Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 515 posts

Re: Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

#151

Post by multjoy »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #108
BasedAnon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Other than crime the only other use-case I've seen for crypto is for getting money into Russia Violating sanctions is a crime. Given the trend we've seen people should start getting used to being considered criminals. >What am I missing here? What are the cool things bitcoin does that something like visa cannot? It's easier to send Bitcoin to people without doxing myself than a visa transfer.

I've heard that crypto transactions can be more secure but I've also heard that securing information on the blockchain is basically impossible because it is a publicly available ledger. How does bitcoin opsec work exactly?

It's anonymous, not private.

Re: Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

#152

Post by PragmaticPulp »

cs702 wrote: post #58

Three highly speculative predictions: 1. The courts are more likely than not to rule that many crypto-assets -- but not all -- should be regulated as investments. It won't be fun for a lot of crypto traders. 2. Over time, the usual giant financial institutions are bound to become the dominant market makers in crypto-assets. In all likelihood, one of them will end up buying Coinbase. Those giant financial institutions…

> The longer Bitcoin survives, the more it will get adopted and integrated into the world's financial fabric, e.g., as a store of value. If this sounds far-fetched, consider that many smart and smart-sounding people have predicted Bitcoin's demise, and so far their arguments have been proven wrong:

You're arguing that because Bitcoin hasn't met its demise, it will therefore be widely adopted as a "store of value"?

As if there are only two possible outcomes: Complete failure or complete dominance as a store of value. This is where your argument doesn't make any sense.

I suspect we'll discover that all of these altcoins and weird financial instruments didn't actually detract from Bitcoin at all. Rather, they contributed to its rise by juicing demand and pumping huge amounts of leverage and pseudo-liquidity into the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

If crypto becomes boring, I don't think the natural conclusion is that adoption will increase.

Re: Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

#153

Post by burnished »

rohith2506 wrote: post #87

I am absolutely baffled by how much negative criticism the whole blockchain industry gets here and I would like to understand the reasoning behind it. Most of the arguments fall into these following buckets concluding to "IT MUST DIE" 1. The whole crypto is a get rich quick scheme with predatory practices everywhere. It's a wild wild west with no sort of regulations. Well, guess what, regulated industry is no differe…

Crypto solves a very specific problem; how to have a public ledger when none of the participants can trust each other and dishonest behavior is naturally incentivized.

But every defense is about how crypto will purchase this moral good of decentralization or freedom from the US economy, in some unclear and unspecified fashion.

There also seems to be an unresolve-able tension between the premise of an immutable ledger and human nature as seen through the various mechanisms to undo mistakes (ie regaining access to an account, reversing charges for a variety of reasona). That capability sort of requires trust and centralization.

Re: Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

#154

Post by cs702 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #152
cs702 wrote: post #58

Three highly speculative predictions: 1. The courts are more likely than not to rule that many crypto-assets -- but not all -- should be regulated as investments. It won't be fun for a lot of crypto traders. 2. Over time, the usual giant financial institutions are bound to become the dominant market makers in crypto-assets. In all likelihood, one of them will end up buying Coinbase. Those giant financial institutions…

> The longer Bitcoin survives, the more it will get adopted and integrated into the world's financial fabric, e.g., as a store of value. If this sounds far-fetched, consider that many smart and smart-sounding people have predicted Bitcoin's demise, and so far their arguments have been proven wrong: You're arguing that because Bitcoin hasn't met its demise, it will therefore be widely adopted as a "store of value"? As…

The longer Bitcoin's network continues to function, the more people will become aware of its resiliency. Governments may topple; banks may fail; exchanges may go bust; Bitcoin keeps on ticking. Difficult-to-forge assets that can survive the failures of governments, banks, exchanges, etc. tend to gain adoption as stores of value. There aren't a lot of assets like that. Gold is one. Bitcoin appears to be one too.

Re: Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

#155

Post by tromp »

cs702 wrote: post #124
tromp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why its network would stop functioning If it fails, it's most likely because block subsidy will become negligible in a few decades and transaction fees alone won't always provide sufficient security against re-org attacks.

