Live data from Hacker News

Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

as1ndu.xyz

61–70 of 330 posts

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#61
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hardly doubt you'll find any enconomist working in those corporations fearing inflation. Inflation has been a non-issue since the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Consumer_Price_I...

And yet... https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

That page reminds me a bit of time cube :)

Here is a good introductory article about the topic:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/25/wage-stagnation-much-m...

TL;DR: Inflation plays at most a secondary role, the majority of the effect is a result of stagnant real wages, i.e. the capital owners kept a larger share of the productivity gains.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks are not just managing money. They are distributors of newly minted money via loans. They are not distributors of crypto and the Fed are not involved (or at least necessary) for the creation of new crypto.

> Banks are not just managing money. They are distributors of newly minted money via loans. They are not distributors of crypto and the Fed are not involved (or at least necessary) for the creation of new crypto. So in the brave new post-Fiat world we're thinking of, how does getting a mortgage work, exactly? The house I'm in was financed by my wife and I purchasing a plot of land, for cash, then offering that land a…

> The house I'm in was financed by my wife and I purchasing a plot of land, for cash, then offering that land as security to a bank, who then created a loan for a fairly sizable chunk of cash with which we paid a builder to construct the house.

This begs the obvious question: contract law is all about enforcement. Clearly no one would be right to dispute you own this land and home, you have the deeds and the tax history, which could all be hashed on to the blockchain right now for a nominal fee. But the fact is that the State is what upholds the court system and the need to prove this and they hold the threat of theft and violence if you don't comply and arbitration in their 'legal system' is expensive, slow, and arcane. People being thrown out of their own homes they paid for in full in 2008 was real because the banks created all these complex derivatives and no one knew who owned what in the those CDO and MBS. So when things got messy, and the banks claimed the home the sheriff's showed up and did what they always do: rendered unto Caeser. You may pay your taxes that directly pays their salaries but they work for the State, not you the resident and home owner.

This is why we don't need technologists in Bitcoin as much as we need other professionals like legal people to help create an automated arbitration system, divorced entirely from the whims of Mankind: you can clearly prove you've owned this land and home and when you made the purchase(s) for it and the tax history in a timestamped and verified way on the the ONLY immutable ledger, amazing... but we cannot and do not have an enforcement system to ensure you are entitled to keep this land and home should an adversary come and take it other than violence.

And this needs to be solved, which is why I would hope HN would be a good breeding ground for such thought instead of this endless non-sense about Bitcoin is just for speculation, as if hedgefunds and FOREX markets aren't a hotbed for illicit, corrupt and even more complex legalized forms of gambling in the fiat Word. And have caused the collapse of the economy countless times in just the 20th and 21st Century that always ends up in hotwars in the end, fought mainly by the people who ironically just wanted to protect their homes from 'foreign adversaries' when it's most often the domestic threat they should have been most vigilant about.

Hell, most people don't even realize that the FOREX is the biggest Industry in the entire World, and yet people just forget about things like LIBOR interest rate rigging when it's convenient and time to bash Bitcoin on here.

We get it, you missed out on making billions in fiat by ignoring it, get over you not going to be Chamath or Elon and help build the future we all want and maybe have a chance of creating a post-scarce World.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#64
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet... https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

That page reminds me a bit of time cube :) Here is a good introductory article about the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/25/wage-stagnation-much-m... TL;DR: Inflation plays at most a secondary role, the majority of the effect is a result of stagnant real wages, i.e. the capital owners kept a larger share of the productivity gains.

Thanks, that looks amazing. It's gonna take me a while to digest it though. :)

Does the article conclude that the correlation with the US going off the gold standard, and consequent change in monetary policy, is completely spurious?

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tweets you linked to link to another source [0], and are mostly paraphrased from that source, which makes the following argument: "Does Bitcoin justify its energy usage? Does it add enough value? So far, the market says it does." That doesn't "debunk" any argument about energy use, it only tries to justify it. [0] https://www.lynalden.com/misconceptions-about-bitcoin/

Disingenuous. That's not the only argument that is being presented.

There's some muddled thinking going on there. The source doesn't make the argument that Bitcoin isn't energy intensive. If that's an issue for you, you should re-evaluate your views on Bitcoin, but denying it doesn't change the fact.

Otherwise we're just arguing that "water isn't wet" and what the definition of "is" is.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#66
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That page reminds me a bit of time cube :) Here is a good introductory article about the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/25/wage-stagnation-much-m... TL;DR: Inflation plays at most a secondary role, the majority of the effect is a result of stagnant real wages, i.e. the capital owners kept a larger share of the productivity gains.

Thanks, that looks amazing. It's gonna take me a while to digest it though. :) Does the article conclude that the correlation with the US going off the gold standard, and consequent change in monetary policy, is completely spurious?

It is mentioned in passing, but not discussed in depth. I don't think it plays a large role (mostly because it was a consequence of the economic development - they didn't just went off gold because they felt like it), most importantly because the same curve can be seen in other industrial economies in the same period - which didn't use gold before. I guess the computer revolution plays a large role, significantly altering many industries and the character of many occupations. Collective bargaining couldn't keep up fast enough, and thus wages and profits decoupled.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#67

Is this what Gell-Mann amnesia feels like? I happen to be a bit into cryptocurrency, and day after day I see these super basic surface-level takes on blockchain get posted here and even upvoted to the top spot. Are the other popular submissions here, on programming languages, the internet, entrepeneurship and what have you of similar low quality, but I just don't have the experience in those fields to realize it? Thi…

I'm having your same exact doubts. The quality of the conversation about cryptocurrencies here on HN is abysmal. Misinformation, or outdated information, is rampant. Maybe that's the case for everything else that is discussed here, but I just don't have enough domain knowledge to be able to tell...

This is ironic, because your posts are part of the problem.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#68

I think the #1 reason blockchain doesn't work is very simple - the technology is broken beyond fixability. This article is two years old, but the same variations of these excuses always come up when the crypto ideologues are grilled on why their utopiaic vision hasn't come about, for all of blockchain's existence. Blockchain is awful for most things compared to a centralized or distributed database: it is inefficient…

> "The only good use cases that come to mind is if there is some particular reason for you to evade the conventional and easier systems of communication and storage."

* Nailed it *

I've long said the killer app for blockchain already exists: international money laundering and untraceable transfers.

This also happens to be the precise use case where folks want to "evade conventional and easier systems".

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having your same exact doubts. The quality of the conversation about cryptocurrencies here on HN is abysmal. Misinformation, or outdated information, is rampant. Maybe that's the case for everything else that is discussed here, but I just don't have enough domain knowledge to be able to tell...

This is ironic, because your posts are part of the problem.

[deleted]

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's their point. There's a lot of discussion that 'banks will become obsolete with crypto' that forgets that banks are not the currency, they just manage it. If crypto becomes widespread banks will keep on existing, they'll just move to manage cryptocurrencies.

Banks are not just managing money. They are distributors of newly minted money via loans. They are not distributors of crypto and the Fed are not involved (or at least necessary) for the creation of new crypto.

Coinbase and al. also do exactly this though: when you buy bitcoin on an exchange, Coinbase gives you an IOU for bitcoin, with zero transaction recorded in the blockchain it's only when you want to actually take these bitcoins out of your Coinbase wallet, to move them to your own bitcoin wallet, that a real bitcoin transaction exist. In the meantime, there can be more bitcoins owned on Coinbase than real bitcoin in existence, exactly like a bank. (And commercial banks have existed is the US long before the Fed, which was relatively late invention (1913) designed to avoid /limit the scope of financial crisis).
Post reply on HN