Live data from Hacker News

One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

theconversation.com

11–20 of 299 posts

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#11
It's not a failure because Bitcoin tanked (relatively), it's a failure because Bitcoin tanking was and will always be a significant risk. People who got rich from Bitcoin weren't savvy, they won the lottery. It's not a sound investment decision based on outcome. Investments are sound based on probability and risk beforehand.

El Salvador gambled which is stupid. Whether they won or lost at the lottery is inconsequential to its stupidity.

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#13
post #10
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My best guess at why the average person is hesitant to use bitcoin as a primary currency is: where do I go when it goes wrong? If the system holding my money is hacked, or I get scammed in some way, where is my legal recourse? Legal recourse is typically something provided by a state. But state regulation nullifies a lot of what bitcoin advocates claim is the advantage of cryptocurrency. I'm not up to scratch on the…

> If the system holding my money is hacked We the hodlers believe that Bitcoin can be hacked only by hacking cryptografic hash-functions, which will lead to collapse all the banks, all passwords on all websites, maybe some data structures like hash-maps. > or I get scammed in some way, where is my legal recourse? How will you get scammed if you have a backup which you promise to yourself to not even introduce to comp…

I'm not talking about the hash function being hacked, I'm talking about websites like Coinbase that provide wallet and exchange services being hacked. Banks of course are also vulnerable to social engineering etc but there is more regulation and consumer protection for when that happens.

And by "scammed" I mean someone providing a fraudulent or faulty service or product. In the UK we have "Section 75" which protects consumers who pay via credit card or paypal: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-w... . Is such protection possible with bitcoin?

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#14
post #11

It's not a failure because Bitcoin tanked (relatively), it's a failure because Bitcoin tanking was and will always be a significant risk. People who got rich from Bitcoin weren't savvy, they won the lottery. It's not a sound investment decision based on outcome. Investments are sound based on probability and risk beforehand. El Salvador gambled which is stupid. Whether they won or lost at the lottery is inconsequenti…

It's worse than a lottery for some. It rewarded incorrect thinking on how the financial industry works.

Speculative spikes can happen for a lot of reasons, but that Bitcoin would replace all currencies (as early advocates would have had you believe) was not one of those reasons.

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there was some crypto without any incentives of hodling long term, I'm sure the adoption would be higher Interestingly, that is also the analysis that most central banks make. Their monetary policy sets a positive target inflation rate for this exact goal. However, that monetary policy is often a large part of why people use Bitcoin.

Should do what Switzerland has been trying to do. Negative interest rates to punish those who are hodl the Swiss Franc.

Then it wouldn't be a free currency anymore, and that's a tenet of crypto (whether real or only promised, the mileage may vary).

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#16

If he had invested in a corrupt opaque investment that by design lost $50M into the pocket of a wealthy supporter, everyone would've shrugged and said "business as usual".

"Only as bad as embezzlement" is not the endorsement for cryptocurrency or the response to criticism this comment portrays it as

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#17
post #13
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the system holding my money is hacked We the hodlers believe that Bitcoin can be hacked only by hacking cryptografic hash-functions, which will lead to collapse all the banks, all passwords on all websites, maybe some data structures like hash-maps. > or I get scammed in some way, where is my legal recourse? How will you get scammed if you have a backup which you promise to yourself to not even introduce to comp…

I'm not talking about the hash function being hacked, I'm talking about websites like Coinbase that provide wallet and exchange services being hacked. Banks of course are also vulnerable to social engineering etc but there is more regulation and consumer protection for when that happens. And by "scammed" I mean someone providing a fraudulent or faulty service or product. In the UK we have "Section 75" which protects…

> I'm not talking about the hash function being hacked, I'm talking about websites like Coinbase that provide wallet and exchange services being hacked.

What part of Bitcoin whitepaper tells you have to rely on third-parties? I'm not a trader, I'm a hodler, I even do not have a Coinbase account.

Of course if third-parties get lost you lose everything you have believed they will guard for you.

upd after reading responses

Sorry guys I forgot that average person needs to be an idiot. My bad, usually I consider an opposite.

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#19
post #11

It's not a failure because Bitcoin tanked (relatively), it's a failure because Bitcoin tanking was and will always be a significant risk. People who got rich from Bitcoin weren't savvy, they won the lottery. It's not a sound investment decision based on outcome. Investments are sound based on probability and risk beforehand. El Salvador gambled which is stupid. Whether they won or lost at the lottery is inconsequenti…

It isn't lucky to hold through multiple multi-year 80% drawdowns, it's called doing research and having a conviction. I didn't sell at 60k, I'm not selling now, because I have a strong conviction. You call this lucky, but it isn't. If you have a conviction and a span longer than four years you could get "lucky" too.
Post reply on HN