I'd still want to see a few years of history before trusting it's stability. USDC might come close, but can you have self-custody of it, or trade it outside of the Coinbase ecosystem?

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#190

Post by archagon » Fri, Apr 01, 2022, 11:39 PM UTC

memish wrote: post #139

pygy_ wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Or maybe - just maybe! - he realized they were right?