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

On anti-crypto toxicity

blog.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 734 posts

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#451

Post by kayamon »

topranks wrote: post #331
Capira wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is a groundbreaking invention. All the "cryptos" and NFTs are just scams.

Bitcoin is no different than the other “cryptos”. Most of them are literally forks of it.

Yes it is -- its blockchain is longer. The blockchain with the longest proof-of-work is always the real blockchain, when given multiple competing blockchains to select from.

This is the essence of the Nakamoto Consensus Algorithm, which underpins the entirety of blockchain economics.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#452

Post by smeea »

Traster wrote: post #46

I think toxicity from the anti-crypto crowd is basically inevitable at this point. It has been a decade of dumb claims and ridiculous assertions from the pro-crypto crowd. None of their claims have materially panned out. There's some promise in some places - mainly in the most nerdy corners of ETH, but it's still only promises. Meanwhile, this long protracted failure has been accompanied by a massive increase in stup…

BTC was the only way I was able to pay for hosting/domain for my non-commercial pet-project (~1,5 years of almost daily after hours development) after sanctions raised against the country I live in.

This is my anecdotal experience (and no, I don't invest in crypto), but that's enough for me to not consider cryptocurrencies "just scum".

P.S. Also I pay for VPN with it, because this is also the only way at the moment, and without it I cannot even read news I prefer.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#453

Post by kappuchino »

nikanj wrote: post #318
Traster wrote: post #46

I think toxicity from the anti-crypto crowd is basically inevitable at this point. It has been a decade of dumb claims and ridiculous assertions from the pro-crypto crowd. None of their claims have materially panned out. There's some promise in some places - mainly in the most nerdy corners of ETH, but it's still only promises. Meanwhile, this long protracted failure has been accompanied by a massive increase in stup…

One of the claims has panned out: Plenty of people have gotten rich. To be fair, they've gotten rich from selling their early-adopter cryptos to the next fool. But many people have won the lottery.

Of all the comments here, yours triggered one capital "R" Realization, probably repeated here in other words a dozen:

Lots and lots of people want to succeed like the early adopters of crypto by (nearly) any means.

Their biggest "means" is denial of the capital "R" Reality: Its already too late to repeat the rise, like wanting netflix stock price to grow after it already rose high, because you just bought some and deserve another 500% gain.

And so, since you need that rise badly, you dismiss each argument and everyone against your wish for repetition. Instead you hope for more "suckers" to buy after you so you can have the monyey and with it the break you think you deserve.

And the thing is: I would want that too, damn - I would not mind 100.000 suckers to go broke for me to be rich. I'm just sane enough to see that this gamble is not worth to enrich the ones who are already "in". sigh

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#454

Post by rglullis »

falcolas wrote: post #450
rglullis wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Respectfully, pointing at the Unlock protocol and justifying it with "poor people dealing with hyperinflation" is a bit disingenuous. The unlock protocol (and, to a lesser degree, ENS) is not about or for poor people. It's for socialites in first world countries with money to burn.

Or for people who ate shut out from PayPal/Stripe and any possibility of doing business online.

You talk about socialites, but your kind of comment is the most "let them have cake" type of mentality.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#455

Post by mr_spothawk »

traceroute66 wrote: post #81

IMHO the problem with crypto is the very thing that its proponents cite as one of its key benefits, its decentralised nature. We are told that crypto is supposedly a way to "stick it to the man", to fight those "evil banks/governments". The trouble is that unlike fiat currency, there is no fundamental means of valuation. Crypto is worth what its worth on the day based largely or exclusively on entirely non-economic v…

> fundamental means of valuation.

Can you expound on the fundamental means of valuation for Fiat currency? It's my understanding that there is no fiat currency with any fundamental backing. I was pretty sure Khadaffi was killed for promoting an African currency backed by gold, in lieu of the USD hegemony.

> The value of fiat currency is ultimately tied to the economics of global, and therefore provides an objective means to value said currencies, both themselves and relative to other currencies.

This ^^ is not fundamental... this is relative.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#456

Post by theamk »

stickfigure wrote: post #442
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any fix for a failure in human organization(s) is going to come from ... humans. There are no hall monitors here, and there's also no magic wand. When things are of a large enough scope, the way that humans tend to organize to get things done, or get things fixed, is called "a state". Just like all human efforts, the outcome will likely not be perfect. But there actually isn't another way. Sure, you can suggest the i…

Let me change the context and see if you still believe that argument: Countries like Russia and China don't need a global internet; they should just fix their censorship problems. VPN operators are scammers taking money from ordinary citizens.

Don't know anything about China, but many programmers have been leaving Russia for a last few years, and internet censorship is one of the big reasons for that. So it has the desired effect -- Russia has less talent, and thus its regime is less stable. It's tiny, but it's there.

