Live data from Hacker News

In defense of cryptocurrency

blog.cryptographyengineering.com

481–490 of 578 posts

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure that if someone were to gift you one Bitcoin you would not refuse it on the basis that it's just an ID number pointing to pretend money with zero intrinsic value, would you?

Sure - today, as the situation stands, I'd sell it in a heartbeat, because there is still a vast supply of greater fools. That doesn't mean it has intrinsic value, nor that it would be an ethical / moral choice. Just means that I have loose enough morals to be happy to take an idiot's money.

When suddenly it loses its popularity and/or supply of greater fools, it'll fall apart, and I'll have taken some poor sap's actual money, even if it was delayed / distanced / distributed by some thousands of layers.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#482
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct, I can exchange a Mac for something else, or I can use it. Bitcoins are obviously exchanged but have not use.

This.

In the event that the world falls apart, the Mac is at least usable as a weighted object, if all else fails.

Bitcoins become purely thought in such a situation, and even in far less catastrophic ones.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

VISA is a payments network. It's a way for banks to connect to each other. They don't have any skin in the game and ultimately it's the issuing bank that gives you all those nice things that you believe come from VISA (like chargebacks, fraud protection, etc). VISA does not lend any money. They just provide the service of moving money for a fee.

That makes VISA even more of an escrow agent and less of a bank.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#484
post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could check if the NFT was still valid by calling the smart contract directly if they provide public functions for it. No need for a published list by a centralized authority (beyond whatever you're using to call functions on a smart contract, like I'd probably use Etherscan if it's an ETH contract). And calling read-only functions (doesn't write anything to the blockchain) doesn't cost anything. I didn't think o…

This does not sound like good system design. “NFTs create a frictionless easily exchangeable market for goods… BUT make sure you check with the people, project, company or government that has authority over this good as to whether this particular NFT is actually a useful representation of anything. Because, at any arbitrary point they can just decide to not honor any of these.” Why not buy the good directly from this…

All NFTs are is a token on a blockchain. People might decide that having it let's you do other things, but that's all it is really. That's not being taken away from anyone.

It's up to the organization or society or code written in smart contracts whether they want to honor, and how much they honor, the promises made for having possession of that NFT. It's really no different than any other organization out there for any service.

I can buy a ticket to a concert and be denied entry as well, or the concert be cancelled, or the company goes out of business, or any other manner of things. I still have the ticket, but it no longer provides the benefit associated with it.

Additionally I can go to the concert, and then try to sell the ticket to someone else, possibly claiming that it will let them get into a future concert, and that buyer needs to verify that the legitimacy of the ticket before purchase.

Or someone who buys a video game that's basically just a case with a code to download the game from a store that then redeems the code but sells the game to Gamestop with a no longer valid code, and Gamestop puts it back for sale even though it's basically useless at that point. That's kind of what's going on with people putting those old Premint passes up for sale on the secondary market.

You could argue that organization should not be trusted with future NFTs or be sued and punished, or the person who sold the now defunct NFT be punished, and that's fine, people no longer patronize or sometimes sue organizations or people all the time when they've been wronged somehow.

As for Premint, they do want you to buy directly from them and not from the secondary market. That's what they are directing you to do. I don't know too much of the details of Premint but they probably wanted to upgrade their service and used older smart contracts without update capability built into it, so the contracts were immutable and limited in some way.

So they needed to issue new smart contracts that had better capabilities, and in the process it rendered the old contracts obsolete. I'm guessing, I don't know, I'm not a customer and I don't work for them, it's just a service some people I know were considering using at one point since it's huge and has a large network of users and one of the things their service helps with is limiting access to bots, which is something the people I know cared about preventing, and is difficult to prevent, at least currently, in web3.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#485
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. I don't understand your point. If this clarifies: I'm talking about blockchain technology and its applications. Not a particular blockchain asset.

It does. Still, not many applications for blockchains, but shitty assets.

Why can't block chain represent ownership of a real world asset? Obviously there would have to be an accompying legal document

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, if you have complete faith and trust in conventional FIAT currencies and the systems they use to transact the use cases for crypto also seem far less compelling. As an example, the appeal of deflationary Bitcoin is much more salient to a citizen of Argentina than to a citizen of the USA (although recent inflation might make the appeal more obvious). Or on the even more extreme end, the citizen of Zimbabwe wo…

How is bitcoin deflationary when the price has fallen 50% or so in the past year, and appears to be highly correlated with tech growth stocks?

Bitcoin critics: A deflationary money is bad because people will not spend it.

Also Bitcoin critics: Bitcoin is not deflationary.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is bitcoin deflationary when the price has fallen 50% or so in the past year, and appears to be highly correlated with tech growth stocks?

Bitcoin critics: A deflationary money is bad because people will not spend it. Also Bitcoin critics: Bitcoin is not deflationary.

I'm not convinced deflation is worse than inflation anyway. With deflation people hoard currency and with inflation they hoard assets.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#488
The whole reason it is so important to be able to reverse digital payments now is because of their incredibly insecure and inferior design compared to cryptocurrency payments.

That's the most obvious reason to move to cryptocurrency. Amazing that people don't see that.

With crypto, I authorize a payment with a secure signature without revealing my credentials. With digital payments like credit cards, I have to give you my credentials and just hope you are honest. In the context of cryptocurrency this is laughably bad.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I would argue that the decentralized nature is a crucial aspect of the value proposition. I would go so far as to argue it's the entire aspect of the value proposition. Take away decentralization and all you've got is a poorly architected, inefficient, unwieldy PayPal.

But I think this highlights the dichotomy that is the crypto ecosystem right now.

The people in this thread understand this value prop, but for a significant portion of crypto investors, the value prop is gains.

It may be true that some casual crypto investors are interested because of the decentralization aspect, but that same user wants a PayPal-like experience. Most are not willing to deal with the complexity of doing it "right", and most of the non-technical people I know who buy crypto do it for the gains, not for the defi.

In effect, this makes decentralization nothing more than a marketing promise, and the reality is exactly what you said - a poorly architected, inefficient, unwieldy PayPal. Sure, this system is capable of much more, and realizing the "true" value prop of decentralization, but that doesn't matter much if users are in it for other reasons.

If users were doing it "right", or for sake of argument, let's say users are forced to do it right, I suspect they would just stop participating, bringing valuation down with them.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VISA is a payments network. It's a way for banks to connect to each other. They don't have any skin in the game and ultimately it's the issuing bank that gives you all those nice things that you believe come from VISA (like chargebacks, fraud protection, etc). VISA does not lend any money. They just provide the service of moving money for a fee.

That makes VISA even more of an escrow agent and less of a bank.

Escrow, pretty much by definition, involves holding funds. That’s not what visa does.
Post reply on HN