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

Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

currentaffairs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 341 posts

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#271

Post by bitxbitxbitcoin »

wlll wrote: post #104
Havoc wrote: post #44

>help me make it die in a fire I'm rather mistrustful of people that are this forthy about being against a new technology. If it really is that devoid of merit it'll die on its own. I also think it is a rather fundamental failure to see the big picture. Not efficient? Well neither was the Ford model T. Newer generations are getting better. Similarly somehow existing systems seem to get a free pass for things that are…

> I'm rather mistrustful of people that are this forthy about being against a new technology. I don't really give a crap about what people do or don't do with new technology, ultimately what people want to spend their time and money on is up to them. However, "Crypto" is different. If all it was was just the unbelievably irritating crypto bros rug pulling, ponzi scheming, wash trading, ugly NFT shilling and hacking a…

> So far no-one has been able to point me at a single thing that public public blockchains do that either is worth doing and is only possible using blockchain tech, or is better (more power efficient, faster) than using pre-existing technology.

Facilitating certain types of illegal transactions. Ex, Sanctions evasions for the average Moe, online illicit substance transactions between complete strangers. So I would guess the crux of your statement is actually the “worth doing” part.

I respect your position but I respectfully disagree.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#272

Post by stepanhruda »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #216
stepanhruda wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are answering like it’s 2015 and all you know about is how Bitcoin works. All 3 problems that you mention are solved with 1. zero knowledge proofs 2. multisigs 3. stablecoins.

Ah yes, stablecoins that are very well known to keep their values stable over a long period. It's not like one of the top five stablecoins is just going to evaporate into thin air over a week, right?

You are saying dollars are so stable, how come the Zimbabwe dollar crashed!

That’s just wordplay, algorithmic stablecoins have been problematic and crashing since the beginning and a big one just crashed. Call me when USDC or DAI crashes - specifically not Tether because it’s arguably also undercollateralized.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#273

Post by noasaservice »

fartcannon wrote: post #264
polygamous_bat wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree! Let's start with the most useless "use" first, AKA crypto, and then once we have precedent we move into more and more uses.

If we move to renewables, who cares what they do with the energy?

I dont care what source of energy you're using, to provide for any shitcoin.

Shitcoins are climate-destroying ponzi schemes. They're a negative-sum that the world ends poorer with the more they're made/generated/mined.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#274

Post by polygamous_bat »

JonathanBeuys wrote: post #261
polygamous_bat wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, break out the log scale and the historical price. This is my favorite maneuver, break out the log scale and historical price chart to forget that a 20% dump over a week is just regular volatility for crypto.

Not to forget that but to show that. On a linear scale it is hard to see.

So your argument is crypto is having a full meltdown every other week/month? That is hardly the praise you think it is.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#275

Post by G3rn0ti »

wlll wrote: post #255
G3rn0ti wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are dealing with the significant fallout from their hobbies. We are in the middle of 1) a very serious climate crisis 2) a cost of living crisis where people can't afford energy to cook and heat (in the UK at least) and 3) a war that would likely be brought to a stop sooner if we could phase out Russian gas sooner. Are you honestly blaming cryptocurrencies for climate change, inflation and Russia‘s war against U…

> Are you honestly blaming cryptocurrencies for climate change, inflation and Russia‘s war against Ukraine? That’s crazy. No, I don't think you understood what I wrote. > Climate change is a long running issue that started waaay before Bitcoin even was invented. What's your point here? Climate change has been around for ages so it's OK to blow a load of electricity on something that's not particularly useful? > Still…

> What's your point here? Climate change has been around for ages so it's OK to blow a load of electricity on something that's not particularly useful?

So shall we stop inventing technology that draws power because it’s bad for the environment? I mean Bitcoin isn’t consuming electricity just for fun. People use Bitcoin and that’s why it consumes power. Like people using air conditioning, fridges, washing machines and cars. Furthermore, the raw KWh figure the Bitcoin network is consuming (which AFAIK currently is unknown because miners moved all around the globe in the last couple of years) is not a useful measure of its green house gas emissions as we don’t know how it’s energy is created. It could well be on renewables by large percentage as they are cheaper in some countries (e.g. hydroelectricity in Norway) and mining is expensive.

> Power companies are literally putting their prices up because of a shortage of sources of power.

Price surges among some goods are not inflation but simply an indication of scarcity. Power scarcity affects Bitcoin as much as other sectors of the economy. Price surges across all economic sectors are inflation. BTW: It’s the inflationary policies of the FED and its equivalents creating cheap money and driving the investment bubbles … including the crypto bubble. If you‘re angry about the crypto craze put the blame also on the current monetary regime.

