Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin is a disaster

metzdowd.com

231–240 of 992 posts

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#231
post #168
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often is it used for that use case? Does gold have a high value due to this? No. I would even say that we might see more use industrially if people weren’t inflating its price by using it as a store of value.

37% of gold use in the US is for electronics. https://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml

Unless I'm mistaken, this is showing gold used for anything but storage of value. So that number is misleading.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#232
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Bitcoin where ever possible, so your opening claim is wrong. I've been banned from Paypal. I've run into many verification issues over the last decade with banks because I have no proof of residency once my driver's license expired. Like physical cash, it doesn't need to be superior in all ways to be useful at all.

> I use Bitcoin where ever possible, so your opening claim is wrong. Just because a random guy barters bitcoins for goods/services, that by no means implies that bitcoin is anything close to money. There is a very specific definition of what money is, and bitcoin's volatility alone rules it completely out.

It's not one guy bartering, it's a lot of services offering it as a payment option, treating it effectively like a foreign currency with a different set of payment providers

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#233
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the irony. The point is that Bitcoin has introduced an actual "digital cash" currency without institutional/governmental middlemen. That institutions can be built on top of that, and that some people want such institutions, doesn't change the novel utility of finally having a currency that functions like digital cash. It's like saying it's ironic that people use physical USD for anonymous p2p transactions…

Since Bitcoin transactions are enabled only by spending electricity, isn't the whole system dependent on utility companies, which are either in part or in whole extensions of the government?

If you want to be reductionist, you can argue that since almost all of the world's land, people, resources, and equipment are under the control of some government, it's hard for anything to be independent of them.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#234
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's "digital cash" in this context? What does it offer extra compared to regular cash and online payments?

Theoretically companies like Mindgeek who have been kicked off of the VISA/Mastercard duopoly, would be able to use Bitcoin as a censorship-resistant way to accept online payment. There's additional benefits as mentioned earlier like not needing to comply with KYC laws. Of course, as Bitcoin currently stands, it's difficult for this to come to fruition because most holders are speculators rather than people intereste…

> There's additional benefits as mentioned earlier like not needing to comply with KYC laws.

In many situations lack of KYC is a bug, not a feature.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the irony. The point is that Bitcoin has introduced an actual "digital cash" currency without institutional/governmental middlemen. That institutions can be built on top of that, and that some people want such institutions, doesn't change the novel utility of finally having a currency that functions like digital cash. It's like saying it's ironic that people use physical USD for anonymous p2p transactions…

That is a good way of thinking about it. "The Internet of Money" is a very good way of labeling it. The internet protocols itself and it's openess are very foundational like bitcoin. Everything we use today is built on top of that. BTC is really just the brand right now. Moving forward we will see if BTC is Yahoo/Myspace and who will be the Google/Amazon of this new sector.

No, this is the incorrect way of thinking of it.

It's more like TCP/IP than businesses built on top of the protocol.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#236

Related: the current rise of Bitcoin prices has been peculiar to me, and seems to be a bit of a canary in an inflationary coal mine. We've injected trillions of dollars of fiat into the economy this year. It feels like the sky-high valuations of technology companies and Bitcoin are "shock absorbers" of sorts, or early signals of inflation-yet-to-come. If we assume the market is efficiently pricing these assets (like…

How do you explain gold though? It certainly hasn’t kept up with bitcoin.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one treats Bitcoin as a currency. It’s treated as an investment vehicle. And the reason behind that is obvious. Something whose value may double in a month or whose value may halve within weeks is a terrible currency. If I expect it’s value to increase then I would be a fool to spend it. If I expect it’s value to drop I would be a fool to accept it. Cryptocurrencies are anything but currencies.

I use Bitcoin where ever possible, so your opening claim is wrong. I've been banned from Paypal. I've run into many verification issues over the last decade with banks because I have no proof of residency once my driver's license expired. Like physical cash, it doesn't need to be superior in all ways to be useful at all.

The kind of problems you have are not solved with crypto currency, let’s be real about this.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#238
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter how safe an investment is. Uncorrelated alternative assets (metals, crypto, art, etc), when added to your portfolio, lower the total volatility (risk) and boost the risk adjusted returns. You can take a really crappy asset with low returns and high volatility (like gold) and add it to your portfolio to boost your risk adjusted return. In short, from a quantitative perspective, it never makes sense t…

One of the most common critiques of modern portfolio theory is that it defines risk by volatility rather than downside risk. While a stock will never have price-to-book multiple less than 1 (unless fraud has occurred) a cryptocurrency has no such limit on how far it can fall.

Well a crypto currency can only fall 100%, so it's not unlimited. Moreover, some stocks do actually have a P/B ratio below one, for example Deutsche Banks PB is currently around 0.3.

You could instead look at downside deviation instead of volatility, but in my experience standard volatility and upside/downside deviation look very similar for most securities. This is somewhat paradoxical for me personally, but it is what it is.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#239
Bitcoin is more accurately referred to as Bitcoin Core. The philosophical successor to the original Bitcoin is Bitcoin Cash. You can see the difference for yourself here: https://bitcoinfees.cash/

Bitcoin, at least according to Satoshi's original white paper, is supposed to be a peer to peer electronic cash system.

Let's pay for a Bay Area cup of coffee with Bitcoin. That'll be $13 ($5 + $8 in network fees). If we use Bitcoin Cash, its $5. As you can see, Bitcoin is no longer useful. That's because Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is...well, something else.

Like all nice ideas that happen to rock the boat, Bitcoin was subverted, controlled, and is no longer Bitcoin, but that's a story for another day.

Re: Bitcoin is a disaster

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one treats Bitcoin as a currency. It’s treated as an investment vehicle. And the reason behind that is obvious. Something whose value may double in a month or whose value may halve within weeks is a terrible currency. If I expect it’s value to increase then I would be a fool to spend it. If I expect it’s value to drop I would be a fool to accept it. Cryptocurrencies are anything but currencies.

"No one treats Bitcoin as a currency. It’s treated as an investment vehicle." I, for one, have and will continue to use it as a currency in some cases. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.

I’ll call BS on this - are you actively selling it to buy things online? And you buying BTC when you have spare money in checking accounts? Is your turnover like 10-20%? I’m guessing you’re a buy and hold person with BTC, which makes you an investor in it.
Post reply on HN