Is Blockchain Really the Killer App? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#51

Post by ttctciyf » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 8:48 AM UTC

codexon wrote: post #25

drcode wrote: post #23

> I am presently incapable of seeing how any token other than Bitcoin will be the one that wins. In some sense, Bitcoin has already "won" in that it currently has a non-zero value. Anyone who says "Bitcoin can't possibly exist or hold value" already is known to be wrong, simply by Bitcoin's existence. In the same way, I don't understand people like OP who say "No other cryptocurrency but Bitcoin can have value" becau…

Just because something is bought for money doesn't mean it actually has value. Ask anyone that has been in a ponzi scheme or stocks that went to 0.

I think (think!) that in view of "people trade them for other currencies every day on open markets?" it's pretty clear what's meant is "exchange value"[1], though since "value" can be taken a few different ways and it would probably be better to be explicit about which one is intended.

In particular, exchange value or market value can diverge considerably from utility[2], or "use value"[3] - pathologically so in cases like that of the tulip bubble and so on.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_value [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-value

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#52

Post by baddox » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 8:52 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #43

baddox wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. And perhaps not using a computer or any electronic devices at all would further "save" those things. I don't see your point.

Cryptocurrency is astoundingly bad at converting non-renewable natural resources into nothing of absolute value at all. Even (real) strip mining at least produces industrially useful ore. Blockchain technology as implemented in bitcoin is incredibly wasteful. The power used alone is in the tera-watt hours per year. All of those massive farms of custom miners...all to process an astounding ~90k transactions a day. The…

The trouble I have is with your claim that cryptocurrency produces "nothing of absolute value at all." I don't know your definition of "value," but it's clearly not one I share.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#53

Post by netrunner » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 9:05 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #43

baddox wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. And perhaps not using a computer or any electronic devices at all would further "save" those things. I don't see your point.

Cryptocurrency is astoundingly bad at converting non-renewable natural resources into nothing of absolute value at all. Even (real) strip mining at least produces industrially useful ore. Blockchain technology as implemented in bitcoin is incredibly wasteful. The power used alone is in the tera-watt hours per year. All of those massive farms of custom miners...all to process an astounding ~90k transactions a day. The…

https://www.academia.edu/7666373/An_Order-of-Magnitude_Estim... claims that the environmental cost of paper currency & minting alone is 10x greater than that of bitcoin mining and concludes that given the trend of Moore's law, bitcoin's relative environmental impact will continue to stay negligible.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#54

Post by codexon » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 9:37 AM UTC

prawn wrote: post #44

codexon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A ponzi scheme has a net value of 0 or less at any point in time. Just because some people can get out more than they put in doesn't mean a ponzi scheme has created any value for the economy as a whole.

"value for the economy as a whole" You've shifted the goalposts there from "has value" to "value for the economy as a whole". If I have money in a ponzi and can exit at that point in time, my stake has value. Later it might not, but at that point it does.

So you are saying that drcode means cryptocurrency has value as a ponzi scheme?

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#55

Post by greendestiny » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 9:47 AM UTC

nunyabuizness wrote: post #28

drcode wrote: post #23

> I am presently incapable of seeing how any token other than Bitcoin will be the one that wins. In some sense, Bitcoin has already "won" in that it currently has a non-zero value. Anyone who says "Bitcoin can't possibly exist or hold value" already is known to be wrong, simply by Bitcoin's existence. In the same way, I don't understand people like OP who say "No other cryptocurrency but Bitcoin can have value" becau…

> Why do people keep trying to argue that dogecoin/litecoin/etc/etc don't have value, when people trade them for other currencies every day on open markets? B/c the majority of them care more about their investment than they do about cryptocurrencies as a technology and fear that competition of coins will hinder a successful (aka profitable) exit strategy.

Yeah I thought r/bitcoin was a good place to argue against the idea that any altcoin is automatically subsumable by bitcoin. Needless say the downvotes came pretty quick. I think the chance that Bitcoin simply changes to match any competitors is ludicrous. Only consensus changes are possible whilst preserving the Blockchain. Any controversial change that has enough merit will split the market between Bitcoin and an altcoin and divide supporters along those lines. Meaning the holders of Bitcoin become more resistant to change as the altcoin becomes more successful. Its definitely not clear that scenario ends in a change to Bitcoin early enough to defeat the altcoin.

