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

281–290 of 341 posts

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#281

Post by polygamous_bat »

stepanhruda wrote: post #272
polygamous_bat wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dai is an algorithmic stablecoin, same as Terra/UST, their supply is determined by an algorithm.

USDT is a centralized stablecoin, same as USDC.

So in your argument that comes quite close to "No true Scottsman" fallacy, what is the exact criteria that you are using to separate out the "stable" stablecoins from the "unstable" stablecoins?

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#282

Post by pontus »

MerelyMortal wrote: post #244
lordofgibbons wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While zk-SNARKs is a cool piece of technology, their source of funding[1] doesn't inspire confidence. In addition to that, even the few people people who do use Zcash, don't use it's privacy features. 99% of their transactions aren't private and are fully traceable [2]. Why would you want your transactions to stand out? [1] http://zerocash-project.org/about_us [2] https://news.bitcoin.com/not-so-private-99-of-zcash-a…

A couple of years ago on reddit, someone issued a challenge to find the destination of their private Zcash transaction. Someone won the challenege, not by tracing the transaction itself, but by recognizing it was the only transparent to private, and private to transparent transactions with in a timeframe. That's why privacy needs to be mandatory like it is with Monero.

This is quite outdated, I believe. With the launch of NU5/Halo2 in a couple of weeks, all transactions will be private by default. Plus, even without that change, the shielded pool is way larger these days. Finally, a fairer comparison with Monero would have been to trace a shielded to shielded transaction. This should be literally impossible with Zcash.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#283

Post by stepanhruda »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #281
stepanhruda wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dai is an algorithmic stablecoin, same as Terra/UST, their supply is determined by an algorithm. USDT is a centralized stablecoin, same as USDC. So in your argument that comes quite close to "No true Scottsman" fallacy, what is the exact criteria that you are using to separate out the "stable" stablecoins from the "unstable" stablecoins?

Collateralized vs not

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#284

Post by aww_dang »

shkkmo wrote: post #243
aww_dang wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Really? Online "non-cryptocurrency" transactions have outpaced cryptocurrency transactions by a massive amount. Yes, really. Those transactions are heavily regulated. You cannot send a 0.000001 USD Paypal transaction for example. The overhead is too high. There are cryptocurrencies which allow these microtransactions. Observing that there is a high amount of regulated transactions doesn't account for the demand for…

> Yes, really. Those transactions are heavily regulated. You cannot send a 0.000001 USD Paypal transaction for example. How is that due to regulations? There simply isn't much demand for those types of transactions. > Observing that there is a high amount of regulated transactions doesn't account for the demand for unregulated transactions. The growth of demand for regulated online transactions has far out stripped t…

I think if anyone from the pro-economic freedom side of things structured an argument the way you have they would be flagged into oblivion here.

>How is that due to regulations? There simply isn't much demand for those types of transactions.

Perhaps there isn't demand because they have been regulated out of the realm of the possible with traditional instruments? There is demand, but you are not aware.

Tips on Twitter,

Tips on Reddit,

Tips in chats,

Tips for streamers,

Tips for bloggers,

Payouts for activity in a browser game (QuakeIII, rougelikelike or others),

Survey response,

Mechanical Turk style microtasks

These are just the few ideas that leap off the top of my head. You fulfill all of the criteria of my initial criticism, a lack of appreciation for the subjective theory of value. Just because you do not value it, are totally unaware of it, or lack the imagination to conceive of it, does not mean that the activity has no value.

http://pressbin.com/tools/paypal_micropayments/

https://www.nanolooker.com/

>So unless you are the type of hypothetical libertarian who thinks all government is bad while enjoying a standard of living that is only possible in a regulated economy, supporting cryptocurrency as a way of opposing bad laws is nonsensical.

This is where you go off the rails. Consider if I had structured an argument, "Unless you are the kind of commie who..."

I realize that pro-market sentiment is something of a thought crime here on this forum for entrepreneurs, but this is a bit much. As to living in a highly regulated country, don't you think that is a bit presumptuous?

In regards to pro-market sentiments and private property, many have said, "If you don't like it, move to Somalia" I don't know if it is within your powers of imagination, but there are several better options. No, I don't need to show ID (suspicious looking? Imagine that!) to walk up the street. I never needed to show a vaccine card to buy a coffee either. Yes, I am truly suffering by not living in a highly regulated country.

>while providing little additional benefit

Who are you to say? Again, you might not value some of these things. They might not impact your life. Others may. Generalizing it into criminality is just sloppy to the point of the absurd. Although, perhaps that is a privilege for those lacking imagination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

>What about all the damage it has caused through incentiving ransomware?

