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

One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 299 posts

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#81

Post by frankenst1 »

mtrycz2 wrote: post #74
croon wrote: post #11

It's not a failure because Bitcoin tanked (relatively), it's a failure because Bitcoin tanking was and will always be a significant risk. People who got rich from Bitcoin weren't savvy, they won the lottery. It's not a sound investment decision based on outcome. Investments are sound based on probability and risk beforehand. El Salvador gambled which is stupid. Whether they won or lost at the lottery is inconsequenti…

It is a failure because BTC has pivoted away from the Bitcoin whitepaper (p2p ecash), limited its blocksize and has taken the path of this strange "digital store of value" (lol). BTC's activity rose gradually up to 2017, and then topped off at 1MB and even dropped. [1] If Bitcoin's momentum hadn't been dissolved, it wouldn't require people to be forced by State to accept it. [1] https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/s…

Growth continued on second layers: Bitcoin's tx count on the Lightning Network has doubled over the last year. Forks of Bitcoin who attempted to scale by increasing the blocksize all failed and are practically dead (Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash, eCash, Bitcoin ABC, ...).

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#82

Post by taffronaut »

Macha wrote: post #16
taffronaut wrote: post #12

If he had invested in a corrupt opaque investment that by design lost $50M into the pocket of a wealthy supporter, everyone would've shrugged and said "business as usual".

"Only as bad as embezzlement" is not the endorsement for cryptocurrency or the response to criticism this comment portrays it as

How should we rank stupidity versus corruption? My point is that we are outraged at this guy's transparently stupid act, but I opine that we would be less outraged (or not even notice) if he was corrupt to the same extent that he is stupid. Neither is a virtue but as we stand in judgement then maybe our standards should be challenged.

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#83

Post by thraxil »

eimrine wrote: post #17
n4r9 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about the hash function being hacked, I'm talking about websites like Coinbase that provide wallet and exchange services being hacked. Banks of course are also vulnerable to social engineering etc but there is more regulation and consumer protection for when that happens. And by "scammed" I mean someone providing a fraudulent or faulty service or product. In the UK we have "Section 75" which protects…

> I'm not talking about the hash function being hacked, I'm talking about websites like Coinbase that provide wallet and exchange services being hacked. What part of Bitcoin whitepaper tells you have to rely on third-parties? I'm not a trader, I'm a hodler, I even do not have a Coinbase account. Of course if third-parties get lost you lose everything you have believed they will guard for you. upd after reading respon…

> upd after reading responses > Sorry guys I forgot that average person needs to be an idiot. My bad, usually I consider an opposite.

Right. Wanting simplicity and low risk around basic daily purchases and transactions means that someone's an idiot. You seem like a lovely person. Thanks for representing the crypto/BTC community so well.

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#84

Post by thrwyoilarticle »

spreeker wrote: post #33

FIAT has proven time and time again to fail. Dollar world trade is unfair and benefits the USA unfairly. I would prefer a neutral crypto currency to be the new world reserve instead of a competing currency like the YUAN. Government should not have the power to print money out of thin air. The technology of blockchains is improving, for the example lightning network should make it very well possible. Just like with th…

Bitcoin is fiat.

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#85

Post by mtrycz2 »

frankenst1 wrote: post #81
mtrycz2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a failure because BTC has pivoted away from the Bitcoin whitepaper (p2p ecash), limited its blocksize and has taken the path of this strange "digital store of value" (lol). BTC's activity rose gradually up to 2017, and then topped off at 1MB and even dropped. [1] If Bitcoin's momentum hadn't been dissolved, it wouldn't require people to be forced by State to accept it. [1] https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/s…

Growth continued on second layers: Bitcoin's tx count on the Lightning Network has doubled over the last year. Forks of Bitcoin who attempted to scale by increasing the blocksize all failed and are practically dead (Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash, eCash, Bitcoin ABC, ...).

Since we're on a tech inclined site, you'll be happy to hear that an RPi4 can process 256MB blocks in well less than two minutes. Current 32MB size limit on BCH in 8 seconds. Check for yourself.

Bitcoin Cash (the og big block chain) is alive and kicking, and getting stable updates (both features and performance), and also has optional (affordable) coin shuffle). Lightning Network is a security and usability nightmare, and its total liquidity is in the low thousands of BTC (lol).

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#86

Post by jollybean »

redox99 wrote: post #60
jollybean wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If there was some crypto without any incentives of hodling long term, " The opposite. Cryptos that are anchored to USD have no appeal. They're less useful than USD, and, there's no 'get rich quick' aspect. So what's the point. The Ponzi Mania is what drives people into BTC and to talk about it incessantly on the Internet etc.. Without the mania, it's not going to spread. An institutionalized crypto, like one by the…

There's about 150B in stablecoins[1]. You can argue that some of that is fake, not backed. But even if 75% of that were fake it's still a huge amount of money. So it's clear that cryptos that are anchored to USD do have appeal. The appeal however is not from people wanting to use them to buy their coffe. The appeal is DeFi. [1] https://coinmarketcap.com/view/stablecoin/

$150B is a small amount of money that is otherwise just sitting there. Nobody is using it for anything and it's not growing.

It's generally a riskless thing thing to put your money in so it's not surprising that a few funds have gone big on it. They will fold the bet eventually.

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#87

Post by plebianRube »

hackerlight wrote: post #76
plebianRube wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lightning is popular because few prefer slow transactions. El Salvador primarily uses lightning network, same network Strike uses for instant cross border payments.

Of course, I stand corrected about that. So, aside from irreversibility of transactions, what is preventing adoption?

I don't have time to thoroughly research the topic and come back to you, so maybe you can do some leg work.

But I do know people over estimate what can be accomplished in a year and underestimate what can be accomplished in 10.

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#89

Post by welshwelsh »

amarant wrote: post #63
Kathula wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't lucky to hold through multiple multi-year 80% drawdowns, it's called doing research and having a conviction. I didn't sell at 60k, I'm not selling now, because I have a strong conviction. You call this lucky, but it isn't. If you have a conviction and a span longer than four years you could get "lucky" too.

But if you didn't sell at 60k you're not lucky at all. If you're still sitting there, hodling the ball, you're one of the suckers who paid the lunch for those who did get lucky. You're the opposite of lucky.

Only if you bought around 60k.

I bought in 2015 when Bitcoin was about $250, so still looking good on a 10 year timescale.

Re: One year on, El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has proven a failure

#90

Post by welshwelsh »

wikfwikf wrote: post #22
Kathula wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't lucky to hold through multiple multi-year 80% drawdowns, it's called doing research and having a conviction. I didn't sell at 60k, I'm not selling now, because I have a strong conviction. You call this lucky, but it isn't. If you have a conviction and a span longer than four years you could get "lucky" too.

You would have been much luckier if your worldview had allowed you to sell at $60k and buy back at $20k.

For most of 2018-2020 it was between $4k and $10k.

If someone's looking to sell high, what's to stop them from selling at $20k, which was an all time high in December 2020? Why not wait for $80k instead of selling at $60k?

It's easy to see these opportunities in hindsight, but you can never be sure where the peak is.

Post reply on HN