Live data from Hacker News

Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

drewdevault.com

191–200 of 260 posts

Re: Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

#191
post #95

Keep in mind that this is not an objective take, fraud is destroying his business. He’s conflating all crypto with PoW based systems. A more accurate title would be "Bitcoin is Making My Life Complicated”.

Are there actual PoS systems in the wild that don’t pretty directly tie themselves to PoW systems? In my mind, the people who make this pitch that we shouldn’t blame crypto, we should blame proof-of-work sound a lot like Elon telling me that Tesla will be Level 5 any day now. Yea, it would rock if we could suddenly have the perfect thing, but I don’t see any evidence that PoW is actually being replaced by PoS for rea…

If you're genuinely asking this question, it really depends on what you mean by "tied to PoW systems".

Currently the three largest PoS networks that I know of are Polkadot/Kusama, Harmony and Fantom. They are functional insofar as being EVM compatible. Theoretically anything running on ETH could be ran on these networks.

Stellar Lumens is an example of something which does not use PoW, it uses FBA which is considered much more efficient than PoW (and possibly certain PoS systems too).

Certainly, almost all crypto assets right now are tied to PoW systems in that their value is somewhat propped up by a general interest in crypto, of which the large majority (in terms of market cap) is currently Proof-of-Work based (BTC, ETH, LTC, BCH, DOGE, XMR, etc.)

I suspect we will see a natural shift towards PoS alternatives as they are much cheaper to run and entry into these other markets is cost prohibitive.

We should also see a huge shift in value if/when ETH2 is released (which some estimate could still be several years away).

The elephant in the room will be BTC. It remains to be seen if people will still consider BTC to be a store of value in the crypto world, akin to gold bullion in traditional markets. Certainly many people holding it would like you to think so.

Re: Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

#192
post #86

So it seems Drew is biased here, he is biased because his service is being used by thieves to make money. My tainted opinion: I think the criticisms of Proof-of-Work are totally justified here. There are perverse incentives for "miners" to execute work in the cheapest way they can, whether that is JS miners, bot farms, abuse of free services, hacked AWS accounts, abusing favorable tenancy conditions etc. and even if…

I've heard a lot about proof-of-stake as being a lesser drain on energy per unit of mining, but I'm still very unclear on—well, many things about PoS, actually, but one in particular stands out:

How would eliminating all Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies and shifting entirely to Proof-of-Stake eliminate the incentive for miners to monopolize every last bit of computing resources they can?

My understanding of cryptocurrencies and blockchains is still fairly limited, but I'm struggling to see how any system that allows for conversion of computing resources into a saleable commodity can avoid that problem, whether or not it finds a way to avoid the "electricity-consumption-to-money" pipeline.

Re: Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

#193
post #7

> Cryptocurrency is one of the worst inventions of the 21st century. I am ashamed to share an industry with this exploitative grift. It has failed to be a useful currency, invented a new class of internet abuse, further enriched the rich, wasted staggering amounts of electricity, hastened climate change, ruined hundreds of otherwise promising projects, provided a climate for hundreds of scams to flourish, created sho…

Now do the Federal Reserve. 1955 Tappan Zee bridge: $55 million. 2013 Tappan Zee bridge: $4 billion for basically the same bridge. Due in part to the destruction of the USD caused by the Fed.

Your whataboutism destroys your whole argument. Pointless.

Re: Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US government has been using cryptocurrencies to deliver aid direct to Venezuelans, for whom previously traditionally bank-wired funds were been pilfered by local (government-controlled) banks. The aspect of direct "peer to peer" electronic cash, coupled with plausible deniability of ownership and no need for trusted parties, are tremendously positive characteristics in poor, corrupt and developing nations where…

I'm not doubting you, but do you have a better source than a cryptocurrency news site? Also, the US government sending cryptocurrency to South America honestly doesn't sound like a definite positive. Even recently, the US doesn't have a great track record with their interventions in that region of the world.

