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

Coinbase S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 736 posts

Re: Coinbase S-1

#221

Post by mumblemumble »

a2tech wrote: post #97
arnaudsm wrote: post #44

Many have forgotten why we used cryptocurrencies in the first place. The original promise of cryptocurrency was to become independent from banks. In the end CoinBase (like every exchange) is a great product, but just a bank. It's centralized, hackable, has economies of scale, etc.

We hate the central banks! We're going to take away the power from them and the government! slight inconveniences, fraud happens We need a place to store our coin and help securely move it! recreates central banks with even less regulation and security Profit!

Not exactly central banks in this case, but we've at least made it as far as fractional reserve banking.

Matt Levine covered this well in a recent column[1]. It reminds me a bit of the argument for why anarchy probably can't work that Robert Nozick laid out in Anarchy, State and Utopia. In a nutshell, the social forces are such that the simple, minimalist way of doing things represents an unstable equilibrium point, and the stable equilibrium point is much closer to the status quo.

That said, I wouldn't call armchair philosophy or armchair financial jurisprudence particularly ironclad. It's hard to blame people for wanting to actually try a thing. And it hasn't been entirely unsuccessful. While it's true that a lot of modern financial system trappings have built up around Bitcoin, the currency itself remains nominally independent.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-24/the-va...

Re: Coinbase S-1

#222

Post by fasdf1122 »

arnaudsm wrote: post #44

Many have forgotten why we used cryptocurrencies in the first place. The original promise of cryptocurrency was to become independent from banks. In the end CoinBase (like every exchange) is a great product, but just a bank. It's centralized, hackable, has economies of scale, etc.

No reason it can't be both. You can manage your own wallet, or you can use coinbase (or any number of "banks") for their services layered on top. Or you can have both.

Re: Coinbase S-1

#223

Post by PKop »

levosmetalo wrote: post #198
cactus2093 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t speak for everyone there, “we” don’t all have the same reason. I like Bitcoin as a diversification for being a “better version of gold” - it has the scarcity and you can physically own it but it is much easier to store and send anywhere in the world if needed. These properties also mean that in a pinch, if you live in an unstable society or one facing high inflation it can work as an alternative financial syste…

> I like Bitcoin as a diversification for being a “better version of gold” - it has the scarcity ... Why do we repeat the claim of Bitcoin scarcity when we all know it's just a promise and nothing more, there is no technical limitation? All it takes to "print" more Bitcoins is for the majority of miners to agree to make a fork that will allow for more. And that will happen at one point. As for Gold, good luck trying…

>All it takes

Oh just that huh?

The market wouldn't value that new fork on par with finite BTC, so those miners would be hurting themselves, and burning energy for a worth-less coin.

This action is trivial to consider, so what makes you think it has bearing on BTC value? When these miners leave old network, hash power & difficulty go down so other miners who prefer finite protocol can come in to mine. What's the actual threat then?

Re: Coinbase S-1

#224

Post by snicksnak »

neximo64 wrote: post #214
ignoramous wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a16z are one of the biggest institutional investors in the cryptocurrency space: https://a16z.com/crypto/#vertical-landing-investment-thesis

It's in his personal name not A16Z

while his name is listed in the table the footnote says

> (4) [..] held by entities affiliated with Andreessen Horowitz, as reflected in footnote 9 [..]

footnote 9 attributes the shares to him and a variety of funds

Re: Coinbase S-1

#225

Post by user-the-name »

Spivak wrote: post #219
user-the-name wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need the nodes to agree on anything. If they don't agree, they drop off the network, and form their own chain with little to no hashing power, that will stagnate and die in short order.

You need a majority of computing power on the network to agree to actually do this which is what the parent means.

No, that was the original claim. That you need the miners to agree. They are the ones that hold the computing power.

The claim I responded to says that in addition to this, you also need the majority of the "nodes", which are just computers that do no work and just forward transactions. This is incorrect, you do not need their help. It is easier if you have it, but you do not need it.

Re: Coinbase S-1

#226

Post by ceejayoz »

koonsolo wrote: post #201
fnord77 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in reverse. the evolution of the modern financial system is less and less friction for each transaction, lower costs. crypto: more friction, slower transactions, higher transaction costs. And wicked exchange volatility. Plus no way to expand or contract the supply to prevent economic shocks. I like my fiat and central banks, thank you very much.

I'm in EU, you in US? Send me $50.000 in the weekend through your bank. Let's see how fast it goes. I'll send you any amount you want with Nano: Try to beat that!

It'll presumably take more than one second to convert it to a usable currency, i.e. Euros.

How often do you need $50k without being able to wait a business day?

Re: Coinbase S-1

#227

Post by PaulWaldman »

anonu wrote: post #37

Love reading the risk factors section. First thought: how can a lay person possibly understood the risks as laid out here? Also they view this as a major risk: •the identification of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous person or persons who developed Bitcoin, or the transfer of Satoshi’s Bitcoins; Second thought, what an incredible business and growth. 1.14bn in revenue on 193bn in trading volume: thats 60bps on every…

> These are insane fees ripe for disruption.

Wouldn't this just cause Coinbase to lower their fees like any ofther commodity? Alternatively, they could also be in the position to offer differentiated services.

This seems analogous to any other brokerage services. This will likely play out like when discount brokerages arrived on the personal investment secene.

The more I think about it, the more this feels like traditional banking/investing.

Re: Coinbase S-1

#228

Post by user-the-name »

zulln wrote: post #206
levosmetalo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like Bitcoin as a diversification for being a “better version of gold” - it has the scarcity ... Why do we repeat the claim of Bitcoin scarcity when we all know it's just a promise and nothing more, there is no technical limitation? All it takes to "print" more Bitcoins is for the majority of miners to agree to make a fork that will allow for more. And that will happen at one point. As for Gold, good luck trying…

> And that will happen at one point. Why?

Probably because the fee market will turn out to be non-viable, and bitcoin would collapse without mining rewards.

Re: Coinbase S-1

#229

Post by PKop »

user-the-name wrote: post #211
rawtxapp wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing stops you from changing the 21M cap in the code, but you need majority of the network nodes to agree to the new rules (aka a hard fork), the miners can't willy nilly change the rules of the network. What you would have at that point isn't Bitcoin, it would be probably be called "Bitcoin infinite" or something, similar to "Bitcoin cash".

You don't need the nodes to agree on anything. If they don't agree, they drop off the network, and form their own chain with little to no hashing power, that will stagnate and die in short order.

> You don't need the nodes to agree on anything. If they don't agree, they drop off the network

The miners by comparison, drop off the old BTC network making difficulty go down and others can now mine BTC.

Certainly miners can make this decision. What they can't do is force the market to value the new fork as worth anything, while they are burning energy to mine it and wasting opportunity cost of abandoning finite BTC.

How is this an actual threat? Doesn't make sense.

Re: Coinbase S-1

#230

Post by freeone3000 »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #190
spamalot159 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing crypto currencies to stocks. In that case what you said is true. But I think the fairer comparison is crypto currency to a fiat currency. There is more friction involved in using crypto currency to make a purchase. It does take longer to processes a bitcoin transaction than it would for visa to processes a transaction in usd. And the transaction costs for a typical transaction are usually higher for…

One could get a crypto credit card and spend transparently in fiat. No friction involved.

That's spending a Bitcoin balance, not Bitcoin. You might as well hold a Bitcoin index, and sell that. Or sell a Satoshi and transfer out the fiat, which is what it is. It has nothing to do with the transfer of Bitcoin: the same person holds your Bitcoin balance and your fractional fiat balance and decides the exchange rate. There's no blockchain there.
Post reply on HN