Live data from Hacker News

Cryptocurrency Startup School

events.a16z.com

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Cryptocurrency Startup School

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centralization and trust are massive efficiencies as demonstrated by the sheer unparalleled inefficiency of proof of work chains. It blows my mind that hipsters refuse to use single-use straws and try and pay with bitcoin which yields thousands of times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as the straw. 1 bitcoin transaction is 607kWh (is 288kgCO2 and 85g of ewaste). That’s enough spent power to drive a Tesla from SF to San…

If you're going to make the energy-usage argument you'll need to position it against a comparable alternative, not how far you can drive a Tesla. How much energy does the current financial industry use on a per transaction basis? If you were to sum up all the retail banking locations, corporate offices, their data centers, contractors, POS systems, etc. would you realistically expect energy usage per transaction to b…

> If you were to sum up all the retail banking locations, corporate offices, their data centers, contractors, POS systems, etc. would you realistically expect energy usage per transaction to be lower than a Bitcoin transaction?

Yes, on a per transaction basis. You can only have 7tx/sec which means only a tiny tiny number of people could ever use it, and yet it uses as much power as Denmark. Currently nobody uses it and it uses as much power as Denmark. I would rather another Denmark or Austria than an incredibly inefficient payments system. To underscore just how little bitcoin matters ask yourself, if it just disappeared one day would anyone outside the industry even notice? And on that you want to spend an entire nations energy budget?

Visa processes 600,000 transactions in the same energy budget as a single bitcoin payment. Six hundred thousand times more efficient.

I can’t understand why you’d compare it to the entire global financial system when it can’t possibly ever replace even a sliver of it. I could outperform it with a single AWS instance and one table in RDS or DynamoDB.

[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

Re: Cryptocurrency Startup School

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending censorship resistant transactions. Crypto transactions are generally censored much less often than things like bank or credit card transactions.

So you mean mostly illegal stuff. Yeah, I can see a market there!

No, I mean things that get censored.

For example, go try and start an adult services internet company. You will quickly find that very few banks will be willing to allow you to open an account.

Even though adult services isn't something that is illegal in the US.

Also, go back to 2011, and try to donate money to WikiLeaks.

Even though WikiLeaks was not charged with any crimes, and has not been convicted on anything to this day, you will find that all the major credit card companies would refuse to process your transactions.

They were not charged with any crimes. And yet, your transactions would be censored anyway.

So no, this does not have anything to do with illegal behavior.

Lots of financial transactions get censored all the time, regardless of any crimes being committed.

Re: Cryptocurrency Startup School

#153
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take that as the confirmation that it is that you have no response, because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

That reply ended up in the wrong place and now I can’t amend it my bad. > Incorrect. The technology getting more efficient does not make Bitcoin less efficient. You probably didn't actually think through this point, because it's nonsensical. It very much does. The more efficient your miners the more you have a temporary advantage over your peers, so there’s incentive to replace your equipment. Then everyone upgrades…

> It very much does. The more efficient your miners the more you have a temporary advantage over your peers, so there’s incentive to replace your equipment. Then everyone upgrades theirs too. Once you do the difficulty adjusts to match the new hash power. Thus bitcoin becomes less efficient. There’s a straight line up and to the right over time in terms of hash rate, and power consumption but the max tx rate remains a pitiable 7tx/sec. Therefore by definition it’s become less efficient.

So, yes, it becomes less efficient in terms of hash rate, that's true. But we don't really care about hash rate efficiency. What we do care about is power efficiency, but that scales with price not mining technology. And yes, the price has gone up, but power consumption will only continue to rise if the price does. This is basically an economic fact - miners are compensated in Bitcoin, so they should only be willing to consume as much dollar-weighted power as they receive in dollar-weighted bitcoin.

> People very much pay attention to bitfinex, since they own the funbux people use to avoid AML/KYC.

Bitfinex's volume is legitimate, though. Tether is an open question, but tether is also tradable at a market rate. The market believes tether is worth $1. If you disagree, you can short it, and if you actually believed tether was illegitimate, you'd do that. The fact that you haven't indicates to me that you don't really believe it.

> I can’t believe you’d sit there and say it’s okay if 95% of volume is fake and manipulative because you’ve found the good 5%. If only 5% of all USD transactions were fake, or all stock transactions were fake we’d burn the system to the ground.

I think the crux of the issue is that nobody cares about these exchanges. Their volume isn't real and everyone knows it, so they don't matter. If I claim to own a stock exchange that trades 100 trillion usd of volume every day, does that mean that now 95% of traded stocks are "fake"? No. It just means some random guy on the internet claimed something silly. That's what these fake exchanges more or less are.

