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

201–210 of 234 posts

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#201

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

lkrubner wrote: post #151
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…

Bitcoin started in 2008, 14 years ago. The Internet was opened to commercial use, in 1993. That is 29 years ago. Bitcoin is half the age of the commercial Internet, so Bitcoin is no longer new. 14 years after the opening of the Internet to commercial use, Google was well established, Facebook and Twitter were rising rapidly, MySpace and Digg had already peaked but still had huge audiences. Amazon had already become a…

> cryptocurrencies are still struggling to come up with a straightforward use case that people can understand.

Speak for yourself.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#202

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

bhaak wrote: post #198
orblivion wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not useful to people almost all the time but it's vital and one-of-a-kind for that certain scenario. Though I could similarly throw in dissidents earning money and financing. I could just repeat what's in the article. In the mean time, sure, it would be smart to find other use cases.

I'm not sure if it really is one of a kind. Having a bit of money on PayPal would cover almost all scenarios equally well and even have less friction actually using your money. The combination of PayPal and Gold doesn't seem to justify to me the valuation of a market cap of 800 billion dollars or in other words, a daily budget of 40 million dollars for securing the blockchain.

> Having a bit of money on PayPal would cover almost all scenarios equally well

Unless you're...Ed Snowden?

Or Paypal takes a dislike to you for their own reasons?

etc

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#203

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

McWobbleston wrote: post #112
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…

IMO there's a couple of networks that have provided a killer app, but Bitcoin maximalism and ETH dominance completely overshadow them. I've followed loosely since 2009, never got into it because I knew the UX would be a problem, but little did I realize markets don't always evaluate technology on merit (an important lesson). It's wild to me now to see networks that have solved the UX problem, but other networks are s…

Because everyone agreeing on the same handful of L1s is almost a working definition of cryptocurrency adoption.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#204

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

tenuousemphasis wrote: post #180
TomSwirly wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.us…

Do you have a better way to decentralize digital money?

Why would he need that tomfoolery when he has Apple Watch Touch'n'Go Pay at his local store!

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#205

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

Cobragri wrote: post #19
tromp wrote: post #7

> Blockchains sacrifice privacy, requiring even crazier and more expensive technology to get that privacy back. The Mimblewimble protocol [0] bucks that trend, providing more privacy at the base layer while being less expensive in terms of the historical size of transactions [1]. > a focus on simplicity and deep mathematical purity: a 1 MB block size, a 21 million coin limit A supply of 50/(2^{height/210000}) coins e…

''Eth fails miserably '' Ethereum failed already at beginning. A blockchain; Mutable ,premined and ICO is already there. Eth is the target for regulations and censorship sooner or later. And i agree with that scalability is very important part of decentralization. Privacy and scalability well balanced in MimbleWimble.

> Eth is the target for regulations and censorship sooner or later.

Same for Bitcoin — but it'll never happen.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#206

Post by throw0101a »

tmn wrote: post #158
lkrubner wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin started in 2008, 14 years ago. The Internet was opened to commercial use, in 1993. That is 29 years ago. Bitcoin is half the age of the commercial Internet, so Bitcoin is no longer new. 14 years after the opening of the Internet to commercial use, Google was well established, Facebook and Twitter were rising rapidly, MySpace and Digg had already peaked but still had huge audiences. Amazon had already become a…

They really aren’t. The store of value is the use case. Now you may not have confidence that the social contract for that value will persist. I personally don’t have a high degree of confidence. But to continue to ignore that this itself isn’t the value add is obtuse to the realities of political turmoil.

> The store of value is the use case.

And how practical is that, given the wide swings (e.g., relative to USD) that are often seen?

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#207

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #89
Sebb767 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Literally the only way you can profit with real estate is if people keep buying in at higher prices. It's the perfect instantiation of a pyramid scheme. Except, of course, if you live in it, rent it out or use it as businesses asset. Good luck doing that with crypto. > Literally the only way you can profit with stocks is if people keep buying in at higher prices. It's the perfect instantiation of a pyramid scheme.…

Actually you can rent out crypto (to short sellers).

Or by staking for loans, other transactions.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#208

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #150
uncletammy wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a currency now, for dozens of nations and hundreds of millions of humans.

I'm afraid your comment doesn't make much sense.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#209

Post by throw0101a »

thinkmassive wrote: post #159
lkrubner wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin started in 2008, 14 years ago. The Internet was opened to commercial use, in 1993. That is 29 years ago. Bitcoin is half the age of the commercial Internet, so Bitcoin is no longer new. 14 years after the opening of the Internet to commercial use, Google was well established, Facebook and Twitter were rising rapidly, MySpace and Digg had already peaked but still had huge audiences. Amazon had already become a…

“The migration of the ARPANET to TCP/IP was officially completed on flag day January 1, 1983, when the new protocols were permanently activated.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

The ARPANET itself went live in September 1969:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

In 1983, with-in 14 years, it was widely successful for the academic and research institutions it was originally built for. It then started getting 'mainstream' attention.

ARPANET was opened up to commercial use in 1993, which is with-in ten years from TCP/IP go-live: again with-in 14 years.

Re: In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism

#210

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

Spooky23 wrote: post #185
smeej wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How many days in the last 5 years has Bitcoin done a 50% change in a 24hr period?

On how many of those occasions was there no opportunity, within say 3-12 months, to sell for higher afterward?

and if you don't have the answer to this...

Post reply on HN