Live data from Hacker News

In defense of cryptocurrency

blog.cryptographyengineering.com

301–310 of 578 posts

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#301
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.)…

It wouldn't be better "in every way", though. A blockchain is much more resilient; the equivalent would be to have hundreds or thousands of redundant SQL databases around the world and somehow keep them all in sync. By the time you've done that, you've very likely reinvented a blockchain, at many times the cost of just using an already-existing public blockchain. > monitoring and reversing payment transactions I disa…

> I disagree with the article on this point. No reasonable person expects to be able to reverse a cash transaction;

What gave you this idea? If I have proof that I paid you cash for a service, and then proof you didn't provide that service, I absolutely expect to be able to reverse that transaction, via the legal system.

> A blockchain is much more resilient; the equivalent would be to have hundreds or thousands of redundant SQL databases around the world and somehow keep them all in sync.

That level of resilience is completely unnecessary and is part of why blockchain is such an extraordinarily wasteful technology.

> Local governments are fully capable of putting real estate NFTs or whatever on something like Ethereum or Cardano and publishing public keys such that people can verify their authenticity.

And who will hold these NFTs? And where will the data the NFTs sign be stored? If the government holds the NFTs, then nothing will change for you: you will have to bring the exact same kind of proof after you bought a house to the government so that they can update the blockchain record.

If they want to distribute the NFTs to the current owners of the houses, than they now need to establish an Ethereum/Cardano/[...] wallet for each person who owns a house in their district - a decade-long project in the best case, involving a level of bureaucracy to ascertain that no house NFT was incorrectly transferred to the wrong owner that will blow your mind (or, more likely, a process which will cause massive fraud and property disputes for decades to come).

And of course, the NFTs don't solve the problem of actually storing the data (physical scans of the documents that were used before the move to digital, at the very least, since the chain of ownership of each piece of property is an extremely important part of how you can settle disputes). Who will hold these records, and update them as needed? If it's still the county clerk, the problem of bureaucracy flies back in. If they want to make them part of the NFTs and store them on-chain, then minting the NFTs will be exorbitant, and it's doubtful the Ethereum blockchain would survive having the entire archives of home ownership in the USA on-chain.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#302
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".

Composability is the main one for me that's interesting.

When serving data, I often use HTTP pulling from a Postgres DB. Both of those are massively over engineered for the problems I want to solve but I use them because:

* They're already built so it's not my engineering time.

* Others can interact with them easily.

This is more strongly the case, and becoming more so over time, in crypto work.

I can make something with key based auth that I can uniquely identify such that a user can prove they own it to integrate in my "real world" systems, while letting them sell it, trade it, auction it or whatever.

To build this I do a starter tutorial, load a common library and publish. After I can just use already existing APIs for integration. That's it and it works because the data and APIs and Auth are all common and standardised now (either inherently for Auth or by convention for the data).

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#303
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".

+1 on this answer. Put another way, it's a programmable settlement layer for the internet that anyone can access and is always online. Add in standardized interfaces and all applications built on it become easier to work with and extend.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#304
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto attempts to solve the problem in the same way that web protocols and web standards do. Define a single shared spec that spans all geographic borders, rather than a spec that is reinvented at each jurisdiction.

And this violates the spec that is already in force in each jurisdiction.

No post body was provided.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#305
post #4

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…

> Bitcoin - $1.62 per transaction

If you used real sources I'd take this thread seriously, but you don't and this is exactly why I don't respect the majority HN's view on most things with regards to Bitcoin and to a lesser degree crypto in general.

It's currently $0.04 for a high priority tx on the mainchain [0] right now as the memool is pretty clear.

[0]: https://mempool.space/

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your stake is really growing relative to the total supply as fast as a smaller holder's though. Like anything, rich have more opportunities to get richer, but I don't think these problems are specifically egregious in PoS. For chains which have on-chain governance, there's also the possibility that large holders will vote to change distribution in ways that favor them (though this hasn't happened yet), but this is a…

> And there are theoretical solutions to this as well; projects like Bright-ID are working on proof-of-identity / proof-of-humanity.. maybe we'll see a proof-of-stake blockchain with governance tied to identity in the future? This is what I'm hoping for. As soon as this proves viable, this opens up the door for things like automated international UBI.

It probably is not solved without a central authority that distributes and revoked identity tokens, like we have with passports. Decentralized proof of personhood is a pipe dream.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#307

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.

>> 99% of crypto trades occur through exchanges Do you mean 99% of transactions occur on centralized exchanges without going on-chain? I would like to see the numbers you are using.

What does it matter that they go on-chain? They are happening between one Coinbase/Binance/etc. wallet and another. If the exchange wants, they can write a reverse transaction on-chain, nothing's stopping them. Even if it was transferred to a wallet of another exchange, they can work with that other exchange to reverse the transaction.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#308
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto attempts to solve the problem in the same way that web protocols and web standards do. Define a single shared spec that spans all geographic borders, rather than a spec that is reinvented at each jurisdiction.

And this violates the spec that is already in force in each jurisdiction.

I don't get your point here, there's not a legally required minimum fee being skipped.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a time in my life when I was "unbanked" and Bitcoin was the only way I could transact online. This really needs said louder. Writing off the entirety of cryptocurrency as "useless" betrays either stunning ignorance or immense privilege (or possibly even both). Even in the "developed" world (let alone "developing") there are countless people whom the legacy financial system does not serve yet is happy to e…

Don't disagree with that, but does banking the unbanked require hundreds of billions of dollars in funding? Do the unbanked need algostables, five-figure APY yield farming, sophisticated options protocols like Ribbon, and memecoins valued at $20B? The core ideas behind crypto remain solid. Unfortunately that has been hijacked completely by speculators.

Lots of things get hijacked by speculators all the time. That doesn't mean the rest of us need to care; none of that has much bearing on the fact that anyone anywhere in the world of any socioeconomic standing can send money to or receive money from anyone else anywhere in the world of any socioeconomic standing.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do find at least amusing to point out you started this thread with a comment that adamantly stated that "There's nothing unique or special about it [blockchains]" > Only to immediately follow it up by conceding your main point > "he PoW system used is one way to prevent Sybil attacks when distributing work among untrusted peers, and that's it. Novel, neat, but useless" I don't see any goalpost moving. PoW is not…

> I don't see any goalpost moving. PoW is not blockchain. Blockchains are exactly 3 things - A ledger of "things" - Consensus to agree on "things" - A state machine that that transitions based on "things" PoW is how Bitcoin achieves consensus. The brute-force operations that "waste" energy is actually a highly robost leader election algorithm. So sure, "PoW is not a blockchain" is technically accurate, but a useless…

> OP states there is nothing unique or special about blockchains, then notes a unique and special fundamental aspect that enables (some) blockchains.

PoW precedes bitcoin by quite some time so the idea that it is a unique and special thing about (some) blockchains is false.

Post reply on HN