Live data from Hacker News

Cryptonomicon: Among the Bitcoin maximalists

harpers.org

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Cryptonomicon: Among the Bitcoin maximalists

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find you utterly un-compelling. And I say that as someone who has literally spent hundreds of bitcoin at one of the ONLY points in bitcoin's history when it was primarily used as a genuine medium of exchange (silk road). Simple example - show me a method of handling reconciliation of fraud/contract dispute for bitcoin that doesn't fall back on the legal systems of those government systems you're so happy to rail ag…

The fraud/contract mechanism that I remember seeing proposed years ago was always escrow (which BTC at least supports) and a third party arbiter.

Yes - this is exactly what the silk road did. A buyer would place enough coins into escrow with the silk road to prove he had the funds available to make the purchase, the seller would ship the goods, after receiving the goods, the buyer would unlock the coins from escrow and they would be given to the seller.

The problem here, is that this effectively makes the silk road (drumroll...) a traditional bank. With the monetary controls and downsides that the folks trying to speculate on bitcoin claim they don't want. (The can freeze funds, reverse transactions, run away with your coins, etc)

Further, since traditional mining is out of reach for most folks - there's no real way to avoid having to buy through an intermediary. So when you hear folks saying "Not your wallet, not your coins" ask them how they managed to get their coins in the first place, and how they avoided ever trusting an intermediary with their coins during that process (unless they literally mined them themselves, not as a pool, they're bullshitting you - they trusted an intermediary, and fraud was absolutely a possibility)

I think my real point here (admittedly long winded) is that a large reason the modern banking system functions the way it does is that they've essentially been asked to handle fraud and dispute reconciliation in a world where you're not allowed to resort to rote physical violence yourself. Unfortunately, to do that they require all sorts of monetary controls (The same controls coin enthusiasts claim to hate). But those same enthusiasts don't actually have a functional solution for handling reconciliation in instances where a dispute actually occurs, outside of falling back on the legal system of a government.

Some of them seem to have a mental fantasy of hiring assassins or threatening folks with either hacking or some other "dire" threat, but it's mostly bullshit - when fraud happens they run squealing to the government or they eat the loss. These folks are like a strange variation of the "prepper" crowd - they wish the world worked like it did thousands of years ago where blunt force solved problems.

Re: Cryptonomicon: Among the Bitcoin maximalists

#132
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah, yeah, I was going to say, if this went to court, it would feel like a slam dunk case of trademark infringement or IP of some kind, due to consumer[1] confusion. [1] term of art in this context, not what I'd prefer they use.

I don't believe you can copyright titles.

My comment refers to "trademark" or "IP of some kind", not copyright.

Re: Cryptonomicon: Among the Bitcoin maximalists

#133
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely this is a problem of supply and not demand. If I go to Safeway and don't find something healthy, I will nevertheless buy something for the simple reason that I am hungry. Want healthier food in a society? Sell healthier food in a society. It's not the job of consumers, nor is there any reasonable communication channel, to dictate what is put on shelves. They can only provide feedback based on what is already t…

' It's not the job of consumers, nor is there any reasonable communication channel, to dictate what is put on shelves. ' In a free market the job of consumers is to use communication channel of purchases to signal what they want to have stocked on the shelves. Safeway stocks junk food because that is what people buy.

It's like you didn't read a single word...

Where is the answer to the problem? Signals are carried in codes, and codes can be more or less efficient at conveying information. How does a sample from a biased population provide any information about the true mean? How would offering only Cheez-its and Gatorade tell you about consumer desires for eggplant?

Many accuse their fellow humans of degeneracy but that narrative only serves to obfuscate the primary role of corporations, for which we can make much stronger accusations of degeneracy.

Dear reader, observe the classically crypto-fascist rhetoric with its complete lack of self-reflection and deflection via essentially empty-headed, debate-bro tactics.

Re: Cryptonomicon: Among the Bitcoin maximalists

#134
post #118
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukrainian army is provably infested with neo-Nazis. Right-libs gonna right-lib.

What the hell are you on about?!

Exactly the text in OP.

Ukraine made some shifty and tenuous alliances with Neo-Nazi militias to expand their ranks. Obviously they're not needed anymore since the entire population is conscripting themselves, so their influence is greatly reduced. I think the deal was made to protect the eastern border but either it didn't work or the Nazis gave up quickly in defense of Ukraine.

