Live data from Hacker News

BTC Endgame

github.com

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: BTC Endgame

#271
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese government is not China any more than the US government is America or the Kremlin is Russia. Having a go at authoritarian demagoguery and secret police is one thing, have at it. But doubling down on the casual false equivalence between a people, a country, a government, and a person, just reinforces the point. Oh, and when you find a free country, do let me know. I haven’t seen one yet. So far, from Austr…

The OP was not taking about the Chinese people, he was taking about China the Chinese government. It was very clear to me reading that, I'm not sure why you're all confused.

The difficulty with this alleged "clarity" is there is no single entity called "the Chinese government" either.

See also:

Using "China" but assuming .hk and .mo are included

Using "China" but assuming .hk and .mo are excluded

Using "China" to mean the area administered by the ROC

Using "China" to mean the area administered by the PRC

Using "China" to mean the area claimed by the ROC

Using "China" to mean the area claimed by the PRC

Using "China" to mean any area historically associated with the rule or influence of the Xia, Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han, Xin, Wei, Shu, Wu, Jin (1st/2nd), Sui, Tang, Wu Zhou, Liao, Song, Yuan, Ming, or Qing dynasties and their associated interregna and feudal periods.

Using "Chinese government" to mean the CCP, but not the State Council, the NPC, or the PLA

Using "Chinese government" to mean the CCP, the State Council, the NPC, and the PLA

Using "Chinese government" to mean Xi Jinping.

Using "Chinese government" to mean the KMT or DPP.

Using "Chinese government" to mean any and all the above, except the KMT, DPP, or PFP.

Using "mainland China" to try to be more specific (it still isn't, and now you've started a war)

Using "Greater China" to name your regional offices. Looking at you, Apple. (no such thing, it's a western fabrication, like General Zuo's chicken)

Referring to the Chinese language (which one?)

Referring to Chinese characters (hanzi? kanji? jiantizi? hanja??)

Referring to "Chinese food" (this is like categorizing haggis with paella)

Referring to "Chinese people" as though it's one ethnic group

Calling anyone who you think looks Chinese, Chinese.

Re: BTC Endgame

#272
post #239
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP was not taking about the Chinese people, he was taking about China the Chinese government. It was very clear to me reading that, I'm not sure why you're all confused.

The wumao and supporters of the CCP have been pushing this racism nonsense for a while now to try to divert criticism against the CCP. It’s unfortunately very common.

Calling out casual bigotry does not equate to sticking up for dictators.

On the other hand, calling racism "nonsense", in any context, that's some Oswald Mosley shit.

Re: BTC Endgame

#273
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could periodically increase the block size It's unclear if that would solve the problem. If BTC becomes a global store of value (which it seems to be in the process of), the avg. transaction value goes up and with it the fees that can potentially be paid. The block size cap ensures that there is a fee market if there's enough demand for transactions, so that not everyone simply pays the minimum fee. If you incr…

If the miners decided to change, it would change. They control enough of the chain that it wouldn’t matter. Not many people run full nodes.

It seems likely to me that the cap will just be expanded at some point, but that is likely tens of years away and its expansion will likely be equal to or less than the replacement value of lost coins.

Re: BTC Endgame

#274
post #273
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the miners decided to change, it would change. They control enough of the chain that it wouldn’t matter. Not many people run full nodes.

It seems likely to me that the cap will just be expanded at some point, but that is likely tens of years away and its expansion will likely be equal to or less than the replacement value of lost coins.

Bitcoin? Sure, you can make any number of additional forks of btc with a different cap -- hell, dogecoin is a fork of bitcoin with no cap at all.

But it won't be bitcoin.

Re: BTC Endgame

#275

There's a way simpler endgame: We hit the peak of the bubble and people start pulling money out and it unwinds in a systemic bank panic.

That is possible, but it's also possible for any store of value , gold , fiat, stocks..

It’s crazy that some people seriously think Bitcoin is anything like these stores of value.

All these are ties to some fundamental value to society. If gold goes down, manufacturing will buy more of it because they use them for ICs and lots of other things. Most companies have some tangible assets behind them. If a stocks price goes far enough down someone might buy up a controlling stake and liquidate all the assets. A fiat currency in a functional state is generally strongly tied to borrowing for real physical assets. It’s deeply entangled with the economy.

There is no bottom for Bitcoin. Especially now that it’s not a very viable currency for most purchases or for lending.

What’s more, value is continually being extracted from the currency. People cashing out and payments to miners (who are basically just burning a lot of the money they make by converting electricity to heat without doing much useful work).

In gold or stocks the money put in actually exists in something valuable to society, and you own a piece of that. The the value might be boosted up 2-10x its real value today, perhaps due to its perceived future value. But you do own a piece of something tangible.

With Bitcoin, the money you put in is already gone. Used by a miner to pay for electricity or an early miner/purchaser who is now cashing out to buy an apartment. You just gotta pray that a few years down someone is willing to buy bitcoins from you for its perceived value alone. Because nobody is going to buy it for any other reason. Not to make something out of it (gold), not to liquidate the assets behind it (stocks), and not to pay taxes or pay back their mortgage (fiat currencies)

There’s so much utter insane and thinking around cryptocurrency these days. Especially Bitcoin. It’s madness.

I mean, it’s a super cool tech. But I think that blinds a lot of people to the facts around it.

Re: BTC Endgame

#276
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PoS is still vaporware - debate me if you want Tezos has a fully working Proof of stake system, and there are others. Feel free to share whatever you're on about, but I have a feeling "the debate" will be an exercise in goalpost moving.

Baseless accusations aside, please see my reply elsewhere in this thread for a response.

Isn't calling currencies that people are already transacting hundreds of millions of dollars in volume on daily "vaporware" a baseless accusation?

Re: BTC Endgame

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it seems like the real defense of an obvious attack is "This Ethereum proof of stake chain with all of the wallets from right before the attack is the new Bitcoin".

Ethereum doesn't store Bitcoin wallets. I'm assuming you mean tokenized BTC (wBTC/rBTC)?

No, he means if something bad happens to Bitcoin, there are thousands of other cryptocurrencies for users to migrate to.

However since most cryptocurrency prices are denominated in bitcoin, a crash in bitcoin historically meant a crash in all of the rest.

Re: BTC Endgame

#278
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is possible, but it's also possible for any store of value , gold , fiat, stocks..

It’s crazy that some people seriously think Bitcoin is anything like these stores of value. All these are ties to some fundamental value to society. If gold goes down, manufacturing will buy more of it because they use them for ICs and lots of other things. Most companies have some tangible assets behind them. If a stocks price goes far enough down someone might buy up a controlling stake and liquidate all the assets…

> I mean, it’s a super cool tech.

No, it really isn't. It's pretty stupidly simple and nobody has come up with a good use case for it other than getting rich because Number Go Up.

Post reply on HN