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

The only time HN is this interested in Bitcoin is when there's a bubble (2017)

incoherency.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: The only time HN is this interested in Bitcoin is when there's a bubble (2017)

#51

Post by cornholio »

diggan wrote: post #42
cornholio wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is still a criminal ecosystem in 2025. Its only real use case still is enabling illegal transactions and evading financial regulations, and that maintains its speculative value; but that's still a scam not a true investment just like a business used as a front for Mafia appears stable until it inevitably comes crashing down. But I don't think anyone claimed criminality is not profitable. It can literally make…

> Bitcoin is still a criminal ecosystem in 2025 Welcome to reality, where good/neutral things sometimes are used for bad :) Name one financial system that doesn't have any elements of criminality involved in them. > Its only real use case still is enabling illegal transactions and evading financial regulations, and that maintains its speculative value So if I and others happen to have done at least one transaction wi…

> I and others happen to have done at least one transaction with Bitcoin that wasn't illegal or evaded financial regulations

Is it a transaction that would have likely been faster, more convenient, secure, cheaper and with less or zero volatility risk using a traditional, centralized funds transfer system, especially if both parties could agree beforehand on the best modern system for that use case instead of being forced to accept cumbersome antiquated things like credit cards?

Because nobody disputes payments are possible with cryptocurrency; just that the practical benefits for legal activities are non-existent or negative, so the only remaining draw are speculation and circumvention.

Re: The only time HN is this interested in Bitcoin is when there's a bubble (2017)

#52

Post by AlecSchueler »

johnisgood wrote: post #45
AlexandrB wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many more people have also lost money on it[1]. A Casino is also a great "investment" if you only count the winners. [1] https://gizmodo.com/bitcoin-crypto-bank-of-international-set...

I cannot imagine how people who have bought BTC early on for the price of bread lost their money. Care to shed some light on it? I understand that you cannot take out "lots of" money out of banks (that is how they work), but there are ways. Multiple cryptocurrency exchanges, etc.

2017 wasn't really "early on" and coins weren't trading for <5 euros so that doesn't seem entirely fair, given the original point.

Re: The only time HN is this interested in Bitcoin is when there's a bubble (2017)

#54

Post by johnisgood »

duckinho wrote: post #53
johnisgood wrote: post #25

Well, they were wrong, and anyone who bought low before, are now rich today. It is quite funny if you think about it.

Buying _now_ is buying 'low' too...

You created this account to say this? I mean sure, go ahead and buy a few million, just let me know in advance. ;)

In any case, when I said "low", I was referring to early Bitcoin days when 1 BTC cost'd a loaf of bread.

Re: The only time HN is this interested in Bitcoin is when there's a bubble (2017)

#55

Post by diggan »

cornholio wrote: post #51
diggan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin is still a criminal ecosystem in 2025 Welcome to reality, where good/neutral things sometimes are used for bad :) Name one financial system that doesn't have any elements of criminality involved in them. > Its only real use case still is enabling illegal transactions and evading financial regulations, and that maintains its speculative value So if I and others happen to have done at least one transaction wi…

> I and others happen to have done at least one transaction with Bitcoin that wasn't illegal or evaded financial regulations Is it a transaction that would have likely been faster, more convenient, secure, cheaper and with less or zero volatility risk using a traditional, centralized funds transfer system, especially if both parties could agree beforehand on the best modern system for that use case instead of being f…

> Is it a transaction that would have likely been faster, more convenient, secure, cheaper and with less or zero volatility risk using a traditional, centralized funds transfer system, especially if both parties could agree beforehand on the best modern system for that use case instead of being forced to accept cumbersome antiquated things like credit cards?

It could have been more convenient if the fees weren't sky-high and the receivers currency wasn't tanking as the transfer was being made, yes.

But because of the context, and the middle-men involved (no direct bankbank transfer possible at all, needed 3rd party), the fees would have made the transaction cost about the same as the value that was being transferred.

I'm also not disputing that the existing "traditional" players could make to things cheaper and actually useful for more people, but they seem to refuse to do so as I'm guessing they'll lose out on a lot of profits if they did.

