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

111–120 of 578 posts

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#111

Post by dang »

randomran01234 wrote: post #106
jolux wrote: post #53

The biggest problem I see with cryptocurrency is the transaction rate problem. It’s not like attempts haven’t already been made to solve it (Bitcoin Lightning), and Dr. Green fully admits that it’s not certain that any currently proposed changes can solve it either. How long is the world supposed to wait for reasonable transaction rates on this technology? If this is truly like the early internet, they should have va…

Did you read the article? No?

"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#112

Post by adra »

randomran01234 wrote: post #105
JackC wrote: post #98

"transaction reversibility is not about the ledger, but rather about the transaction rules that a currency uses. A reversible currency requires that someone anoint this trusted party (or trusted parties) and that they use their powers to freeze/burn/transact currency in ways that are at odds with the recorded owners’ intentions. And indeed, this is a capability that many tokens now possess" I think this is arguing th…

And it is fine to build systems with trusted parties on top of a permissionless network. The article cites USDC which does this, it is one of many applications users can choose to transact with. Attempting to bake reversibility into the protocol would lead to a tightly permissioned system with only a few trusted authorities. A loose analogy might be the internet, which aims to be a decentralized global protocol that…

The internet is built on the 'A' server which is a tightly guarded centralized US tool. Commerce lives because the absolute power brokers of the system have chosen to not exercise strong enforcement. The internet technologies are certainly built in a way that could function in completely autonomous blobs all over the world, but that's certainly not the way it functions today.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#113

Post by greyface- »

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…

> Current transaction fee (for 1 cent or a billion dollars)

> Bitcoin - $1.62 per transaction

This is misleading. A best-effort transaction can be submitted with a fee of 1 sat/vB. For a 374 vB transaction (a typical 2-in-2-out P2PKH -- see https://bitcoinops.org/en/tools/calc-size/), this is 11 cents. $1.62 is either an enormous transaction, or one submitted at very high priority.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#114

Post by adra »

j_walter wrote: post #95
kkielhofner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all pay for the fees but IMO it's more than worth it considering all of the things I mentioned and more. The other fees they rake in (I'm assuming you mean interest) are from issuing unsecured loans. That's another topic entirely. Escrow is many thousands of years old and certainly exists in many forms in the financial system today. It's just that because of all of the other things I mentioned the average person u…

How about real estate transactions. What fees are the average buyer and seller having to pay along with how many third party people have worked themselves into the fold to get their piece of the action? Why would you need title insurance when the blockchain holds all the information? Why would sellers need to pay up to 6% to a realtor and buyers pay thousands in closing costs...because there is a disparity in access…

The structural fees (title transfer, taxes etc.. as mandated by local laws) for real estate won't be eliminated by going Bitcoin, and if you don't want to use a real estate broker then seel your house without one. State ahead of time that you won't pay buyer broker fees. The real estate game (in most if not all jurisdictions) is not restricted, the odds are just more stacked against you if you want to sell directly.

Even worse, because Bitcoin is no recourse, if you find out that there was legitimate fraud (seller doesn't own the deed, house has leans, etc..) you have some possible recourse while Bitcoin doesn't give you anything.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#115

Post by adfjalkfja »

matkoniecz wrote: post #45

> 60% of mining energy consumption still comes from fossil sources. Even if it would be 0% then it is still wasting energy and removing that consumption would reduce overall waste. And “green” energy still have massive environmental and economical costs.

Mining is heating my piece of shit house that would be filled with mould otherwise

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#116

Post by adra »

abirch wrote: post #101
j_walter wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about real estate transactions. What fees are the average buyer and seller having to pay along with how many third party people have worked themselves into the fold to get their piece of the action? Why would you need title insurance when the blockchain holds all the information? Why would sellers need to pay up to 6% to a realtor and buyers pay thousands in closing costs...because there is a disparity in access…

The blockchain ownership may be flawed, just like the current paper one. That's why you'd still need title insurance. Sellers and buyers don't need agents right now. Thanks to Zillow, the price disparity is moot. I knew more than my past real estate agent when I purchased my current house (it was a corporate move or I wouldn't have used one.) Wire transfers should be instant and irreversible, that's why scammers use…

The receiving bank often takes holds on the funds until they are specifically cleared from the originator bank or a fixed holding period. In that time, you can still deduct the money if you had the cash previously available or maybe if you're in good standing with the bank (not entirely sure on this part, probably different per bank).

The money is often frozen completely then returned to the defrauded party if caught quickly enough. Sometimes banks try to screw over people who are found to be victims of fraudulent transfers after the money has been pulled from the receiving bank.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#117

Post by mlyle »

j_walter wrote: post #95
kkielhofner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all pay for the fees but IMO it's more than worth it considering all of the things I mentioned and more. The other fees they rake in (I'm assuming you mean interest) are from issuing unsecured loans. That's another topic entirely. Escrow is many thousands of years old and certainly exists in many forms in the financial system today. It's just that because of all of the other things I mentioned the average person u…

How about real estate transactions. What fees are the average buyer and seller having to pay along with how many third party people have worked themselves into the fold to get their piece of the action? Why would you need title insurance when the blockchain holds all the information? Why would sellers need to pay up to 6% to a realtor and buyers pay thousands in closing costs...because there is a disparity in access…

> Why would sellers need to pay up to 6% to a realtor and buyers pay thousands in closing costs...because there is a disparity in access to information.

None of the type of information disparity that realtors help with are going to be solved by blockchains. Perhaps you could eventually build a better title system, but title-related expenses are a tiny portion of closing costs and there are reasons for the complexity.

The biggest portions of the closing costs that aren't directly related to the lender's pricing or real estate commissions-- title insurance-- can't go away anytime soon because the claims they protect against can be decades old. So even if you had a perfect title system today (which seems really hard) and everyone moved to it instantly, we'd still be stuck with those costs.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#118

Post by thawaya3113 »

This entire article does not even attempt to counter the claim being made in the letter it’s so up in arms about.

> blockchain technology, specifically so-called “public blockchains”… are not an improvement on existing non-blockchain solutions.

The article may have worked as a standalone article but doesn’t really provide a response to the letter it starts off with.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#119

Post by toolz »

pavlov wrote: post #73
criddell wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why L2 systems are even necessary. There's a relatively well known email exchange between Nakamoto and Mike Hearn in which Nakamoto says: > The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. If the original design of Bitcoin anticipated Visa-scale tr…

Or maybe Nakamoto was simply full of crap, like people talking up their cryptocurrency schemes tend to be?

I just don't understand why crypto discussions seems to draw out so many rude comments. If satoshi wanted fame and fortune he could have both easily, but there are a ton of early bitcoins that haven't moved - so obviously he wasn't in it for the money or he would've used those coins.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#120

Post by ls15 »

wmf wrote: post #10

As we speak, regulators are being captured by the bad cryptocurrencies; if we allow that to play out then of course regulators won't come up with nuanced policies. It'll be mining and gambling for everyone, everwhere. We'd be better off banning it all now then later adding a carve-out for non-PoW, non-deflationary, reversible, scalable, private, actual digital cash.

We'd be better off banning all speech now and later adding a carve-out for statements that I personally like.
Post reply on HN