> So until 2050. And then you think miners will continue to secure the system for their health? Of course not. Transaction fees will skyrocket and if anyone is left using the system the process will repeat itself.

> “Protecting their wealth” haha, good one. They lost 33% last week. 70% since all time high. 99.8% if they invested in alt coins. That’s not protection, that’s insanity. There’s so many better ways to protect wealth. It protects wealth like warm milk on a windowsill.

Better than Venezuelan Bolivars by a long shot.

> Trust me I’m not buying haha, I made a bunch of money in the initial bubble run, sold at 17K and got out. Today, there’s plenty of better investments in the stock market. I mean outperforming an asset class down 70% in 2 years is pretty pretty easy. Even SoftBank has a better track record. Actually it may be outperformed by the Turkish Lira at this point. (Edit) since 2017 the Turkish lira has done much better than bitcoin.

Measuring something's performance from it's all time high is a strange way to consider things. Nobody does that in any other market. There are plenty of assets down that much from their ATH. You're cherrypicking a particularly bad time period for Bitcoin. If you started in 2016, the returns outstrip any national currency on earth - which for the record, is also not a meaningful way to look at things.

Re: Cryptocurrency Startup School

#154
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reply ended up in the wrong place and now I can’t amend it my bad. > Incorrect. The technology getting more efficient does not make Bitcoin less efficient. You probably didn't actually think through this point, because it's nonsensical. It very much does. The more efficient your miners the more you have a temporary advantage over your peers, so there’s incentive to replace your equipment. Then everyone upgrades…

> It very much does. The more efficient your miners the more you have a temporary advantage over your peers, so there’s incentive to replace your equipment. Then everyone upgrades theirs too. Once you do the difficulty adjusts to match the new hash power. Thus bitcoin becomes less efficient. There’s a straight line up and to the right over time in terms of hash rate, and power consumption but the max tx rate remains…

> Bitfinex's volume is legitimate, though.

Citation needed. Bitfinex is one of the shadiest entities anywhere on earth. Why would you believe them?

> Tether is an open question, but tether is also tradable at a market rate. The market believes tether is worth $1. If you disagree, you can short it, and if you actually believed tether was illegitimate, you'd do that.

I would do that if the market wasn’t manipulated. It’s a suckers game to take any position in a manipulated market. Exchanges actively move the price up to liquidate shorts then spike it down to liquidate long. To play a rigged game at all is a suckers bet; it’s like trying to play a shell game because you’re confident you can see where they put the ball. That’s not why you’ll lose.

> Better than Venezuelan Bolivars by a long shot.

A single transaction fee for BTC is a weeks wages in Venezuela. It does not solve that problem or any other problem. Trust me if a Venezuelan were given the choice between moving a sliver of currency for a weeks wages or 600kWh of productive energy they’d very much pick the latter like any sane human.

Re: Cryptocurrency Startup School

#155
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It very much does. The more efficient your miners the more you have a temporary advantage over your peers, so there’s incentive to replace your equipment. Then everyone upgrades theirs too. Once you do the difficulty adjusts to match the new hash power. Thus bitcoin becomes less efficient. There’s a straight line up and to the right over time in terms of hash rate, and power consumption but the max tx rate remains…

> Bitfinex's volume is legitimate, though. Citation needed. Bitfinex is one of the shadiest entities anywhere on earth. Why would you believe them? > Tether is an open question, but tether is also tradable at a market rate. The market believes tether is worth $1. If you disagree, you can short it, and if you actually believed tether was illegitimate, you'd do that. I would do that if the market wasn’t manipulated. It…

> Citation needed. Bitfinex is one of the shadiest entities anywhere on earth. Why would you believe them?

Read the report yourself if you like:

https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-01/srnysearca2...

For reference, when people say "95% of exchange volume is fake" this is the report they're citing. It lists 10 exchanges with volume it deems legitimate. Bitfinex is one of those 10.

> I would do that if the market wasn’t manipulated. It’s a suckers game to take any position in a manipulated market. Exchanges actively move the price up to liquidate shorts then spike it down to liquidate long. To play a rigged game at all is a suckers bet; it’s like trying to play a shell game because you’re confident you can see where they put the ball. That’s not why you’ll lose.

I'm not sure what you mean by "manipulated". The Tether/USD market on Kraken is not manipulated in any way. And it's unclear what it'd even mean if it were. How would one go about manipulating the Tether market?