Don't worry, you can trust decrypt (at least inasmuch as you can trust Yahoo):

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-government-enlists-usdc-gl...

Regardless of a given view on the politics of this particular intervention, accepting the intervention occurs at all, also accepts crypto's utility for this purpose of circumventing systemic centralised corruption, which was the point of the example.

Re: Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

#195
post #2

It's in it's infancy. In two decades we will know what it means to us as mankind. Cars were also dangerous, unregulated, expensive and excessively polluting. It got a lot better on all these points, and not all due to the cars: some of it was a mind shift that mankind had to make. Same will hold true for cryptocurrency.

Cars are at least useful for something.

Cryptocurrency invents value out of nothing. It's a scam, a fraud, a ponzi scheme, and nothing more than counterfeit money. And it should be treated as such by the governments of the world.

Re: Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine why you're being downvoted, for a well-balanced, educative post with full disclosure. No wait, I can - and it sucks.

>Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. [1] (emphasis mine) The comments section is for discussion, why not discuss? [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This is simply wrong. I frequently see comments on comment downvoting causing a reconsideration and reopening of closed discussions, resulting in discussion value.

Whether this was achieved or not in this case is debatable, but that doesn't nullify the base premise. (OTOH, quoting forum rules is almost universally boring. ;))

Re: Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

#197
post #65
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But cars had value. They have value. They had value from day 1. Cryptocurrencies just don't. It's all smoke and mirrors, where everything would be better without the blockchain. Without irreversibility. Without everything about it. There are whole books about how terrible and useless it is. And please do what the article said: How much of your own money is dependent on you selling the lie of cryptocurrency or smart c…

> Cryptocurrencies just don't [have value]. It's all smoke and mirrors > super-immoral going-nowhere-moral tech lol what? Is US dollar moral? Is it not also "smoke-and-mirrors" by your definition since it's just paper that we all believe has value?

Yes. For one thing you can buy stuff with it because it is legal tender for all debts. For another thing the value is mostly the same from day to day. You're not going to go buy bread today and have it be 10% more expensive than it was yesterday, or 30% less expensive next week.

Cryptocurrencies are not currencies. Bitcoin might be priced at $63,000 today (or $48,000 or 53,000 or oops 30,000 tomorrow?) but it's worth is $0.

Re: Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's inherently bad about deflation? It's happened routinely throughout most of history until recently. Speculation is a good thing, it's a form of entrepreneurship. Example of historic deflation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation

Deflation causes a positive feedback loop of reducing trade. If it's better to hoard currency so you can buy 10% more things next year, everyone starts hoarding currency and reducing trade, leading to suppliers dropping prices to encourage purchases, leading to further deflation, and so on. Trade grinds to a halt as everyone holds currency in anticipation of buying more later. Stake: 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH

> If it's better to hoard currency so you can buy 10% more things next year, everyone starts hoarding currency

But they don't. Not if it's things they need now, like food, or want now: electronics have been deflationary for the last 70 years or so -- when you bought the device you typed your comment on, you knew full well that a year later you would get a better one for cheaper, and yet you didn't hoard your currency. Trade in electronics doesn't seem to be grinding to a halt.

Useless crap people don't actually need? Sure, that might suffer from deflation. But ideally the world economy wouldn't be founded on useless crap that people don't actually need.

Stake: Held some Bitcoin ca. 2011-2021, just enough to buy a nice (not fancy) apartment slightly below market price. Divested now. Miniscule amounts of Monero and Tezos, basically written off.

Re: Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

#199
post #19

Cryptocurrency is not an abject disaster. Drew is right that proof of work mining is expensive and has serious negative externalities. Drew is also right that cryptocurrency, via its growth, hype, and decentralized and self-sovereign nature, is often an ideal vehicle for certain kinds of criminal activity, including pump-and-dump fraud or ransomware. Drew is right (perhaps indirectly) that many or most well-meaning c…

What are the useful things that are being built on Ethereum? The PDF you linked was high level and didn't really provide any specific applications.

