In defense of cryptocurrency • Hacker News Board

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#181

Post by landemva » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:57 AM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #68

> "The top credit-card merchant fee actually rose in the United States between 1991 and 2009, and this is a goddamn tragedy, since these fees are baked into the cost of most retail goods and thus born by the working poor (who pay them even if they use cash.) . . . Why are these IT-focused industries so consistently immune to the same technological improvements and cost reductions we see everywhere else?" The simplest…

>> it should be state-owned and state-managed (see the network of roads ...)

Where I live, the 'roads' are owned by each individual property owner with an easement to every other property owner in the town. Why would we want a group of government bureaucrats to literally own our roads?

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#182

Post by lamontcg » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 4:58 AM UTC

mirceal wrote: post #137

lamontcg wrote: post #110

> In other words, 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. once you have a trusted third party, though, you no longer need permissi…

That's not true. Think about the 3rd party as an escrow, not the bank. You wouldn't eliminate the escrow when you're buying a house, would you?

What's the fundamental difference between VISA, an escrow agent and a bank?

Isn't VISA just an escrow agent between every transaction who also lends money and charges interest to the purchaser?

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#183

Post by roca » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:00 AM UTC

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…

This is such an obviously valid objection that I'm disturbed the author didn't address it inline.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#184

Post by everfree » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:03 AM UTC

strofcon wrote: post #148

Gatsky wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well your Mac is worth ‘something’ because of what people are willing to pay for it. It would be worthless to certain people, just as you find bitcoin worthless. What’s the difference?

No, the Mac is worth something in and of itself . It is a tool of productivity, entertainment, education, creation, etc. And, failing all of that, it's valuable for its parts. A bitcoin is an ID number pointing to pretend money. It has zero intrinsic value.

Productivity, entertainment, education, and creation are all subjective, just like the value of an entry in a ledger.

I could say "I don't use Macs because I find I can't be productive with them." That's a subjective statement.

Or I could say "I don't find it entertaining to sit in front of a Mac," or "I don't learn anything when I use a Mac," "I can't create anything valuable using a Mac." None of the properties you listed are intrinsic properties of the Mac, they're all a function of the Mac's utility to certain people in certain situations.

Perhaps I'm Amish. Or perhaps I don't have an internet connection. Or I am old and blind and don't have a friend to teach me to use a screen reader. The Mac would be valueless to me.

So, the Mac's value is derived solely from its utility to a certain group of people. It lets that group of people perform tasks that they couldn't perform (or would perform less efficiently) without it. That's the same way Bitcoin's value is derived.

> pretend money

All money is pretend.

> It has zero intrinsic value.

All money has zero intrinsic value. Extrinsic value is still value.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#185

Post by landemva » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:09 AM UTC

greyface- wrote: post #113

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…

> 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.

Wallet fee estimates have often been way too high for some time. People keep overpaying.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#186

Post by npad » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:10 AM UTC

I was a crypto skeptic for many years. If you look at crypto purely from an engineering lens, you'll always find it wanting. What I didn't understand was that crypto is as much of an economic and political project, as it is an engineering project. If you think decentralisation and trustlessness are valuable, you should think crypto is important. If you don't care for decentralisation then being negative on crypto is a consistent position.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#187

Post by dfee » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:11 AM UTC

npad wrote: post #186

I was a crypto skeptic for many years. If you look at crypto purely from an engineering lens, you'll always find it wanting. What I didn't understand was that crypto is as much of an economic and political project, as it is an engineering project. If you think decentralisation and trustlessness are valuable, you should think crypto is important. If you don't care for decentralisation then being negative on crypto is…

Replace “crypto” with “GPL” and the comment still makes sense. And, at the same time, still makes no sense.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#188

Post by lmm » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:13 AM UTC

denkmoon wrote: post #179

lmm wrote: post #178

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 Yes it would.

Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to redesign Fork to prevent user-eyeball interaction.

Given that the actual rate of fork to eyeball is very low, I think the current design is fine.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#189

Post by beambot » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:14 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.)…

How do you prove that no one manually added or edited database rows? How do you store the transaction logs & verify their accuracy & authenticity?

By the time you build a system with historical "proofs" with enough replication, you'll basically have invented a Blockchain with more complexity.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#190

Post by yata69420 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:17 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #180

yata69420 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd need some kind of shared database that all parties can trust. It'd have to be regularly audited but also kept as up to date as possible. It should have very precise access controls. Also, it should be as fast as possible, and there should be a record of everything that's ever changed. If you want a full copy of it, you should be able to request it at any time. It sounds like a lot of work to build that though.…

> You'd need some kind of shared database that all parties can trust Government run then, the institution that is involved with contract oversight here, an easily identifiable authority in this situation. If you don't trust that here, then there's no point in bothering with sales contracts in the first place. > It'd have to be regularly audited but also kept as up to date as possible. It should have very precise acce…

I suspect we have different governments. I don't see mine doing anything remotely like that.

I come from a place that still has toll booths so that toll booth workers can keep their jobs.

I have to take off my shoes before I can get on an airplane so that my government feels safer.

I personally compute my government taxes, which only occasionally (if ever) get verified. That's how we fund the country.

If I routinely saw the government creating new technology that improved the lives of citizens, I suspect I would share your opinion.

It would be interesting to map "places interested in crypto" against "places that have low trust in their government" and what kind of overlap there is.

The way I see technology in the US: First, the nerds get excited and start forming groups about it. Then, the business people figure out how to monetize it. Eventually, the government gets sold an overpriced enterprise solution. Then we do it all over again.