> A single transaction fee for BTC is a weeks wages in Venezuela. It does not solve that problem or any other problem. Trust me if a Venezuelan were given the choice between moving a sliver of currency for a weeks wages or 600kWh of productive energy they’d very much pick the latter like any sane human.

Yes, now it's a few weeks wages. But prior to this round of hyperinflation they could have stored their wealth in bitcoin. Now it's probably too late. But i'm not referring to someone doing it now, storing your wealth somewhere will always have some cost associated with it. Wealth preservation is a step you take in anticipation of currency risk, not after its already done.

Re: Cryptocurrency Startup School

#156
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitfinex's volume is legitimate, though. Citation needed. Bitfinex is one of the shadiest entities anywhere on earth. Why would you believe them? > Tether is an open question, but tether is also tradable at a market rate. The market believes tether is worth $1. If you disagree, you can short it, and if you actually believed tether was illegitimate, you'd do that. I would do that if the market wasn’t manipulated. It…

> Citation needed. Bitfinex is one of the shadiest entities anywhere on earth. Why would you believe them? Read the report yourself if you like: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-01/srnysearca2... For reference, when people say "95% of exchange volume is fake" this is the report they're citing. It lists 10 exchanges with volume it deems legitimate. Bitfinex is one of those 10. > I would do that if the mar…

> Yes, now it's a few weeks wages. But prior to this round of hyperinflation they could have stored their wealth in bitcoin. Now it's probably too late. But i'm not referring to someone doing it now, storing your wealth somewhere will always have some cost associated with it. Wealth preservation is a step you take in anticipation of currency risk, not after its already done.

Perfect haha thus solving the problem once and for all. Except not solving any problem, and somehow even less efficiently.

Before the last few rounds of hyperinflation they could have just as well bought USD and been 70% better off. Yes if you cherry pick entry points in retrospect you can justify any position no matter how crazy. If these poor Venezuelans had only realized how valuable bitcoin was before it mattered you know? Or literally any other asset class that’s done well lately but hey don’t let me spoil the surprise.

Re: Cryptocurrency Startup School

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of them were fake? 95%. [1] While I understand that applies to exchanges and not mainnet, the reality is that each mainet transaction is impacted because it's the 95% of fake volume that sets the price and therefore the terms of exchange for the "real" transactions. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/cbovaird/2019/03/22/95-of-repor...

I'm constsntly amused by the lack of technical understanding on HN when it comes to cryptocurrencies. That article says 95% of trading volume is fake. This is absolutely different from on chain transactions, 100% of which are real.

No I get it but the sum total of transactions, real and fake determine the exchange rate between real money and crypto. If the fake volume had no impact at all, why on earth do you think they’re doing it? For their health? Fun? Cmon now.

Re: Cryptocurrency Startup School

#158
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Citation needed. Bitfinex is one of the shadiest entities anywhere on earth. Why would you believe them? Read the report yourself if you like: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-01/srnysearca2... For reference, when people say "95% of exchange volume is fake" this is the report they're citing. It lists 10 exchanges with volume it deems legitimate. Bitfinex is one of those 10. > I would do that if the mar…

> Yes, now it's a few weeks wages. But prior to this round of hyperinflation they could have stored their wealth in bitcoin. Now it's probably too late. But i'm not referring to someone doing it now, storing your wealth somewhere will always have some cost associated with it. Wealth preservation is a step you take in anticipation of currency risk, not after its already done. Perfect haha thus solving the problem once…

> Before the last few rounds of hyperinflation they could have just as well bought USD and been 70% better off. Yes if you cherry pick entry points in retrospect you can justify any position no matter how crazy. If these poor Venezuelans had only realized how valuable bitcoin was before it mattered you know? Or literally any other asset class that’s done well lately but hey don’t let me spoil the surprise.

The only reason I cherrypicked a time period was to demonstrate that you were cherrypicking a time period. If you want to talk seriously about evaluating it as an investment, there are two ways you could go about doing that. One would be to look at it's value since inception, which makes it literally one of the best investments on the planet. The other would be to pick a hold length and evaluate the sharpe ratio for holding the asset over all periods of that length during its lifecycle (e.g. take all 1-year long daily returns streams, and compute the sharpe ratio of each, thereby obtaining a performance distribution for the asset that suggests what your expected risk-adjusted return would be, on average, for buying it at any point during its lifecycle).

I do have the data to do that analysis, but not on the computer i'm currently on. However, I think we both know how good it will look for Bitcoin. If you doubt that, i'm happy to actually run it in a day or two.