And for bonus points, are any of those useful things useful in domains other than financial speculation? That is, not DAO/De-Fi/prediction markets?

Re: Cryptocurrency Is an Abject Disaster

#200
post #179
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no cash flow "into the system". Its a forever repeated nonsense idea. If you exchange fiat or maybe gold for fiat there is no cash flow into anything its just an exchange. Crypto to crypto or to fiat is exactly the same. No cash goes anywhere other than to the seller. (obviously ignoring fees and such but they also dont go into anything its just paying someone for providing a service) If you look at crypto a…

What do you think happened to all of the money from VCs, big consulting companies, etc. which was spent on blockchain services? How many people have received a full-time paycheck for years for the express purpose of building something worth using? Your grocery store analogy illustrates why there are so many skeptics: I don't have to ask people whether they use a grocery store because they have food on their shelves a…

Where do you see how much VC money was spend in the crypt space? No one really knows, that's the whole point. People see BTC being worth 60k and exchanges having billion of trade volume. All of that is a useless indicator of how much money is actually spend to solve a problem or at least try to solve one.

I'm certain millions of dollars has been spend and probably nothing or not much came out of it so far but there is no metric and nothing to compare it to so how can people come to the conclusion that too much was spend for too little return? I assume they look at hype and trading and all that and this is what leads to the concision. Whether the conclusion is wrong or not, we dont know but the reasoning is wrong.

Even trough there is nothing to compare it to, a huge junk of VC money is spend for things that eventually fail to give return. Its part of the game. And any sane person would agree that if it fails people stop to put more money in for the same ideas. So how do people think that VC are just stupid and shovel money in stuff for 10 years and counting with no return? Maybe just maybe this is not really the case and there is tremendous change coming for the way financial system work. Its just not something that happens quickly and it certainly not some ETF or anything the public talks about because they see numbers in $ value. That's just people playing around with what these systems allow them to make. Its like the chain-mails or ascii-art and all that stuff that hardly anyone could see as solving any problem but then again e-mail did solve a problem even trough the tech was (/is) horribly bad.

>Blockchain systems, on the other hand, are never mentioned other than by people who have a vested interest in selling the system rather than doing anything with it.

You dont hear people talk about how crypto helps them because it does not for the most part. They don't use it. Its also for the most part not meant to be used by them (the end user). They may use a product that's build on top of it some day. Or even already do [1] without knowing. DLTs are just global distributed databases where everyone can verify the state and rules. We have no clue what kind of problems this can solve but its probably not solving much of peoples everyday problems or if so only indirectly without them knowingly using the system. Just like most people never notices that they use TCP/IP. TCP/IP was once a very stupid idea if you would have tired to tell people what it is. They would have told you that phones already work and that TCP/IP at that time would not even allow you to make a phone call. Why would you encode some tiny messages to send over a wire if you could just call the other side instead.

One of the end-user focused ideas that may become reality in the next years is web monetization [2] where your browser steams fraction of cents while you watch anything on the web. Maybe its payed content only or may it removes the ads if you pay. The idea itself is old (subscriptions). But subscriptions do not scale. No one wants subscription for every website and online service. If you could pay them directly as you use, it would work for all who implement this. No prepaid or monthly billing. Pay as you use or donate as you use. This stuff is pioneered by "crypto people" because it relies on p2p value transfer. The current way we move value can not handle micropayment. You can not stream fraction of cents to someone if everything has to go to a third party first and that third party has to find a way to get the money to the recipient who may or may not be a customer of them. Its slow expensive or completely impossible due to d incompatible jurisdictions and such stuff. Its kinda works like phones did once and it should move on to work like the internet does.

[1]https://twitter.com/mercury_fx_ltd/status/108591501163618713... They are using crypto to settle peoples transaction within seconds. Obviously their customers wont know or care but if they pay less is somewhats solving a real problem.

[2] https://webmonetization.org/ Proposed as a W3C standard.

Post reply on HN