Maybe. Others have made that argument before. So far, it's been proven wrong. The rewards are already pretty small, and things are still working. Maybe it could happen after block rewards go to zero? I don't know. But we'll find out if you're right over the next six years!

> So far, it's been proven wrong.

How can a prediction of what happens after 2050 (i.e. after a total of 10 halvings to make subsidy negligible) have been proven wrong "so far" ??

Re: Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

#156

Post by favorited »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #61
bluescrn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other uses include local crimes and national crimes. They don't have to be global... Oh, and gambling/speculating of course.

There's nothing wrong with gambling, and it could eventually become a currency that could replace the dollar. It won't, but it could

When I put a dollar in a vending machine, I don't want to wait an hour for the soda to come out the bottom.

Re: Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

#157

Post by wilg »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #92
rohith2506 wrote: post #87

I am absolutely baffled by how much negative criticism the whole blockchain industry gets here and I would like to understand the reasoning behind it. Most of the arguments fall into these following buckets concluding to "IT MUST DIE" 1. The whole crypto is a get rich quick scheme with predatory practices everywhere. It's a wild wild west with no sort of regulations. Well, guess what, regulated industry is no differe…

Blockchains are unnecessary in a world with trusted entities and functional legal frameworks. In places that require a blockchain, you're still going to be at the whim of whomever has a monopoly on force. Sure, your key passphrase may be in your head. You'll end up getting beat with a rubber hose. It was never your crypto so long as someone has the guns (wrt "Not your keys, not your crypto"). https://xkcd.com/538/ >…

It’s worse, in many (most? all?) cases a legal backing is superior!

Re: Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

#158

Post by majormajor »

cs702 wrote: post #116
otoburb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly my point. The Lindy effect probably shouldn't be used as an argument for either side of this debate (or any, for that matter). But that's a specific (partial) statement that I saw in the parent comment.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I agree with you on the Lindy effect. What I meant is that the arguments used by many past predictions of Bitcoin's demise have been proven wrong. Anyone making new predictions of Bitcoin's demise must explain precisely how and why its distributed network would fail. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my comment above!

Why should a prediction of demise (for whatever meaning of "demise" we care to choose, but we can start with the one you first mentioned, market capitalization) be required to be more precisely detailed about how and why than a prediction of thriving?

Someone could say "Many past novel currencies and securities have failed; any prediction of Bitcoin's success must explain precisely how and why it will still have worth in 50 years." To me this seems like the same argument you're making - belief that a trend will continue until proven otherwise - but I don't find either of them very convincing.

I think any argument either way should have more details than "it's worked so far!" or "it'll eventually fall over like Madoff!" but you seem to only be pushing the burden of proof in one direction.

Re: Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

#159

Post by lordfrito »

nkuttler wrote: post #149
lordfrito wrote: post #123

[flagged]

Dunno, it seems like you started a thread with name calling.

Fair enough. Was trying to make a constructive point, but clearly my bias leaked through.

Point is that it seems any discussion here is fruitless, just both sides digging in. I usually appreciate the discussions here. These are just frustrating.

Sure I don't have to click, but I still do.

Anyhow my 2c.

Re: Former US SEC attorney: 'Get out of crypto platforms now'

#160

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

cs702 wrote: post #139
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except ~99.99% of BTC transactions happen in exchanges off chain and aren't visible to anyone, and have a history of being fraudulent at many exchanges that have failed through the years...

That's true for gold too: Most gold transactions happen in exchanges. But the fact that there are successful intermediaries in the gold market is not an argument against gold's viability as a store of value. Ditto for Bitcoin.

This is whataboutism.

The claim is that BTC surely isn't fraud because the chain is public knowledge.

This is irrelevant, because the vast majority of data is bullshit.

The gold market has been manipulated to and fro, even with regulations.

The idea that BTC isn't manipulated to oblivion JUST BECAUSE there's a public ledger (missing 99.99% of the data) is naive.

Post reply on HN