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

81–90 of 734 posts

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#81

Post by traceroute66 »

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 valuation, which is why its so incredibly volatile.

The trouble is that you cannot escape the truth that the world is based on trade. People make goods, people supply services and other people buy goods and buy services. People also buy and sell essential commodities. This happens both domestically and cross-border.

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.

You don't get that with crypto.

Well, you could argue that you do to a limited extent, but that limited extent would only make crypto comparible to emerging world fiat currency of some tiny country.... high-frequency boom and bust cycles, high volatility, potential for episodes of illiquidity etc.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#82

Post by 411111111111111 »

tiborsaas wrote: post #73
bedobi wrote: post #2

Waaay back, I thought Bitcoin was a cool technology, and convinced some friends of mine with businesses to accept it. We had a lot of fun with it - it was really cool to pay for your beer by scanning a QR code and seeing the transaction come through this public, distributed, tamper proof ledger, like magic, with no need for money, banks or any of the other financial infrastructure we're used to. Sadly, the "crypto sp…

If I replace crypto with "web", your comment still feels the same, yet the WWW is more popular than ever. Maybe look under the rug a bit deeper, but at the same time I'm not saying that the abuses aren't there.

No, none of their arguments would make sense if substituted with www.

People don't speculate with "web", they don't "pay" with web.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#84

Post by gwd »

tarkin2 wrote: post #52
gwd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She said "toxic" because she's talking about poison. She basically said: "I myself am anti-crypto. But I don't think that we anti-crypto people should be poisonous in our interaction with pro-crypto people." I'd like to say more, but HN has a clear "Anti-Didn't-RTFA Toxicity" policy.

Framing conversations and discussions and disagreements as poison is troubling.

You're seriously making stuff up now.

There are ways of expressing disagreement which are toxic, and there are ways of expressing disagreement which are not toxic. She has observed is that many anti-crypto people have been expressing their disagreement in toxic ways, and feeling justified in doing so. She is discouraging the first while encouraging the second.

If you'd spent any effort trying to understand what she or I were saying, you'd know that. It seems rather that you'd rather fight against imaginary arguments from your own head, which is far more troubling.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#85

Post by johnny22 »

rvz wrote: post #7
MadSudaca wrote: post #4

Just here to say that besides the good points that the author makes in defense of Crypto, I also support wholeheartedly its right-libertarian roots, despite the negative connotation it receives in the article.

Ah yes. So that must mean everyone supporting it is ‘right wing’ then? It only is just a ‘libertarian’ creation. I don’t know why one can try to assign a left/right political affiliation to a technology that is on neither side and can be used by anyone. Everyone knows she is hilariously incorrect on that one.

no they don't. I don't. So it's not everybody.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#86

Post by rvz »

guywhocodes wrote: post #27
bedobi wrote: post #2

Waaay back, I thought Bitcoin was a cool technology, and convinced some friends of mine with businesses to accept it. We had a lot of fun with it - it was really cool to pay for your beer by scanning a QR code and seeing the transaction come through this public, distributed, tamper proof ledger, like magic, with no need for money, banks or any of the other financial infrastructure we're used to. Sadly, the "crypto sp…

Largely crypto seems to fail at being distributed internet money. If a project is fast and cheap enough for it that correlates with being too niche to be viable. We have seen BTC and ETH lose their function as internet money as transactions and prices have gone up.

> Largely crypto seems to fail at being distributed internet money. If a project is fast and cheap enough for it that correlates with being too niche to be viable.

So is that why other 'crypto' like XRP, Stellar, USDC and Algorand are also compliant for the ISO 20022 standard since they are useful at being 'distributed internet money'? [0]

> We have seen BTC and ETH lose their function as internet money as transactions and prices have gone up.

Both of them have completely failed in their original purposes.

[0] https://www.prlog.org/12911340-cryptocurrencies-that-are-iso...

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#87

Post by morelisp »

s-lambert wrote: post #79
blamestross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the internet has left phase 2 yet either.

If the internet is stuck on phase 2 then telephones are still stuck on phase 2 as well, there's still plenty of phone scams through calls/SMS.

Telephones managed to regress from 3) to 2), in part due to the ease of automating phone scams over computer networks.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#88

Post by Capira »

bertil wrote: post #25

The largest and easiest argument against crypto is the environmental impact. It’s completely ignored in that piece.

Bitcoin is very effective environmental activism. It accelerates our transition to renewable energies. Bitcoin makes renewable energy sources more profitable because it offers a base price for excess electricity. Any time, any place.

Furthermore, Bitcoin can lower the hidden costs of the petrodollar. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/the-hidden-costs-of-the-...

And Bitcoin incentivises having a low time preference. This leads to a much more sustainable consumer behaviour. Bitcoin helps us move away from the mentality of a throw-away society.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#89

Post by nathias »

No amount of crypto scams outweighs the good crypto has and will done for us. Technology is empowering, there is no comparison on the effect crypto has on the poor. There is no other way I would be ever able to participate in trading, speculation or investment, no other way I'd ever be able to afford a home.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#90

Post by ulzeraj »

rntrg wrote: post #40
ulzeraj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of a bitcoin or Ethereum deterministic wallet being canceled because someone found out its owner is from Iran or Venezuela. That's a huge improvement over the crap that is the current financial system.

Or Russia? Seems the ability to freeze the assets of a tyrannical regime can come in handy from time to time, no?

I guess its time for a reality check: Putin oligarchs are still filthy rich, the ruble has come back to pre-war levels while average Russian citizens who have been excluded from the rest of the world.

https://developers.slashdot.org/story/22/04/18/016252/is-git...

Post reply on HN