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

In defense of cryptocurrency

blog.cryptographyengineering.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 578 posts

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#11

Post by BiteCode_dev »

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

If you think Mastercard and Visa fees are too high, fees are higher on Bitcoin. It's like the way Amway victims will try to sell you an $8 tube of toothpaste, "draw circles" to show that 7 people get a cut from that tube of toothpaste and then say "How does Amway bring you great prices on quality products?" (tap whiteboard) "By eliminating the middleman!"

More accurately:

- Transactions are more expensive in BTC for small amounts, and more expensive in Visa for big amounts.

- However this is only true if you use on chain transactions for BTC. BTC transactions using lightning are always cheaper than Visa no matter the amount.

- Lightning nodes do not yet form a network big enough to cover 100% of the transactions, and most transactions are small, so the idea that VISA transactions are cheaper for most people is, for all intents and purposes, mostly true at the moment.

Lightning, though, is quite an interesting system. Half of the solution it offers is technical, but half of it will be the social construction of the network of channels. I doubt most people will open one consciously, but I assume wallet providers will make that automatic.

Eventually, this means somebody needing the decentralized aspect of BTC will be able to open a channel and profit, while somebody who wants convenience will use a centralized wallet and be happy.

I suspect most people will want the turn key solution and that the system will centralize a bit.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#12

Post by dxhdr »

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

If you think Mastercard and Visa fees are too high, fees are higher on Bitcoin. It's like the way Amway victims will try to sell you an $8 tube of toothpaste, "draw circles" to show that 7 people get a cut from that tube of toothpaste and then say "How does Amway bring you great prices on quality products?" (tap whiteboard) "By eliminating the middleman!"

> If you think Mastercard and Visa fees are too high, fees are higher on Bitcoin.

Mastercard and Visa charge a percentage (?!), Bitcoin is a fixed amount per transaction.

Plus Bitcoin won't deny your ability to make a transaction.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#13

Post by 99_00 »

My hot and uneducated take is that in 5 years we will see some Phoenix rise from the ashes of Cryptomania.

If the entire field turn into toxic waste that no one wants to touch it will be extremely undervalued. Therefore it would be a tremendous opportunity.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#14

Post by falcolas »

j_walter wrote: post #4
PaulHoule wrote: post #2

If you think Mastercard and Visa fees are too high, fees are higher on Bitcoin. It's like the way Amway victims will try to sell you an $8 tube of toothpaste, "draw circles" to show that 7 people get a cut from that tube of toothpaste and then say "How does Amway bring you great prices on quality products?" (tap whiteboard) "By eliminating the middleman!"

Not really...the fees for Bitcoin, Ethereum and other L2 options are flat fees and are well under Visa/MC fees most of the time. Might want to look at Western Union and the like too...way way under those fees. Current transaction fee (for 1 cent or a billion dollars) Bitcoin - $1.62 per transaction Ethereum - $3.50 per transaction Ethereum L2 - as low as 12 cents https://l2fees.info/ Here are credit card fees by comp…

I can count the number of >$100 credit card transactions I’ve made in the last month on one hand with fingers to spare.

And for those transactions using cash, let alone BitCoin, would not have eliminated those transaction costs.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#15

Post by bowsamic »

Cryptocurrency don’t need defense. I think that people outside of cryptocurrency communities don’t realise how accepted the technology is within them. HN is being misled into thinking they are widely hated

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#16

Post by matkoniecz »

sumy23 wrote: post #9
matkoniecz wrote: post #5

It is dishonest to mention > proof-of-time-and-space construction used by Chia as reason to reduce importance of induced waste. Chia just wastes something different and is not improvement in any form.

It's dishonest to call the author dishonest for this one sentence. They mention Chia in passing at the end of a paragraph on proof-of-work alternatives.

I have called this mention dishonest, not the author.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#17

Post by richardwhiuk »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #11
PaulHoule wrote: post #2

If you think Mastercard and Visa fees are too high, fees are higher on Bitcoin. It's like the way Amway victims will try to sell you an $8 tube of toothpaste, "draw circles" to show that 7 people get a cut from that tube of toothpaste and then say "How does Amway bring you great prices on quality products?" (tap whiteboard) "By eliminating the middleman!"

More accurately: - Transactions are more expensive in BTC for small amounts, and more expensive in Visa for big amounts. - However this is only true if you use on chain transactions for BTC. BTC transactions using lightning are always cheaper than Visa no matter the amount. - Lightning nodes do not yet form a network big enough to cover 100% of the transactions, and most transactions are small, so the idea that VISA…

Large amounts aren't settled by VISA - they are settled by bank transfer.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#18

Post by sumy23 »

matkoniecz wrote: post #16
sumy23 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's dishonest to call the author dishonest for this one sentence. They mention Chia in passing at the end of a paragraph on proof-of-work alternatives.

I have called this mention dishonest, not the author.

You said it's "dishonest to mention." The author is the mentioner. If the mention is dishonest, then it necessarily follows that the author is dishonest.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#19

Post by yieldcrv »

> This is dishonest nonsense: estimates hold that at east 60% of mining energy consumption still comes from fossil sources.

Ah so that number keeps going down! It's nice that you all hold Bitcoin/Proof of Work to such high standards that it cleans itself up so fast. I really doubt any other industry can do that or has such great metrics, so keep up the great work everyone.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#20

Post by hericium »

pavlov wrote: post #7
j_walter wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really...the fees for Bitcoin, Ethereum and other L2 options are flat fees and are well under Visa/MC fees most of the time. Might want to look at Western Union and the like too...way way under those fees. Current transaction fee (for 1 cent or a billion dollars) Bitcoin - $1.62 per transaction Ethereum - $3.50 per transaction Ethereum L2 - as low as 12 cents https://l2fees.info/ Here are credit card fees by comp…

Well, L2 systems aren't on a blockchain at all, so do they even count? If we get to cherry-pick from whatever money transfer systems exist, it's worth remembering that bank transfers within the Eurozone area are free and practically immediate. What crypto can beat that? Clearly you don't need cryptocurrency to deliver a service that's ideal for consumers, as regulation has achieved it in Europe.

> it's worth remembering that bank transfers within the Eurozone area are free and practically immediate

In theory. Many banks are not using this system and stayed on old SEPA wire transfers: charges split between sender and receiver or covered by sender, 3 work days to process, ability to pay more to speed-up the process by two days etc. It's slow and/or costly.

Post reply on HN