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

The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

#21

Post by __B_B__ »

YossarianFrPrez wrote: post #13

Many crypto enthusiasts at some point argue that a) stocks and fiat currencies are shared social fictions, so b) what's the big difference between them and crypto? There was a meme that went around a few years ago which said something to the effect of "Your parents don't understand crypto because they think money is real." There is some truth to this argument. Stock prices can diverge wildly from fundamentals, and I…

All "shared fictions" are going to be supported by their affiliated versions of the four P's. Politicians, Police, Professors, Press.

Re: The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

#22

Post by lifeplusplus »

I had high hopes for crypto, then I left ignorance. Insane high transaction cost, and time that gets worse as network gets popular and bigger. Highly unsafe as losing a key meant all of it is gone, no customers service. Insane amount of electricity consumption. All big currencies are mostly owned by few unknown individuals/wallets. Highly speculative price despite it being out for 10 years.

Re: The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

#23

Post by PretzelPirate »

smt88 wrote: post #15
smabie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean any asset is vulnerable to being worth $0 at any moment. For example your previously valuable house could actually be worthless due to a structural defect or a previously valuable company could be worth nothing due to massive fraud. Moreover total crypto market cap still high 12 figures so I fail to see how that proves your point?

> I mean any asset is vulnerable to being worth $0 at any moment. Absolutely, totally wrong. Let's look at some of the most common assets. - Houses: > your previously valuable house could actually be worthless due to a structural defect Wrong. If you buy a new house, you likely have a builder's warranty. If you buy an existing house, you get an inspection. Unless the house is very inexpensive and the inspector is tot…

> Stocks: Legally entitle you to profits of a company

If I own Meta stock, how do I get my share of their profits? They don’t pay dividends.

Re: The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

#24

Post by PretzelPirate »

smt88 wrote: post #11
devoutsalsa wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because some cryptos goes to zero doesn’t mean all crypto has zero value.

> Just because some cryptos goes to zero doesn’t mean all crypto has zero value. That's true. Crypto has zero value because it has no utility. It's like a Pokemon card: it only has value if people have assigned value to it. You can't make anything with it, and it doesn't give you any legal right to a future cash flow (like a stock or a promissory note does). Let me predict your response: "The same is true of fiat!" Y…

> You can't make anything with it

There are blockchains that exist to provide utility by enabling execution of decentralized applications. Not all blockchains are focused on just payments. You may think that decentralized applications don’t provide utility, but that would be a personal view, not an objective fact.

Re: The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

#25

Post by [deleted] »

pontifier wrote: post #20
smt88 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because some cryptos goes to zero doesn’t mean all crypto has zero value. That's true. Crypto has zero value because it has no utility. It's like a Pokemon card: it only has value if people have assigned value to it. You can't make anything with it, and it doesn't give you any legal right to a future cash flow (like a stock or a promissory note does). Let me predict your response: "The same is true of fiat!" Y…

Pokemon cards at least have some nostalgic value. You could even burn one to release a small amount of stored chemical energy.

[deleted]

Re: The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

#26

Post by immigrantheart »

smt88 wrote: post #10
immigrantheart wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um..bitcoin is still $29k, not 0, and so many other cryptos still have value noted in USD out there. Sure, criticism schimisicm. Proof is in the pudding.

> Proof is in the pudding. That's exactly what I said. The pudding was a crash. It proved that cryptocurrencies are speculative assets without intrinsic value and that they aren't a hedge against any other speculative assets or fiat currency (in contrast to, for example, gold).

Crash is relative? And the proof in the pudding is Bitcoin has value of $29k.

Re: The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

#27

Post by giaour »

FrancoisT wrote: post #19

I'm no expert and I find both positive and disconcerting points in cryptocurrencies so I am not sided on this issue. What is perplexing me is the fact that more or less every discussion on the topic is centered on the dollar price (or another government currency) of the cryptocurrency in question. I'm curious to be presented a counterargument but if it was a real currency and not a speculative asset (not to criticize…

It's difficult (but not impossible) to find niches where cryptocurrencies are being used as currencies. They are more often described and used by enthusiasts as securities or investments, so it's this aspect that dominates discussion today.

Outside of criminal activity (including "positive" criminal activity like evading the capital controls of authoritarian regimes), there's not much to recommend cryptocurrency as a currency. Bitcoin maximum throughout is several orders of magnitude too small to support meaningful use, and transaction fees on popular chains are punishingly high. I personally like to use payment instruments that can be clawed back in the case of fraud (like credit cards) for large purchases, so I can't really understand the appeal of an irreversible payment instrument for routine use.

Re: The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

#28

Post by Kaze404 »

__B_B__ wrote: post #21
YossarianFrPrez wrote: post #13

Many crypto enthusiasts at some point argue that a) stocks and fiat currencies are shared social fictions, so b) what's the big difference between them and crypto? There was a meme that went around a few years ago which said something to the effect of "Your parents don't understand crypto because they think money is real." There is some truth to this argument. Stock prices can diverge wildly from fundamentals, and I…

All "shared fictions" are going to be supported by their affiliated versions of the four P's. Politicians, Police, Professors, Press.

One of those is not like the others

Re: The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

#29

Post by smt88 »

PretzelPirate wrote: post #24
smt88 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because some cryptos goes to zero doesn’t mean all crypto has zero value. That's true. Crypto has zero value because it has no utility. It's like a Pokemon card: it only has value if people have assigned value to it. You can't make anything with it, and it doesn't give you any legal right to a future cash flow (like a stock or a promissory note does). Let me predict your response: "The same is true of fiat!" Y…

> You can't make anything with it There are blockchains that exist to provide utility by enabling execution of decentralized applications. Not all blockchains are focused on just payments. You may think that decentralized applications don’t provide utility, but that would be a personal view, not an objective fact.

"dApps" or whatever they're called are a ghost town. None currently exist that are truly decentralized or have a value greater than traditional applications.

Decentralization is also possible and functions better with tokens (e.g. Bittorrent).

Re: The crypto-skeptics’ voices are getting louder

#30

Post by rvz »

PretzelPirate wrote: post #23
smt88 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean any asset is vulnerable to being worth $0 at any moment. Absolutely, totally wrong. Let's look at some of the most common assets. - Houses: > your previously valuable house could actually be worthless due to a structural defect Wrong. If you buy a new house, you likely have a builder's warranty. If you buy an existing house, you get an inspection. Unless the house is very inexpensive and the inspector is tot…

> Stocks: Legally entitle you to profits of a company If I own Meta stock, how do I get my share of their profits? They don’t pay dividends.

Let alone owning stocks from SPAC companies. They also don't pay dividends either.
Post reply on HN