61–70 of 144 posts
Bitcoin and the rest are coming for New York/Silicon Valley money managers, which only exist for gatekeeping and rent seeking. The finance industry will be eliminated by new exchanges and equity crowdfunding.
I’ve reacently read the Burnskie book about crypto assets in the hope that I might come away more enlightened about the market and how to assess it. The opposite was the case. After reading the book and looking into it more, it’s very hard to see these things as assets at the moment, or to see much utility in the technology. Don’t get me wrong, there certainly is some and it is certainly ‘cool’, but right now blockha…
"Blockchain" is probably fine. I suspect that it will eventually get some nice implementations where you want to be able to attest to integrity over time/space where multiple trusted parties evolve and change. A "distributed digital notary" if you will.
Cryptocurrencies as currently implemented (bitcoin and ilk) are eventually going to die for lack of a use case.
Problem 1: Most people like centralized authority of money. Most people like being able to get back their money when things get "stolen", for example. And people like reputation systems so that they don't get scammed (ie. illegal drug market).
Problem 2: Fees suck, but they're invisible to most people. Merchants hate fees, but you need users before that gets moving. We're also seeing that cryptocurrencies have non-trivial fees, as well. Funny that.
To be fair, traditional fees keep falling and some of that is probably due to cryptocurrencies. But some of that is simply trying to ward off the rise of a single digital purchase standard which would disrupt all of the incumbents. The payments space is a no-holds barred fight to the death and the incumbents would rather die than let anybody else get a foothold.
Problem 3: Cryptocurrencies aren't sufficiently anonymous. There is a use case for genuine anonymity. However, the current cryptocurrencies fail to be truly anonymous at blockchain as well as reality. Keeping your operational security sufficient to stay truly anonymous is damn difficult and having to go through an exchange doesn't help. Cryptocurrencies really need a decentralized exchange, but I'm not sure how that would even work. And, even if it did, since nobody could charge fees, nobody would have any incentive.
So, cryptocurrencies are mostly useful for people who fear central authority, are possibly concerned about fees, and only need to remain "semi"-anonymous. That pretty much describes petty criminals and mid-tier corrupt party bosses and ... not much else.
If the coiners (what do you call this tribe?) accomplish "Permissionless Innovation" though, they will have did something great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is illegal to sell securities to non-accredited investors
I think a good argument can be made that a law restricting the sale of non-registered securities to wealthy ("accredited") investors and excluding poor people violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. (And, although the 14th Amendment applies only to the states, the Supreme Court has held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that the same principle operates against the federal government via the Due Process…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just an example of technical change aligning itself with real world human want. People will ALWAYS put convenience first. Even those that say they won’t, it’s typically an isolated action (like, email is harder when not using google apps, but it’s worth not being spied on. Walk in their house, Echos and smart devices everywhere). The hope for Blockchain is we can now, finally, begin building true decentralize…
Lightning networks to handle scaling limitations are the first step on the slow re-centralization of bitcoin. Eventually an overwhelming majority mining will be controlled by a centralized/federated oligopoly. Be prepared to rebel and re-re-decentralize in 20 years.
I’m speaking on Blockchain, not bitcoin.
Now, with Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies: Programmers are creating money itself.
This article makes a bull-case very articulately, with sprinklings of realism. I am looking forward to this series. Being a blockchain cynic is the norm these days, and I appreciate when someone takes the trouble to lay down a well-reasoned and well-researched argument - great job rrecuero.
Clearly, there is irrational optimism/scams abound, but we can often forget that the mass-irrationality can be decoupled with the 'actual' promise of the idea. And the fundamental promise of the idea (Bitcoin, Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain etc) is for us to rethink 'how things work the way they work and why' and attempt to improve it. The Bitcoin paper should atleast get us to think about what is money. It matters less whether these "blockchain things" ultimately succeed or fail -- the fact that something NEW is being attempted, has to be applauded (Ofcourse, it would be great to figure out a way to do this without harming people using their credit cards to buy shit coins).
I love reading about blockchain ideas/projects. Like many, I too am jaded by the scams - but I think it is worth maintaining some optimism through this.
This article doesn't even touch upon some very important use-cases like: moving money across borders and money being seizure resistant etc. I think there is was, and has always been a market for a product that allows us to store value in a way that is cross-border, govt resistant and anonymous (whether it is a $500B market or $5B market is less interesting than appreciating that a product was invented to fulfil this use case). There are plenty of interesting use-cases to explore here.
In the section on Tokens, the article says: "contributors can transfer their assets instantly and easily to other people (pending regulation)" while referring to securities. IF this becomes a reality, it would be huge.
I see a lot of upside if even a fraction of the promise of this tech is realized.
PG/YC started a revolution: They suggested a way through which programmers came into money. Now, with Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies: Programmers are creating money itself. This article makes a bull-case very articulately, with sprinklings of realism. I am looking forward to this series. Being a blockchain cynic is the norm these days, and I appreciate when someone takes the trouble to lay down a well-reasoned and well…
As you mentioned, asset tokenization (securitization) is one of the biggest markets. If companies like Harbor achieve their vision, it would be huge.
This is not a good argument for cryptocurrency.
Just like a regular wallet attracts pickpockets, a Bitcoin wallet is a natural honeypot for hackers.
Just like a bank attracts bank robbers, a crypto exchange is a natural honeypot for hackers.
Really, the issue here is money. Money attracts thieves. The money is the honey, and the computer is the pot.
So far there's no evidence that cryptocurrency reduces theft, and quite a lot of evidence that it encourages theft.
re: "The question is not whether [databases] are going to be hacked or not, the question is when. These are natural honeypots for hackers." This is not a good argument for cryptocurrency. Just like a regular wallet attracts pickpockets, a Bitcoin wallet is a natural honeypot for hackers. Just like a bank attracts bank robbers, a crypto exchange is a natural honeypot for hackers. Really, the issue here is money. Money…