> I don't understand what you're trying to say here, that Putin invading Ukraine is making the most if it's vast and empty territory?

I was referring to parent‘s blame of the Ukrainian war on cryptos. It’s not the fault of crypto heads that Putin invaded its neighboring country and caused gasoline and electricity prices to rise. BTW: It’s probably not even Putin‘s fault alone. Government regulations to support the transition to renewable energy sources have been pushing prices up for electricity and gasoline already for years, at least in Europe.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#276

Post by loup-vaillant »

cypress66 wrote: post #179
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author notes, crypto is inefficient by design. Crypto systems rely on inefficiency to make scamming the system not worth the cost. The author doesn’t want to wait it out because the cost to society in terms of wasted energy and support of bad actors is too high. He notes that he evolved into this position. At first he th out it was just silly. Then silly and annoying. Now just bad.

PoW is inefficient by design, which SOME cryptocurrencies use. But cryptocurrencies don't need to use PoW. Many already use non PoW systems, and others are going to switch away from PoW (such as ethereum).

https://coinmarketcap.com/all/views/all/

Not sure this is the right metric, but you can see that the top of the list seem to represent the bulk of all crypto currencies. And if you want to include Tether, it’s apparently based on Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains.

Bitcoin is proof of work, and is showing no sign of switching to something else. Ethereum is proof of work, and hasn’t switched to proof of stake yet. I mean the tech is ostensibly there, but last I checked the merge still didn’t happen. Even if it was just those two, I would not dare call them "some crypto currencies" like they were marginal. Bitcoin and Ethereum, aren’t marginal, they’re basically the majority all by themselves.

Also, I’m not sure how trustworthy proof of stake actually is. I’ll believe it when Ethereum actually implements it at scale.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#277

Post by fartcannon »

noasaservice wrote: post #273
fartcannon wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we move to renewables, who cares what they do with the energy?

I dont care what source of energy you're using, to provide for any shitcoin. Shitcoins are climate-destroying ponzi schemes. They're a negative-sum that the world ends poorer with the more they're made/generated/mined.

I see! How does that differ from, for example, owning stocks? Or real estate? I literally don't see a functional difference. Sorry I realise this seems antagonistic but I really want to understand the vitriol.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#278

Post by polygamous_bat »

giaour wrote: post #246
polygamous_bat wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the Taliban downloads and starts using your browser? Do you want to keep their ledgers and start processing payments for them using your centralized DB? The use of crypto here has the same reason as use of crypto almost anywhere else, to sidestep regulations and liabilities. Doesn't matter whether those regulations are there for very good reason.

If the Taliban trades on a public blockchain, aren't their ledgers being kept and their payments being processed by every miner? I don't see how that sidesteps liability at all; it just externalizes it.

It's just regulatory arbitrage. I am not a lawyer, but until there are clear laws about it, why can't you just claim that this is just funny money with no real world value, and it has no more seriousness than an in game gold/xp?

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#279

Post by loup-vaillant »

rscho wrote: post #131
Havoc wrote: post #44

>help me make it die in a fire I'm rather mistrustful of people that are this forthy about being against a new technology. If it really is that devoid of merit it'll die on its own. I also think it is a rather fundamental failure to see the big picture. Not efficient? Well neither was the Ford model T. Newer generations are getting better. Similarly somehow existing systems seem to get a free pass for things that are…

> Personally I think crypto is a 50/50 chance of working long term. The chance is actually 100%, because future national currencies will be "cryptographic" tokens. Think of it for 2 sec: is there a government on earth that would say no to a financial system where you can track (poor) citizens' money down to the last penny, always and forever? There's your answer...

Wait, that’s the antithesis of what we currently call "cryptocurrencies", right? All centralised, all government controlled…

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#280

Post by polygamous_bat »

fartcannon wrote: post #277
noasaservice wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont care what source of energy you're using, to provide for any shitcoin. Shitcoins are climate-destroying ponzi schemes. They're a negative-sum that the world ends poorer with the more they're made/generated/mined.

I see! How does that differ from, for example, owning stocks? Or real estate? I literally don't see a functional difference. Sorry I realise this seems antagonistic but I really want to understand the vitriol.

Apple, along with a bunch of upstream suppliers, brings together some glass, some plastic, some metal, and create an iPhone out of it. The value of an iPhone is greater than the value of the raw materials. Thus, it's a positive sum game. Same goes for owning a stake in Apple the company.

One person buys a Bitcoin that another person sold, which is zero sum. But miners burned real energy paid with not-Bitcoin to process it, thus value exits the system. Thus it is negative sum.

Post reply on HN