Re: Cryptonomicon: Among the Bitcoin maximalists

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint- this was yet another tired critique of Bitcoin. How many of these smug, superficial boomer oriented rants must we endure? It's easy to attend conferences and mock people. Meanwhile BTC is playing a meaningful role in the realpolitik you mention, and quickly integrating into the entire banking system. You say BTC has no connection to the real world, as if the Canadian truckers didn't just get their accou…

How many rants from young people do we have to endure? You're not going to start the revolution you will become a boring boomer like all the generations before you. The crux is that you are cashing out your bitcoin for £€$ to buy things in a store.

Let me translate your comment:

1 - The young people are just annoying and don't know anything 2 - Nothing will ever change 3 - Nothing will ever change

Needless to say, I disagree with you. Life is constantly changing, and in a few years, likely you will be able to buy almost anything with crypto.

Re: Cryptonomicon: Among the Bitcoin maximalists

#136
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly hope not! That's what the article's author was hoping for, but presumably Bitcoin will reach a long-term stable price level at some point. Maybe it already has, or did two years ago when it was at US$8000, or maybe at some point it will rapidly fall to $0 as investors switch to Ether or Grin or ZCash or whatever is popular ten years from now. Its volatility unfortunately appeals to get-rich-quick speculat…

DAI is a stablecoin not relying upon off-chain backing.

Thank you! I didn't remember that, though I must have heard of it at some point. However, its metric of "stability" is apparently US$1, so by holding Dai you are still betting that the Federal Reserve will not decide to make its money machine go brrr. Holding Bitcoin involves no such bet on politics, though it certainly has a lot of short-term volatility.

Re: Cryptonomicon: Among the Bitcoin maximalists

#137
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet you wish you hadn't spent those hundreds of bitcoin, don't you? As I said in the last post I linked, Bitcoin handles a few billion dollars a year in cross-border remittances, largely to family members in Venezuela; this suggests that it's keeping several million people alive. I hear there are still darknet markets around, too. So there are current uses as a genuine medium of exchange that are very significant.…

> I bet you wish you hadn't spent those hundreds of bitcoin, don't you? I don’t know if you realize just how disturbing and manipulative this sounds.

I definitely didn't think to read it as disturbing and manipulative. What do you think I'm trying to manipulate him to do? Not blow a literal fortune on smoking weed? It's too late for that, I think. He says he spent hundreds of Bitcoins buying weed; at today's prices, a hundred Bitcoins are US$3.8 million. If he'd smoked one third less weed and just kept the other third of the Bitcoins (in his own wallet, not MtGox's!) he'd be a multimillionaire. Who knows, maybe he's a multimillionaire anyway and that's why he doesn't regret it?

In that case, I'd like to manipulate everybody: Save a reasonable percentage of your earnings! Invest a modest percentage of your current consumption in a diversified portfolio of assets with a reasonable expectation of future returns! Be aware that you may become disabled or encounter other serious economic difficulties, and a little frugality today may produce enormous payoffs down the road! Be prudent and don't bet heavily on any single asset class! I'll love you if you do! Your parents would be disappointed if you failed at this!

What other manipulative stratagems can I use to get people to be wiser and more responsible?

Re: Cryptonomicon: Among the Bitcoin maximalists

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fraud/contract mechanism that I remember seeing proposed years ago was always escrow (which BTC at least supports) and a third party arbiter.

Yes - this is exactly what the silk road did. A buyer would place enough coins into escrow with the silk road to prove he had the funds available to make the purchase, the seller would ship the goods, after receiving the goods, the buyer would unlock the coins from escrow and they would be given to the seller. The problem here, is that this effectively makes the silk road (drumroll...) a traditional bank. With the mo…

Thinking escrow services make them a central bank means you're misunderstanding a lot of things. "Central banks" control currency printing, which silk road never did. The entire point of BTC is that being algorithmically controlled. I suspect you just mean traditional banks where people have their checking and savings accounts. But you're still mistaken. Having an arbiter for the money involved in one transaction does not mean you can have all of your funds frozen. At worst you can have a bad arbiter that awards the money from one transaction unfairly. They also absolutely can not "reverse transactions" if you are paying with a transfer on chain. I think you're mixing up "escrow" where a website requires you send them your BTC and they transfer your BTC to someone else for you by moving numbers in a SQL table with actual on chain transactions. With on chain escrow the arbiter can never get the funds, only forward them or send them back.
Post reply on HN