The Meaning of Bitcoin • Hacker News Board

Re: The Meaning of Bitcoin

#41

Post by MuffinFlavored » Mon, Jun 10, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

grugagag wrote: post #30

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for every buyer that is a seller if the seller is happy at the price they are selling at and the buyer is happy at the price they are buying at, where does the "someone had to lose a dollar" come from? if the seller sold to the buyer, then it went up, the only "dollars lost" would be hypothetical opportunity cost had the seller decided to hold instead. am i missing something?

Yeah, it’s called greater fool theory for a reason.

Is the person who posted this

"Yep, for every person who gains a dollar someone had to lose a dollar. No value was created."

right or wrong?

Re: The Meaning of Bitcoin

#42

Post by abetusk » Mon, Jun 10, 2024, 1:41 PM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #15

abetusk wrote: post #9

This is a very welcome counterpoint to a lot of the cryptocurrency hate that tends to be promoted. I think this is more along the lines of a "strong man" argument for cryptocurrency.

You’re making it sound like there’s a uniform blob of unreflected hate, when it’s really specific criticisms for many different aspects. I feel like a steelman argument for Bitcoin specifically is somewhat easier to make than one for NFTs or quasi-investment share tokens, in that it’s at least not a transparent Ponzi scheme by its issuers (one might argue it is one by its current holders, though). The problems of Bit…

There's a large cohort of people who want to hate on anything related to cryptocurrency, whether it's a specific currency like Bitcoin, NFTs, web3 or related technology. You may be right that cryptocurrency proper is easier to defend against but the default position I see by most people is to criticize carbon emissions, energy usage, attack the legitimacy or the utility. One of the first comments here to this article was a comment specifically asking why Bitcoin was needed at all (in the US).

I agree that problems of Bitcoin are different from other neighboring technologies, people lump them into one and tend to use the same arguments (energy usage, scams, ponzi schemes, illegitimate, crime only use case, etc.).

This article at least starts to make the argument of why something like Bitcoin is needed and how it solves real world problems.

Re: The Meaning of Bitcoin

#43

Post by hristov » Mon, Jun 10, 2024, 1:41 PM UTC

Ok i do not want to get into the whole argument of usefulness of bitcoin, but I have to repeat something that I have been repeating for many years on this site, on other sites and in real life, and it still does not catch on. Bitcoin is not anonymous! True, the government may need to do some work to find your wallet number, but once they do they will know all transactions you have ever done with that wallet in all of time. In fact bitcoin allows for surveillance possibilities that governments could only dream of before. It also provides surveillance opportunities for people that are not the lawful government and do not have the power to issue warrants.

Anytime you engage in any transaction using bitcoin, the other party must necessarily know your wallet number. Then the other party can easily check every single transaction made with that wallet for the history of bitcoin, and can do additional checks in the future. Of course you can get a new wallet, but moving the money from the old wallet to the new wallet will also appear for everyone to see.

Thus any government agent, creditor or ordinary stalker can figure out a way to sell you something or buy something from you using bitcoin, and voila they have your entire financial history.

The writer of the original article is being dangerously misleading when he implies bitcoin is anonymous. There are people languishing in jails right now because they thought bitcoin was anonymous.

Re: The Meaning of Bitcoin

#44

Post by lxgr » Mon, Jun 10, 2024, 1:41 PM UTC

ric2b wrote: post #19

HermanMartinus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, for every person who gains a dollar someone had to lose a dollar. No value was created. In this way crypto is actually a less than zero sum game since some money is always lost to the machine through sending to abandoned wallets, lost private keys, etc. So on average everyone loses.

By that logic stocks of companies that don't issue dividends are the same.

No for-profit company doesn’t either pay dividends or buy back shares forever.

Re: The Meaning of Bitcoin

#45

Post by floundy » Mon, Jun 10, 2024, 1:43 PM UTC

abetusk wrote: post #9

This is a very welcome counterpoint to a lot of the cryptocurrency hate that tends to be promoted. I think this is more along the lines of a "strong man" argument for cryptocurrency.

>This is a very welcome counterpoint

The article contains no real information, in fact can't even support its own title because apparently stablecoins are more attractive to those living in high inflation environments than Bitcoin.

The reader is left with no more information about "The Meaning of Bitcoin" than they entered with. No attempt is made to inform the reader about how cryptocurrency solves inflation or any of the other proposed issues with centrally-controlled currencies, besides reminding the reader that "stablecoins" exist. Well "stable" is in the name so it must be true, right? End article.

Re: The Meaning of Bitcoin

#46

Post by realusername » Mon, Jun 10, 2024, 1:44 PM UTC

eterpstra wrote: post #40

realusername wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the government is restricting access to your funds and preventing you from holding USD, then Bitcoin or Stablecoins are a pretty good option. If your government is going as far to prevent you to own USD, they aren't going to view cryptocurrencies any more favorably anyways.

Exactly, but the value proposition of crypto is that it's *very* difficult to disrupt. See Nigeria for a current example of a national government trying and failing to get its population to give up on crypto.

It's even easier to disrupt than dollars, at least exchanging dollars as cash is popular whereas cryptocurrencies rely predominantly on exchanges and bank transfers.

Re: The Meaning of Bitcoin

#47

Post by cantSpellSober » Mon, Jun 10, 2024, 1:44 PM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #34

cantSpellSober wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decentralized "Ponzi scheme?" Do you understand what Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff did ?

Yeah, Ponzi sold quasi-currency issued by somebody other than him to people for a promise of large profits! Why do you ask?

That's incorrect.

> one might argue [bitcoin] is [a Ponzi scheme] by its current holders

Going on Twitter and saying "buy BTC!" isn't a Ponzi scheme...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Re: The Meaning of Bitcoin

#48

Post by Geee » Mon, Jun 10, 2024, 1:44 PM UTC

hristov wrote: post #43

Ok i do not want to get into the whole argument of usefulness of bitcoin, but I have to repeat something that I have been repeating for many years on this site, on other sites and in real life, and it still does not catch on. Bitcoin is not anonymous! True, the government may need to do some work to find your wallet number, but once they do they will know all transactions you have ever done with that wallet in all of…

The author didn't imply that Bitcoin is anonymous.

Re: The Meaning of Bitcoin

#49

Post by maraoz » Mon, Jun 10, 2024, 1:46 PM UTC

hristov wrote: post #43

Ok i do not want to get into the whole argument of usefulness of bitcoin, but I have to repeat something that I have been repeating for many years on this site, on other sites and in real life, and it still does not catch on. Bitcoin is not anonymous! True, the government may need to do some work to find your wallet number, but once they do they will know all transactions you have ever done with that wallet in all of…

where did I imply bitcoin is anonymous?

Re: The Meaning of Bitcoin

#50

Post by the_snooze » Mon, Jun 10, 2024, 1:49 PM UTC

eterpstra wrote: post #40

realusername wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the government is restricting access to your funds and preventing you from holding USD, then Bitcoin or Stablecoins are a pretty good option. If your government is going as far to prevent you to own USD, they aren't going to view cryptocurrencies any more favorably anyways.

Exactly, but the value proposition of crypto is that it's *very* difficult to disrupt. See Nigeria for a current example of a national government trying and failing to get its population to give up on crypto.

It's only difficult to disrupt if the people involved stay entirely in the crypto ecosystem. The moment they want to interact with the real world, they open themselves up to the hard power of the state. The US govenrment has been very successful in disrupting crypto offramps; they don't need to break crypto math when they can just put the squeeze on people wanting to trade it for something else.