Re: The only time HN is this interested in Bitcoin is when there's a bubble (2017)

#56

Post by cornholio »

diggan wrote: post #55
cornholio wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I and others happen to have done at least one transaction with Bitcoin that wasn't illegal or evaded financial regulations Is it a transaction that would have likely been faster, more convenient, secure, cheaper and with less or zero volatility risk using a traditional, centralized funds transfer system, especially if both parties could agree beforehand on the best modern system for that use case instead of being f…

> Is it a transaction that would have likely been faster, more convenient, secure, cheaper and with less or zero volatility risk using a traditional, centralized funds transfer system, especially if both parties could agree beforehand on the best modern system for that use case instead of being forced to accept cumbersome antiquated things like credit cards? It could have been more convenient if the fees weren't sky-…

Again, the point was to compare apples to apples, a completely new system that both parties need to adopt, cryptocurrency vs one of the modern fintech options available to both, not the entrenched incumbents which abuse their market position.

Now, it's plausible no such modern option existed in this specific case, but if that's the case, it's almost certainly a regulatory issue, since all big fintechs are under competitive pressure to expand aggressively. So, this, again, proves the crypto use case as primarily a circumvention tool.

There are definitely bad governments out there and I can sympathize with people trying to evade capital controls, mandatory exchange rates etc., but this is not a reason to dismantle the financial regulatory powers in any of the stable democracies of the free world.

To make an analogy, machine guns are definitely a powerful tool when you are fighting a tyrannical government, but nonetheless I don't want them to become available on my street. It's hard to even make a dual use argument for cryptocurrency, as a money transfer system it doesn't have substantial legal utilization after more than a decade of hitting the mainstream, it's still primarily a vehicle for money laundry, regulatory evasion and speculation.

Re: The only time HN is this interested in Bitcoin is when there's a bubble (2017)

#57

Post by celticninja »

wmf wrote: post #47
AlexandrB wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Welcome to the new asset class. Wasn't it supposed to be a currency people would buy stuff with that would eventually replace "fiat"? What happened to that?

That never made sense so it didn't happen.

It did make sense for quite a while..I bought and sold stuff online and between 2011 and 2015/16 it was easier and cheaper to pay Chinese suppliers in bitcoin than trying to send international transfers. Think 20p a transaction Vs £25 flat fee for an international bank transfer.

It did make sense and it did happen. However it has now evolved into another asset rather than a currency.

Re: The only time HN is this interested in Bitcoin is when there's a bubble (2017)

#58

Post by derangedHorse »

cornholio wrote: post #51
diggan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin is still a criminal ecosystem in 2025 Welcome to reality, where good/neutral things sometimes are used for bad :) Name one financial system that doesn't have any elements of criminality involved in them. > Its only real use case still is enabling illegal transactions and evading financial regulations, and that maintains its speculative value So if I and others happen to have done at least one transaction wi…

> I and others happen to have done at least one transaction with Bitcoin that wasn't illegal or evaded financial regulations Is it a transaction that would have likely been faster, more convenient, secure, cheaper and with less or zero volatility risk using a traditional, centralized funds transfer system, especially if both parties could agree beforehand on the best modern system for that use case instead of being f…

I have used Bitcoin over lightning in a way that wouldn't be faster, secure, or cheaper. It could be made more convenient if Apple Pay allowed me to pop it up, but that's not a fundamental issue with the technology. The benefits of using it are no rent-seeking middle-men, increased privacy, and the underlying currency that provides a non-inflationary monetary policy. Within the last 30 days I've used it to buy burgers and was even subject to sales tax.

And about the volatility comment, "volatility" is measured according to a specific exchange rate and can't be measured when you haven't defined a baseline. Bitcoin has high volatility with respect to gold but has trended to having more upward volatility vs downward volatility (whereas the dollar is mostly down).

Re: The only time HN is this interested in Bitcoin is when there's a bubble (2017)

#59

Post by npoc »

timbit42 wrote: post #46
cornholio wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is still a criminal ecosystem in 2025. Its only real use case still is enabling illegal transactions and evading financial regulations, and that maintains its speculative value; but that's still a scam not a true investment just like a business used as a front for Mafia appears stable until it inevitably comes crashing down. But I don't think anyone claimed criminality is not profitable. It can literally make…

Bitcoin isn't anonymous. Cash is.

It's as anonymous as you want it to be.

Re: The only time HN is this interested in Bitcoin is when there's a bubble (2017)

#60

Post by npoc »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #37
diggan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For how long does a "bubble" need to be in "the bubble" for it to not be considered a "bubble" anymore? I'm guessing there is a time limit involved here somewhere?

As long as there is no world use justifying it's exorbitant value pumped up by speculation. The BTC holders trying to rebrand to a value storage instead of a currency is proof of this.

you can make money speculating that something will go down as well as up. It's not the reason for it's price to go up.

BTW, you call it's price exhorbitant - I say it's rediculously cheap at any price where you can still get someone to accept fiat tokens for it

Post reply on HN