>Dillinger was known to prefer Ford's then-new V8 cars for their speed.

https://money.cnn.com/2010/01/24/autos/dillinger_car_auction....

Cryptocurrency does not incentivize ransomware anymore than the Ford V8 incentivized John Dillinger to rob banks. Men act. Cryptocurrency transacts as per the intentions of men. Don't personify the inanimate by misattributing agency. Please seek help if you hallucinate the BTC SVG on your shoulder, "incentivizing" you into a life of cyber-crime.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#285

Post by polygamous_bat »

bshepard wrote: post #12
Comevius wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a casual interview, not a dissertation. Beside the tone is the right one, crypto does a lot of damage to the planet and society for the benefit of a few already wealthy people, while pretending to be doing the opposite.

Surely, yes, but the whole social metasystem does a lot of damage to the planet for the benefit of the few, so why scapegoat one part of the system?

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Whataboutism"?

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#286

Post by loup-vaillant »

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.

If cryptocurrencies can even be called "technology".

I have enough skills to implement a crypto currency from scratch. Some building blocks there are impressive and very useful: public key signatures, hashes. _Maybe_ ciphers and polynomial hashes as well. Those things I cannot design though I did implemented from specs (it was a ton of work). But as we all know, those blocks existed long before cryptocurrencies, and have lots of other uses.

Then you have the chained hash, which is basically a degenerated form of Merkle trees (patented in 1979) that look like a Git commit history. Git was first published in 2005, Bitcoin first appeared in 2008. Then you have proof of work (some computation that is hard to do, but easy to verify), which was an established technique before Y2K.

In the end, the one idea Bitcoin introduced that may not be obvious is this idea of a "longest chain", based on proof of work. We have proof of stake as well, but for now I’m waiting for Ethereum to implement it at scale to believe in it (right now most transactions happen in proof of work).

It’s a stretch to call that "technology".

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#287

Post by giaour »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #278
giaour wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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?

That might work in a jurisdiction where the trade in cryptocurrency is illegal but its possession is allowed, but I can't imagine a US or European court would take that argument seriously when crypto has a demonstrable market value. The court would almost certainly treat crypto like a commodity in that case. Wheat doesn't have KYC requirements, but if you knowingly and demonstrably facilitate wheat trades on behalf of a sanctioned entity, you can expect some legal trouble.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#288

Post by fartcannon »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #280
fartcannon wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proce…

Ok, Im not sure why youve chosen Apple but I'll bite. Those resources aren't actually renewable. And mining that stuff certainly costs the environment more than the value of this conversation we are having on those devices warrants. And at the end they're tossed in landfills. You might disagree, but so would a crypto enthusiast.

I do understand your point though I think. Waste in general is bad.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#289

Post by riedel »

uberswe wrote: post #87
riedel wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most scammers targeting your retired parents know how: play store or other vouchers you can buy in the super market. In Europe a standard free IBAN money transfer probably does not lead to much spying either. The biggest use case for this kind of privacy crypto privides is the 'freedom' to do things not legal in your country. I am actually happy to live in a world with limited freedom at times although there is certa…

I disagree with your statement about cryptos biggest use case. However I also want to point out that legal can vary a lot between countries. There is at least one third world country where a woman can't even get an abortion without risking life in prison. If cryptocurrencies can help people who don't have equal rights with more privacy in such situations then I am all for it.

I agree with you about the legal landscape in many parts of the world. However, I really do not think that without having seen any numbers that crypto really betters human rights ( I guess violation of them would be the only reason why in which local legislation/constitution should be ignored) . It will be a tool mostly for the oppressors I in many undemocratic countries to circumvent things like sanctions.

Re: Why All Cryptocurrency Should Die in a Fire

#290

Post by ephbit »

chitowneats wrote: post #270
ephbit wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea .. no. I have a hard time believing that you're actually trying to understand, which kind of trust the people who created Bitcoin meant and why they thought it's important. Just claiming banks are in that sense trustworthy either neglects that banks exist in states and can be influenced or is plain naive. We live in a world where states and central banks are constantly trying to achieve goals by changing money cr…

You mean the type of trust that can be nullified by securing 51% of mining capacity?

You're welcome to provide a better approach.

Pointing out the limits of the currently implemented mechanism (in Bitcoin) does not equate to Bitcoin being inferior to the trust system of conventional currencies.

Post reply on HN