In defense of cryptocurrency • Hacker News Board

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#161

Post by denkmoon » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:14 AM UTC

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #160

lordofgibbons wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As soon as you have a trusted central authority You might have missed the entire point of cryptocurrency. The idea is that it is not centralized and a single entity can't "reverse" transactions.

That works great except for the fact that 99% of crypto trades occur through exchanges which just put you back to the worst of both worlds.

If 99% of users stuck their fork in their eyeball, it wouldn't mean that a Fork is a bad design or a bad implement, it would mean that the users are using it wrong.

FWIW, in my own usage of crypto, the lack of central authority is exactly why it is used. I don't really care that other people are just hodl-ing their funny money in someone else's wallet. Crypto, outside of an exchange, means I can send money to anyone I want, and no other entity can prevent that.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#162

Post by skybrian » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:15 AM UTC

evouga wrote: post #152

This article doesn’t address the main objection I have about the practical value of cryptocurrency, namely, why I can’t take such an application, replace the distributed ledger with a SQL database, and get a solution that’s better in every way. As soon as you have a trusted central authority (monitoring and reversing payment transactions, interacting with government agencies to execute real estate transaction, etc.)…

Ideally you'd have a SQL database and something like a certificate transparency log as a guard against shenanigans. Also, a bunch of regulatory procedures like DNS registrars have to follow.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#163

Post by strofcon » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:17 AM UTC

Anyone notice how the author goes to great lengths to 'bold' the claims in the original letter that talk about how worthless the technology is - and then fails entirely to address those points?

Letter: "Crypo rests on tech that is useless." Blogger: "I disagree, I think there are some fascinating things to be done with blockchain tech! Just... don't expect me to share them. You should DYOR."

sigh

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#164

Post by mckmk » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:17 AM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #127

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…

Many real world systems are "nearly trustless". Of course you still need some sort of court system if someone decides to break bad. But in the 99%+ of times you're in the happy path, economic transactions occur based on autonomous rules encoded in software. The analogy I like to use is what's harder to buy a $1 million house or $1 million of Microsoft stock? The former process takes weeks, and dozens of man hours fro…

In this ‘house NFT within the court system’ paradigm, what happens if the court disagrees with the blockchain on who is the rightful ‘owner’ of the house NFT?

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#165

Post by haswell » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:21 AM UTC

denkmoon wrote: post #161

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That works great except for the fact that 99% of crypto trades occur through exchanges which just put you back to the worst of both worlds.

If 99% of users stuck their fork in their eyeball, it wouldn't mean that a Fork is a bad design or a bad implement, it would mean that the users are using it wrong. FWIW, in my own usage of crypto, the lack of central authority is exactly why it is used. I don't really care that other people are just hodl-ing their funny money in someone else's wallet. Crypto, outside of an exchange, means I can send money to anyone…

Except you've replaced something people want: easy access to their crypto and a feeling of assurance with something that people clearly don't want: no one wants to stick a fork in their eyeball.

The thing is, users define the market. If we were talking about a traditional "product", if 99% of users used a product wrong, that product would be considered an abject failure, at least from a UX / messaging standpoint with a clear mismatch between user wants/needs and product capabilities.

The average crypto buyer buys crypto because they want to make money. The average crypto buyer doesn't give a shit about decentralization or removal of bureaucracy. The average crypto buyer is getting exactly what they came for.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#166

Post by top_post » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:24 AM UTC

> "and I’m currently working on a startup that is trying to add regulatory compliance capabilities to public blockchains."

(big sigh)

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#167

Post by mNovak » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:26 AM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #138

thawaya3113 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is crypto any better at doing this than say, Western Union? Ultimately, as someone who finds blockchain technology really cool, what I struggle with is, in which scenarios is blockchain better than Postgres?

I agree that anything that can be done with a blockchain can technically be done with a database. But the practical challenge comes down to coordination problems. With blockchains you get credibly neutrality out of the box. Different developers are comfortable building inside a shared execution environment. If Western Union built a smart contract execution system, you'd have a much, much harder time convincing develo…

"credible neutrality" is a nice phrase for a concept I've struggled to articulate, thanks

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#168

Post by everfree » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

yadaeno wrote: post #32

You forgot to mention: if you lose your keys, youre fucked. That is, of course unless you trust a centralized unregulated entity to manage them for you.

Banks started out unregulated, and I believe it won't be long until crypto custodians are heavily regulated too. The legislative system just needs time to react.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#169

Post by denkmoon » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:34 AM UTC

haswell wrote: post #165

denkmoon wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 99% of users stuck their fork in their eyeball, it wouldn't mean that a Fork is a bad design or a bad implement, it would mean that the users are using it wrong. FWIW, in my own usage of crypto, the lack of central authority is exactly why it is used. I don't really care that other people are just hodl-ing their funny money in someone else's wallet. Crypto, outside of an exchange, means I can send money to anyone…

Except you've replaced something people want: easy access to their crypto and a feeling of assurance with something that people clearly don't want: no one wants to stick a fork in their eyeball. The thing is, users define the market. If we were talking about a traditional "product", if 99% of users used a product wrong, that product would be considered an abject failure, at least from a UX / messaging standpoint with…

I would argue that the decentralised nature is a crucial aspect of the value proposition. It's part of the mythos of why crypto is valuable/worth investing in/going to the moon.

The way it's actually used completely destroys that part of its value, but don't let reality get in the way of a good investment opportunity. I think if you set up a coin that doesn't use a distributed ledger, and instead uses an SQL database, you wouldn't get buy-in from the ~tulip~crypto fanatics because it doesn't line up with aforementioned mythos.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#170

Post by everfree » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:35 AM UTC

evouga wrote: post #152

This article doesn’t address the main objection I have about the practical value of cryptocurrency, namely, why I can’t take such an application, replace the distributed ledger with a SQL database, and get a solution that’s better in every way. As soon as you have a trusted central authority (monitoring and reversing payment transactions, interacting with government agencies to execute real estate transaction, etc.)…

Reliability and composability are two reasons.

With a blockchain architecture, the app can't go down unless the entire blockchain goes down. And apps can be built piecemeal by many teams/hackers who add small bits of functionality here and there through standardized interfaces, rather than top-down by trusted agencies - "money legos".