Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On anti-crypto toxicity

blog.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 734 posts

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#141

Post by once_inc »

subroutine wrote: post #36
bedobi wrote: post #2

Waaay back, I thought Bitcoin was a cool technology, and convinced some friends of mine with businesses to accept it. We had a lot of fun with it - it was really cool to pay for your beer by scanning a QR code and seeing the transaction come through this public, distributed, tamper proof ledger, like magic, with no need for money, banks or any of the other financial infrastructure we're used to. Sadly, the "crypto sp…

> Sadly, the "crypto space" was quickly invaded by hordes of people who never really cared about the technology itself, how it works and what it's actually useful for. If having a solid understanding of the tech underlying crypto is a prereq of any sort, it will never reach mass adoption. Personally idgaf what fiat we choose or tech underlying my debit transactions, so long as the value is reasonably stable, my accou…

Unfortunately, the world tends to dish out black swan events that invalidate your assumptions of what is reasonable. Canadian truckers, Argentinian hyperinflation, Sri Lankan federal deficits, Turkish central banking mismanagement, Russian expansionist delusions... the list goes on and on.

Sure, the dollar is reasonably stable. The problem is that the global financial system is deeply flawed in its fundamental properties. Bitcoin is a hedge against inflation, financial meltdowns, geo-spatial catastrophy, and more.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#142

Post by usrn »

bedobi wrote: post #2

Waaay back, I thought Bitcoin was a cool technology, and convinced some friends of mine with businesses to accept it. We had a lot of fun with it - it was really cool to pay for your beer by scanning a QR code and seeing the transaction come through this public, distributed, tamper proof ledger, like magic, with no need for money, banks or any of the other financial infrastructure we're used to. Sadly, the "crypto sp…

I actually do still use it to pay for a SAAS side project from a retired startup founder who got kicked off paypal. It's super convenient for digital stuff like that.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#143

Post by 1ris »

disruptalot wrote: post #124
varjag wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inherently deflationary asset guarantees it's going to be used as a speculation vehicle rather than money.

Bitcoin continues to inflate until ~2140. The difference is that it inflates in a predictable curve and is not subject to the decisions of central bankers. Inflationary policies also have a very tight link with speculation in the economy. You only need to look at the past 2 years.

Bitcoin supply does grow until 2140. It will inflate only if the backing economy and users does not grow until then. If this growth outpaces the supply of bitcoins, it deflates. And just every economist (and every piece of empirical data we have) will tell you deflation is about the worst thing that can happen to an economy, in terms of monetary events.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#144

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Any Internet conversation is going to have some toxic people just due to low barriers to entry. When you see someone who thinks “that maybe a lucky crypto buy could help them dig out of crushing debt”, you shouldn’t be mean to them, but it’s very important to let them know that it’s a bad idea! I remember going on a few snarky rants back during the Safemoon pump, and I probably should have moderated my tone a bit, but it was just incredibly frustrating to see people close to me sinking substantial sums of money into an obvious, obvious scam.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#145

Post by maccard »

hocuspocus wrote: post #139
maccard wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you located that visa and MasterCard are charging 3%? In the EU the fees are limited to 0.3%, and in other areas (e.g. the UK) it's 1%. As a card holder I'm pretty happy to pay a ~0.3% service fee to know that I have recourse with a merchant, for example. > I just want an efficient low-cost barrierless payment network. Whats low cost to you then?

Note that the 0.3% cap is on the interchange, i.e. the fee that goes back to the card issuer, it doesn't affect Visa and Mastercard directly. PSPs in the EU/EEA charge around 1% overall, a bit more to small businesses (for instance SumUp), and a bit less to the really big retailers that have more bargaining power.

I'm aware of that, but OP was talking about 3% of his transaction going to visa/mc, not stripe/sumup.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#146

Post by krzyk »

brianolson wrote: post #60
bertil wrote: post #25

The largest and easiest argument against crypto is the environmental impact. It’s completely ignored in that piece.

There are new blockchains based on technology a million times more efficient than Bitcoin. Ethereum is trying to upgrade. Bitcoin is terrible, but this is fixable by using things other than bitcoin.

How Etherum thing is an upgrade?

More centralization (AFAIR you need 32 ETH to get started, so ~$100000, not to mention possible issues where you loose full 32 ETH) vs a single GPU with only lose is your electricity cost.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#147

Post by Broken_Hippo »

stavros wrote: post #136
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I lose 50 € to some unscrupulous merchant, that's worth it to not have to ask the bank for permission for and tell them about every transaction. in other words, you aren't poor enough for the loss of 50 € to mean that you are going to have less food this month and won't be late on your rent because of it.

Ah yes, banks, the champions of the poor man.

It isn't that banks are looking out for poor people. That should be obvious.

But poor people do use banking services and in both countries I've lived in (US and Norway), there are built in consumer protections. They aren't perfect, but they are stronger than you get with crypto. You can often resolve a payment issue, for example. FDIC protection in the US covers most folks (most folks don't save more than whatever the limit is now).

And this protection, even if imperfect, helps folks have a little more stability in their lives.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#148

Post by pid-1 »

brianolson wrote: post #53

I'm grumpy about Visa/MC taking 3% of every transaction. I want a technofix for that. There are new blockchains that cost less than a penny per transaction use about a millionth of the wattage of bitcoin and I hope they turn out to be non-BS. I just want an efficient low-cost barrierless payment network.

If you think about blockchain fundamentals, they will always be expensive.

How does a global network of peers can have transactions verified by majorities while being cheap?

Basically you could say crypto fees are the price you pay for not trusting anyone.

Using crypto is only a good alternative if you live in a society so fucked up citizens can't trust any bit of the contingent financial system.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#149

Post by stavros »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #147
stavros wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, banks, the champions of the poor man.

It isn't that banks are looking out for poor people. That should be obvious. But poor people do use banking services and in both countries I've lived in (US and Norway), there are built in consumer protections. They aren't perfect, but they are stronger than you get with crypto. You can often resolve a payment issue, for example. FDIC protection in the US covers most folks (most folks don't save more than whatever th…

But cryptocurrency is the same as with cash. Yes, we need to teach people that they shouldn't send cryptocurrency to some shady "investment" company, just as they shouldn't give cash to a guy in a van promising them returns, but the risk profile is exactly the same as with cash, which people have been using successfully for centuries.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#150

Post by rvz »

janandonly wrote: post #116
guywhocodes wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely crypto seems to fail at being distributed internet money. If a project is fast and cheap enough for it that correlates with being too niche to be viable. We have seen BTC and ETH lose their function as internet money as transactions and prices have gone up.

Then you did not look (closely) enough at BTC. When transaction prices went up in 2017 [1] the second layer technology "Lightning" was invented and build-out. Right now, Joe Average, can transact for fractions of pennies. [2] [1] http://melaurent.github.io/spamattack/ [2] https://bitcoinist.com/lightning-cnbc-sent-btc-to-a-ukranian...

Haven't you realised that 'the second layer technology "Lightning"' aka Lightning Network is not Bitcoin and is an off-chain system and is centralised by design which contradicts and defeats the whole purpose of what Bitcoin was built for? [0]

[0] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aba062

Post reply on HN