Re: Cryptocurrency Startup School

#159
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, now it's a few weeks wages. But prior to this round of hyperinflation they could have stored their wealth in bitcoin. Now it's probably too late. But i'm not referring to someone doing it now, storing your wealth somewhere will always have some cost associated with it. Wealth preservation is a step you take in anticipation of currency risk, not after its already done. Perfect haha thus solving the problem once…

> Before the last few rounds of hyperinflation they could have just as well bought USD and been 70% better off. Yes if you cherry pick entry points in retrospect you can justify any position no matter how crazy. If these poor Venezuelans had only realized how valuable bitcoin was before it mattered you know? Or literally any other asset class that’s done well lately but hey don’t let me spoil the surprise. The only r…

This argument has been a bit winding but to recap. I started out saying BTC was getting less efficient over time, you said it wasn't, then agreed it was. You suggested it wasn't manipulated, but we agree there's tons of data that shows its brutally manipulated. Then I argued Bitfinex/Tether is shady, you said it wasn't and that I should short USDT. I said the manipulation makes that a bad call. Next we talked about investing, and you said it was doing great, but over the last 2 years it's down 70%. Then you said it was good for Venezuela, but a single transaction costs a few weeks wages, and takes enough power to run their home for a month. Then you agreed it wasn't good for them, either. So far we agree it's performance is better than the bolivar but worse than the turkish lira. Yes, if you bought for pennies and can sell for thousands you did fine. The question isn't how much money it could have made you, the question is where's it going next. It's also probably not the single best investment in history, if you ask anyone who invested in Facebook's seed round.

It's not good for anyone, anything, or the environment. It's a crap payment system, with limited capacity, consuming an entire country's worth of energy to do what could be achieved with a single AWS instances and a DynamoDB table. And the big feature? That you can circumvent sanctions. Boy if I had a nickel for every time I wanted to pay someone in North Korea, Iran or Syria using a month's household usage of electricity, I'd, well, I'd not have any nickels.

Nobody can point to a single thing Bitcoin does better than anything else already out there except making the early adopters wealthy.

Not to mention "[a study] estimate[s] that Bitcoin generates a large welfare loss that is about 500 times as large as a monetary economy with 2% inflation." [1]

[1] https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/swp20...

Re: Cryptocurrency Startup School

#160
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before the last few rounds of hyperinflation they could have just as well bought USD and been 70% better off. Yes if you cherry pick entry points in retrospect you can justify any position no matter how crazy. If these poor Venezuelans had only realized how valuable bitcoin was before it mattered you know? Or literally any other asset class that’s done well lately but hey don’t let me spoil the surprise. The only r…

This argument has been a bit winding but to recap. I started out saying BTC was getting less efficient over time, you said it wasn't, then agreed it was. You suggested it wasn't manipulated, but we agree there's tons of data that shows its brutally manipulated. Then I argued Bitfinex/Tether is shady, you said it wasn't and that I should short USDT. I said the manipulation makes that a bad call. Next we talked about i…

> This argument has been a bit winding but to recap. I started out saying BTC was getting less efficient over time, you said it wasn't, then agreed it was.

You originally said that it gets less efficient as the technology improves. That statement is false. It does however, get less efficient as the price rises. So you should only be concerned if you expect the price to continue to rise.

> You suggested it wasn't manipulated, but we agree there's tons of data that shows its brutally manipulated.

Also false. There are a bunch of exchanges that fake volume. Those exchanges do not manipulate anything, however. All they're trying to do is scam ICOs out of listing fees. They don't even have real users.

> Next we talked about investing, and you said it was doing great, but over the last 2 years it's down 70%.

I articulated the correct criteria for evaluating it as an investment. You may feel free to propose your own, of course. But I presume you haven't already done so because you do not have a better way to run the analysis.

> So far we agree it's performance is better than the bolivar but worse than the turkish lira. Yes, if you bought for pennies and can sell for thousands you did fine.

Over the time period you cherrypicked, yes. If you choose a starting point at random from its history, however, i'd bet it has performed better than any other currency on earth, on average.

> It's also probably not the single best investment in history, if you ask anyone who invested in Facebook's seed round.

Buying Bitcoin on day one was almost certainly a better investment than investing in FB at any stage. I don't know what the terms of FB's seed round was, but let's say you paid $50k for 1% (valuing it at $5mm) of FB. Today that investment is worth an astounding $5 billion, an excellent 100,000x return. However, in March 2010 you could buy Bitcoin at $0.003 each. That's a 2,666,666x return to date.

And that's March 2010, which was the earliest time I could easily find a price for in a Google search. In 2009, when it was actually started, who knows what you could have gotten it for.

Post reply on HN