As for "VPN being a scammer", this is all about trade-offs. If we had companies destroyed and robbed by VPN-powered ransomware, and we had plain people losing their life savings to VPNs, I'd argue for making VPN illegal. But it's not VPNs who are stealing people's money, it is cryptocurrencies.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#457

Post by mr_spothawk »

the_only_law wrote: post #238
traceroute66 wrote: post #81

IMHO the problem with crypto is the very thing that its proponents cite as one of its key benefits, its decentralised nature. We are told that crypto is supposedly a way to "stick it to the man", to fight those "evil banks/governments". The trouble is that unlike fiat currency, there is no fundamental means of valuation. Crypto is worth what its worth on the day based largely or exclusively on entirely non-economic v…

> We are told that crypto is supposedly a way to "stick it to the man", to fight those "evil banks/governments". The supposed “decentralized” revolution sounds about as likely as some kid who just read Marx leading a revolution. I think there’s a fine line between decentralized and deorganized.

> a fine line between decentralized and deorganized

i guess that line is the communication protocol?

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#458

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rglullis wrote: post #424
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you haven't seen it, you were not interested in looking and I doubt that any "evangelist" is going to change your mind This is disingenuous. (Also, ENS appears to be functionally similar to App.net [1]. I'm open to being challenged on this.) One thing pervasively lacking from Web3 is compelling fiction. Not "this and that trustlessly," but a functional narrative of someone doing something useful or compelling they…

[flagged]

> ENS is "only" a domain registrar. It has absolutely nothing to do with app.net.

App.net was Facebook, but decentralized, also you pay for it. ENS is a domain registrar, but decentralized, and you still pay for it.

In response to "a functional narrative of someone doing something useful or compelling [one] presently can't [do]" we got a thing we can already do. But decentralized. Sort of.

> hyperinflation that leaves poor people with no perspective to save

What does web3 do in solving this that crypto doesn't?

> corruption that shuts the citizens of any quality service

Like domain registration?

I'm honestly trying to understand this, including from managers of funds I'm in that have invested in it. At best, the end market is poor people in unstable countries. The same people Bitcoin is allegedly saving. In reality, it appears to be a (granted, wealthy) ideological set.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#459

Post by scottLobster »

reedjosh wrote: post #429
scottLobster wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin will only be "sound money" when I can pay my taxes in it. Or at least pay for my oil change. Sure it's artificially limited in quantity. Great! Doesn't make it money. It's a commodity like any other.

If the government told you you're not a person, would that hold? To me you're saying nothing's money unless the government says it is. In my community there's a whole ecosystem of people trading goods and services in Bitcoin, silver, and Monero.

> If the government told you you're not a person, would that hold?

Governments have always had the ability to dictate who is a citizen and who isn't. Someone born in Angola is not protected by or subject to the US Constitution.

> To me your saying nothing's money unless the government says it is.

Now you're learning! Granted in a democracy the people have a say in what governments do, so if you convince enough people that using bitcoin as a medium of exchange is a good idea then it may eventually be so. Good luck!

Here's what happens right now if you try to pay your taxes in Bitcoin and refuse to convert to dollars:

1. The IRS warns you and charges you back-taxes for the delay

2. If you still refuse to pay after a certain period of time, they audit you and garnish any accounts they have access to until your taxes/back taxes are paid

3. If you have no IRS-accessible accounts, men with guns show up and seize your property, including but not limited to your Bitcoin, to make up the difference.

And for extra points you may get charged with Tax Evasion, which can send you to jail. This entire process may take decades, but it happens.

Sounds like pretty crappy money to me if that's the result of trying to use it at any significant scale.

> In my community there's a whole ecosystem of people trading goods and services in Bitcoin, silver, and Monero.

Great. You and I could also arrange to barter bars of extruded aluminum for goods and services. That doesn't make extruded aluminum money, or at least not "sound money". Note however that in the US those transactions are taxed just like any other, with the amount of tax determined by their value IN DOLLARS. If you're not reporting those transactions you're theoretically subject to the previously mentioned series of events.

Now the IRS can't see literally everything, so you can get away with it to a point. But if Bitcoin/crypto eventually reached the scale where a significant number of economic transactions are transacted in it, one of two things will happen:

1. Enough voters/lobbyists will be convinced of its viability that political changes are made to accept it as currency (unlikely, given the traits of bitcoin)

2. An epic tax-evasion crackdown that will make the conviction of Al Capone look like a Cub Scout picnic.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#460

Post by yowlingcat »

Some interesting observations muddled by poor articulation. I hope this trend of describing everything as "toxic" (when other more specific words exist) will go away.

For example, the author could use the word "evangelism" rather than "toxicity" and drill down much deeper to the core mechanism of what's going on. Are individuals being toxic within a community? Absolutely. But are they being accepted because "the ends justify the means" for the evangelists? Almost certainly.

That, I think, could be a real story being buried beneath the baited lede of "not only crypto supporters but DETRACTORS are being 'toxic'" so it's unfortunate that's never explored in more detail.

Post reply on HN