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

The first Bitcoin post on HN

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 302 posts

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#211

Post by mike_esspe »

andrewla wrote: post #209
g8oz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But those attributes can be replicated by another crypto-currency right? So the distinct edge of both bitcoins and tulips are the maddened crowds. They have that in common.

This is actually a really good point that I don't feel has been adequately answered -- usually people say something like "well, bitcoin has momentum" or somesuch, which strikes me as being nonsense if you accept the idea of why bitcoins have value as being an intrinsic property related to their fungibility, scarcity, and non-consumability; in theory the same things that give all currencies their value. The only expla…

There are some rare metals, other than silver and gold, that did not become a currency, despite having all the same features. Why?

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#212

Post by etler »

cs702 wrote: post #7

That four-year-old submission has just two comments: one expressing doubt, one expressing optimism. Interestingly, despite growing worldwide adoption of Bitcoin, comments about it on HN continue to be more or less evenly split between doubters and optimists. And I wouldn't be surprised if comments to this submission are evenly split between those same two camps. No amount of evidence or reasoning seems to persuade ei…

What about the middle? I think bitcoin has a myriad of great uses, but is also addled by inherent problems that prevent it from being a standard currency.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#213

Post by vbuterin »

Nursie wrote: post #177
fragsworth wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I think it's easy to see paying for something in USD, and using BTC as the means of transfer. Customer USD -> Customer BTC -> transfer -> Vendor BTC -> Vendor USD

Yay! 3 layers of fees!

Customer USD -> Customer BTC: 1% + $0.15 (Coinbase)

Customer BTC -> Merchant BTC: $0.06 (transaction fees, currently abnormally high due to price spike)

Merchant BTC -> Merchant USD: 0.99% (Bitpay)

Total: 1.99% + $0.24

Compare: credit cards and Paypal (2.9% + $0.30)

So even there it works out fine.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#215

Post by millstone »

applecore wrote: post #152
rms wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corollary: how many bitcoins would you have mined if you'd bought $1000 worth of the best mining GPUs on that day?

It wasn't until over a year later (July 2010) that the first block was likely mined using GPUs. Satoshi implored people in December 2009 (several months after this post) to postpone mining using GPUs for as long as possible[1]. [1]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12.msg54#msg54

Satoshi's pleading to not port bitcoin to big endian machines is shocking. Hopefully that has been fixed!

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#216

Post by Nursie »

Houshalter wrote: post #191
Nursie wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, for one, will be very sad if it does revolutionise the foundation of any economies, because deflation is bad and creating a new aristocracy from a few BTC hoarders is also not something I consider useful. Crypto-currency good. Bitcoin not so much.

Some people getting rich of bitcoin doesn't make everyone else worse off. And a "new aristocracy" is a huge stretch. A few people will get rich off it but not like that. And the value of bitcoin won't deflate forever. Eventually the price will stabilize.

If you view a change in currency as fundamentally pretty useless, then yes, giving massive amounts of financial control of resources and labour(which is what money represents) to people with BTC hoarded does indeed take away from others.

And if BTC were to become (for instance) a primary currency for a country, and that country were to experience economic growth, then deflation must necessarily continue.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#217

Post by Nursie »

splintercell wrote: post #202
Nursie wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> A spike in electricity costs would directly effect existing bitcoins' value How? Please explain? It makes mining more expensive, and some people may be switched off mining as a result, but the same number of BTC will be made.

That means the rate of inflation of bitcoins will slow down, thereby causing a spike in the value of existing bitcoins.

>> That means the rate of inflation of bitcoins will slow down, thereby causing a spike in the value of existing bitcoins

Nope, the rate of bitcoin generation is fixed, it's nothing to do with how many people mine or what the hash rate is.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#218

Post by Nursie »

vbuterin wrote: post #213
Nursie wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yay! 3 layers of fees!

Customer USD -> Customer BTC: 1% + $0.15 (Coinbase) Customer BTC -> Merchant BTC: $0.06 (transaction fees, currently abnormally high due to price spike) Merchant BTC -> Merchant USD: 0.99% (Bitpay) Total: 1.99% + $0.24 Compare: credit cards and Paypal (2.9% + $0.30) So even there it works out fine.

It's hardly the fee-free utopia though is it?

And I can already transfer to other individuals for no charge.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#219

Post by Nursie »

mkramlich wrote: post #199
VMG wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand the deflation argument. Also Bitcoin can already be split into 10e8 subunits (Satoshis)

1. I do 2. they can be split further, if ever needed. which is what I just said. if enough people agree to it and enough people migrate forward, via cooperation and "this-will-only-hurt-briefly" actions

Splitting currency down like that is not a good answer to the monetary deflation issue, which is why he said he didn't think you understood.

It's not simply the quantity of available currency that is the problem with deflation, it's the appreciating value of currency compared to goods and labour.

Re: The first Bitcoin post on HN

#220

Post by fiesycal »

ericb wrote: post #210
dasil003 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like your first point, but your second point makes no sense. Products are not currency, and talking about inflation/deflation in products does not make sense, unless people buy them as a long-term value-store in which case "assets" might be more appropriate. Except they're still not fungible so they can appreciate or depreciate, but that's not inflation or deflation.

To explain: The fear that often is associated with deflationary currency (like bitcoin) is that no one will spend it, because waiting always gets you a slightly better deal. And if that happens the economy will grind to a halt with everyone waiting to spend. The point of my second statement is that we have examples of cases where even though every month your money buys more, people still do buy things.

There may be specific examples (HDTV) where waiting means your money buys more, but overall the more you wait the less your money is worth in the economy due to inflation. Technology making products cheaper is not an example of deflation. Inflation and deflation pertain only to currency not products.

If however you hold your currency and everyday its worth more, besides the bare essentials there is barely an incentive to spend it. Also there is no guarantee that the HDTV will become cheaper, however it is guaranteed that a deflationary currency will gain value the more you hold on to it.

Post reply on HN