I also think the OPs point about the highlander effect isn't well made - a coins mining pool only needs to be strong enough to protect itself from attacks that it's value incentivises.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#56

Post by gutnor » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 10:17 AM UTC

Terr_ wrote: post #48

drcode wrote: post #23

> I am presently incapable of seeing how any token other than Bitcoin will be the one that wins. In some sense, Bitcoin has already "won" in that it currently has a non-zero value. Anyone who says "Bitcoin can't possibly exist or hold value" already is known to be wrong, simply by Bitcoin's existence. In the same way, I don't understand people like OP who say "No other cryptocurrency but Bitcoin can have value" becau…

The way you're defining "value" makes for a pretty meaningless "victory", unless you believe Dutch Tulips were a true benefit to mankind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Hmm, that got me thinking, I think I get your point generally that bitcoin is more an investment than a value storage and that you would be a fool ( at this stage anyway ) to talk about it as if it was.

However, in general what currency has a value proportional to its benefit to mankind ? Any fiat currency are going to be out for the same reason than bitcoin is out, any traditional currency based on gold/silver/shells is out too for the same reason as Dutch Tulips: eg. value of gold is recursively determined by its own use as a currency, not by any actual industrial use for example - so its value is as much virtual as a fiat currency, with just a different behavior and control lever.

Other financial asset are more directly related to useful human activities, especially commodities, but at the end of the day they get traded and valued based on their capacity to generate one of the currency above rather than objective benefit to mankind. (eg. Amnesty International "shares" would not be based on its efficiency at improving human rights, but by its capacity to convert it into currency )

The only thing that I can think of, would the slaves as additional useful human being are objectively beneficial to mankind. I guess body part, blood, ... is a less gloomy alternative ?

I'm overthinking this :-)

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#57

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 10:55 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #50

Terr_ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way you're defining "value" makes for a pretty meaningless "victory", unless you believe Dutch Tulips were a true benefit to mankind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

The way you're defining value is meaningless if you think the tulip bulbs didn't have value during that time. You could trade one for a house during their peak, sounds pretty valuable to me.

Thus highlighting the difference between monetary value and what is actually useful. It's a difference people get confused about too often - thinking that the most important thing on the planet is the economy; thinking that everything is fungible because it has dollar value. It's all fun and games until we hit resource limits of the planet. Or kill someone. Our economy sucks at pricing in the fact that while we can safely run out of tullips, we can't safely run out of clean air.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#58

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 11:01 AM UTC

drcode wrote: post #32

codexon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something is bought for money doesn't mean it actually has value. Ask anyone that has been in a ponzi scheme or stocks that went to 0.

I disagree- The value of something is "what you can get someone to pay for it." That is the only concrete, objective, and rational way to determine value. > Ask anyone that has been in a ponzi scheme/stock that went to 0 Well, given that you're stipulating a value of zero then clearly you are unable to get someone to pay for it and it's value is zero, by definition.

That's not the only way, though it is not bad (as proven by the prosperity big parts of the world now enjoy). Mostly, it's easy and self-balancing. But as a way for solving the problem of resource allocation, it has some really bad failure modes - like creating tons of useless, wasteful work (zero-sum games like advertising) and steering us towards making our planet uninhabitable for humans.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#59

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 11:04 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #52

TylerE wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptocurrency is astoundingly bad at converting non-renewable natural resources into nothing of absolute value at all. Even (real) strip mining at least produces industrially useful ore. Blockchain technology as implemented in bitcoin is incredibly wasteful. The power used alone is in the tera-watt hours per year. All of those massive farms of custom miners...all to process an astounding ~90k transactions a day. The…

The trouble I have is with your claim that cryptocurrency produces "nothing of absolute value at all." I don't know your definition of "value," but it's clearly not one I share.

I prefer to use the word "upkeep". Money is not something that has intrinsic value in itself. It's what we need because as a species we're too dumb to handle planetary-scale resource allocation. It's a waste we need to get what we want. But since it's a waste, it would be good to reduce it as much as possible.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#60

Post by vidarh » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 11:07 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #35

na85 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems self defeating. None of the advantages of a decentralized system are realized by centralizing the blockchain

That's perhaps my favorite part of Bitcoin. For good or bad, it was started by people rallying against the big centralized banks, and now at every turn we are hitting reasons why centralization makes a lot of sense. I half suspect that eventually it will come to resemble the current centralized systems, whether people want it or not. For example, the number of complete blockchains is dwindling as more people individu…

I find this line of thinking unconvincing. There is a vast difference between voluntary centralisation from which you can withdraw at any time, and forced centralisation from which there is no practical way to withdraw without huge sacrifices.

Many socialist and anarchist ideologists are/were perfectly fine with centralisation of production, as long as decision making is decentralised, and participation is a result of free choice and can be withdrawn.

The capability of decentralisation in Bitcoin is important because it acts as a safeguard against forced centralisation and coercion. As long as the capability remains, whether or not people for practical/efficiency reasons opts for centralisation ought not cause most anarchists any major concern.