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

Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 369 posts

Re: Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

#341

Post by smsm42 »

digianarchist wrote: post #284
smsm42 wrote: post #238

I am not surprised. I am a programmer with decades of experience under my belt, and I have no idea how to install bitcoin in a way that would allow me convenient use of it. No, I can install the apps, and I can spend a month or two waiting until it downloads the whole 40+G of current blockchain, or I can trust some site that says it'd fix it for me, or I can open an account on any of the exchanges and pray to cryptog…

Run SPV wallet like Electrum. It's the same size as a regular desktop application and takes about a minute to setup.

Doesn't it require essentially trusting Electrum server with your money (and your transactions)?

Re: Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

#342

Post by ttul »

amelius wrote: post #62
ttul wrote: post #55

When I was starting a BTC ASIC company (don’t worry - it failed to attract investment) in 2011, one of the things that always spooked investors was the slide showing transaction volume. Even in those early days, one had to really stretch one’s imagination to believe that Bitcoin could one day take over from Visa/MasterCard as a payment method of choice. But we did understand its value as an alternative store of wealt…

What does it take to actually make BTC ASICs? In my understanding, the hash functions are quite simple and just do things like XOR, and SHIFT, and perhaps ADD/SUB, but not multiply or divide. So the main difficulty would be to do everything at the lowest possible amount of power. But I could be wrong.

You are correct. The ASIC engineering was routine. It was all about justifying the enormous NRE costs... back in early 2011, BTC was a curiosity and not well known at all. Investors were not easy to convince.

Re: Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

#343

Post by klodolph »

kamaal wrote: post #286
klodolph wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not how it works. Obivously, the meaning of the original sentence is that miners will turn off the mining equipment when they decide that it's more profitable to leave it off than leave it on. > …you can either sell it for $50 and only be down $50 on your electricity, or you can not sell it at all and be down $100 on your electricity. This is a false dilemma, the question is not just whether you sell the coi…

Selling requires a buyer. Seller can set whatever price they like, unless the buyer is ready to pay for it, its really not worth much. In the same way if all the buyer wants to pay is 50% of what the seller is quoting, and there are no other buyers around or they too want it for a 50% discount, 50% discounted price is what the price is.

This is ridiculous at face value. Selling requires a buyer, but it is also true that buying requires a seller! Neither the seller nor the buyer has any kind of special power to affect market value that the other party lacks, in some symmetrical way. This should be pretty obvious if you're thinking about currency transactions (which we are) because in currency transactions neither party can really be identified as a "buyer" or "seller". Am I selling BTC? Or am I buying USD? Either statement is equally true.

> In the same way if all the buyer wants to pay is 50% of what the seller is quoting, and there are no other buyers around or they too want it for a 50% discount, 50% discounted price is what the price is.

Let's say I want to sell for $10 but you're the only "buyer" and you only want to pay $5.

You are saying that the actual price is $5... this is not true. There is no actual price, because there is no transaction. I am not a seller, because I haven't sold anything (I've only offered to sell). You're not a buyer, because you haven't bought anything (you've only offered to buy). The "bid price" is $5 and the "ask price" is $10. The "actual price" does not exist until there is an actual transaction.

Re: Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

#344

Post by superkuh »

zaarn wrote: post #287
superkuh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a big of a deal as you're making it out to be. I can say this because I use bitcoin regularly in commerce. I pay 3 cents equivalent (typical fast fee over the last handful of months) plus maybe 20 cents if I'm silly and use something like coinbase to purchase bitcoin initially. And then my transaction clears in 10-20 minutes instead of a day or two like the banks' ACH network.

For 0 cents, my bank does overnight transactions. For 10 cents they do it in under 10 seconds. SEPA Inst is a thing now.

One of the other benefits of bitcoin is that you can use it or send it anywhere. Not just Europe or $otherrestrictedproprietaryregionssystem.

Re: Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

#345

Post by dang »

lmpostor wrote: post #321
smsm42 wrote: post #238

I am not surprised. I am a programmer with decades of experience under my belt, and I have no idea how to install bitcoin in a way that would allow me convenient use of it. No, I can install the apps, and I can spend a month or two waiting until it downloads the whole 40+G of current blockchain, or I can trust some site that says it'd fix it for me, or I can open an account on any of the exchanges and pray to cryptog…

>programmer with decades of experience >experienced professional who actually knows what Bitcoin is and can probably explain how it works >can't download a SPV wallet Congratulations you are the person who is unable to differentiate between "browser" and "internet" in this case.

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this to HN.

If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting, we'd appreciate it.

Re: Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

#346

Post by beaner »

adiusmus wrote: post #281
beaner wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a technical caveat that exists now, but there's nothing categorically preventing additional technology to help users prevent this fate without much work. One thing I don't understand is why so many people seem to have this "Bitcoin CAN not, therefore it WILL not" attitude. Bitcoin is software, it is editable, it is being actively developed. Most of us here, I thought, were familiar with the process of improving…

I think anything that wants to be called a currency should be useful for buying and selling goods and useful for storing value. Cash right now can do this. Bitcoin right now can’t, and lightning on top can’t do it as per your comment about it having a vulnerability if you don’t log in. I’m sure I’ll get downvoted for that statement as well. This is simple bullying by a mob of people who don’t understand what a curren…

Nobody's bullying you, you just say inaccurate things or bring up things that were not your original argument. Even this response disregards my point.

Everyone agrees with you that being able to handle payments is important for Bitcoin to become a more widely-adopted currency. That's why they're working on improving it so that it can be that way.

Re: Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

#347

Post by dang »

adiusmus wrote: post #280
DINKDINK wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goal post moving. You claimed Lightning was a fork of bitcoin which is patently false. You lost your debate.

Lighting as a bitcoin fork is at: http://lightningbitcoin.io/ Which is what I was talking about. No goal post moving. Have a nice day, bully boy.

You crossed into incivility in this thread, as well as broke the site guidelines by complaining about downvotes. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here. I know it's hard when downvotes feel unfair, but those rules all exist for good reason and we ban accounts for breaking them, regardless of how wrong someone else was.

Re: Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

#348

Post by dang »

DINKDINK wrote: post #203
adiusmus wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And having money stolen from my wallet because I haven’t logged in recently is NOT useful for a currency.

Goal post moving. You claimed Lightning was a fork of bitcoin which is patently false. You lost your debate.

Incivility and snark will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else is. Please don't post like this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

#349

Post by zaarn »

superkuh wrote: post #344
zaarn wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For 0 cents, my bank does overnight transactions. For 10 cents they do it in under 10 seconds. SEPA Inst is a thing now.

One of the other benefits of bitcoin is that you can use it or send it anywhere. Not just Europe or $otherrestrictedproprietaryregionssystem.

Most people don't really send their money out of Europe. Or if they do it's a very rare and exceptional event.

Re: Bitcoin's Use in Commerce Keeps Falling

#350

Post by adiusmus »

beaner wrote: post #346
adiusmus wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think anything that wants to be called a currency should be useful for buying and selling goods and useful for storing value. Cash right now can do this. Bitcoin right now can’t, and lightning on top can’t do it as per your comment about it having a vulnerability if you don’t log in. I’m sure I’ll get downvoted for that statement as well. This is simple bullying by a mob of people who don’t understand what a curren…

Nobody's bullying you, you just say inaccurate things or bring up things that were not your original argument. Even this response disregards my point. Everyone agrees with you that being able to handle payments is important for Bitcoin to become a more widely-adopted currency. That's why they're working on improving it so that it can be that way.

Wrong. I can’t see any evidence of others agreeing with me.

People definitely disagreed with my statement “And having money stolen from my wallet because I haven’t logged in recently is NOT useful for a currency.” Disagreeing with that doesn’t bode well for the future of commerce.

The only possibly incorrect statement was “Another fork of bitcoin”. The person who told me I was wrong introduced a different project. I was accused of "moving the goal posts’’ when I clarified what I was referring to and got a snarky reply when I did so. So my statement about lightning being a “Another fork of bitcoin” is actually factually correct.

References: Lightning as bitcoin fork http://lightningbitcoin.io/ Lightning as protocol https://lightning.network/

Post reply on HN