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

Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

satscard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

#81

Post by mjburgess »

overthrow wrote: post #79
mjburgess wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed -- all that's required is a single example. > USD Coin (USDC) is a digital stablecoin pegged to the United States dollar. Nothing is denominated in USDC, it isnt a currency (indeed, no cryptocurrency is a currency, since none are a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_account ). The USD is the currency here. So the mechanism here is that people in Venezuela have a route to obtaining USD without having to use…

> Venezuela already has extensive digital payment systems Sure, but those systems had been sabotaged by a politican/dictator named Nicolás Maduro who rejected the results of an election. > What in this process requires (or even benefits from) blockchain exactly, or cryptocurrency? A decentralized payments system is one that cannot be shut down by Nicolás Maduro. Do you think the Venezuelan crisis was just a big consp…

I think if people have working mobile phones then they're able to be sent electronic cash without a p2p system. Indeed, more easily than having a VPN and relevant skills to received crypto assets.

The state here owns the network, rendering all the premises of peer-to-peer systems invalid and thus all of their guarantees.

If the government there wanted to prevent receipt of USDC it well could, as much as it can completely cutoff the country from arbitary parts of the internet.

Indeed, it would seem much more inclined to do that than cut off the mobile network.

The reason it hasnt done so is preference, not that peer-to-peer systems are magic.

Re: Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

#82

Post by tastyfreeze »

kube-system wrote: post #76
tastyfreeze wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda. Its a moving target as metal value and dollar value change. Metal content of coins is changed occasionally to more closely match the face value. For example, solid copper pennies that are still in circulation have a melt value worth more than one cent. My comment didn't state that melt value equals face value. Just that a metal coin has intrinsic value.

Paper also has intrinsic value. Fiat coins materials aren't changed in value to match their face value. They're changed to lower production cost and achieve a particular quality of production.

That isn't entirely correct. The mint changes coin composition to reduce the intrinsic value of a coin to be less than face value. It is classic debasement. Gold was removed from coins in 1933, silver in 1965, and most of the copper in 1983. In all cases the coin composition was changed because the intrinsic value was greater than the face value.

Paper and ink do have a marginal intrinsic value. It just isn't that much. In areas with rampant counterfitting, the value of a printed bill settles to the market value of the paper and ink.

Re: Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

#83

Post by lowkey »

big_youth wrote: post #54
ursuscamp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin, specifically, is improving society in many ways, especially in Nigeria, Argentina, the Congo, etc. Even in the West, where our money is more stable and the benefits of it are less obvious, Bitcoin mining offers great benefits to energy grids.

Bitcoin mining benefiting the energy grid is an absurd statement. I live in Texas and the bitcoin mines are messing up our grid by making energy more expensive during heatwaves and freezes and when shutdown we have to pay them! https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/15/crypto-energy-texas-... https://www.govtech.com/computing/bitcoin-mining-threatens-t... https://www.utilitydive.com/news/warren-bitcoin-texas-power-...…

Most Bitcoin energy contracts in Texas are structured as long-term pre-purchase agreements.

They incentivize the build out of green energy projects such as wind and solar. Projects that in many cases would never have happened without subsidies from Bitcoin miners.

When you say we have to pay them to shut down what you are really saying is that we have to pay them back for energy they already purchased.

The fact that this excess energy is available on demand to utilities ensures we have a more stable energy grid by serving as an energy storage system that we only pay for in times of severe demand.

Re: Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

#84

Post by kube-system »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #82
kube-system wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paper also has intrinsic value. Fiat coins materials aren't changed in value to match their face value. They're changed to lower production cost and achieve a particular quality of production.

That isn't entirely correct. The mint changes coin composition to reduce the intrinsic value of a coin to be less than face value. It is classic debasement. Gold was removed from coins in 1933, silver in 1965, and most of the copper in 1983. In all cases the coin composition was changed because the intrinsic value was greater than the face value. Paper and ink do have a marginal intrinsic value. It just isn't that mu…

Because the mint has a budget and the cost of metals impacts that budget. It is not due to considerations about giving the coin any particular intrinsic value.

https://www.usmint.gov/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/...

Re: Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

#85

Post by dS0rrow »

mjburgess wrote: post #17
V__ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to argue against some benefits' crypto can have. Especially with the under banked. But it had over a decade to improve society and so far the main use case is: Trick people with tech-bro talk and then scam them.

Sorry, but can we just stop repeating the wildly unevidenced claims of the gullible and frauds? Who are the 'underbanked' ? What are their needs? What are the current solutions? There is nothing "there" in crypto. It's a scam. Go and obtain every textbook you can on amazon about blockchains, bitcoin, crypto systems etc. and investigate their authors. I've just done that: they're all part of various crypto schemes. Th…

https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/raw/master/wh...

Re: Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

#86

Post by arcticbull »

latchkey wrote: post #66
arcticbull wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in exchange you get wild volatility swings and full financial freedom for criminals. Some things are just bad.

This is very much a snarky troll comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No it isn't. It's a statement of objective reality. That isn't really forbidden under the news guidelines to my knowledge, although I could have expounded as the topic became more divisive so here goes:

The system is specifically designed to permit unchecked criminality. That is a fact. Lack of AML, KYC and any oversight, recourse or control that you would use to reduce malicious actor impact in the space is explicitly, intentionally removed. This allows for unchecked criminality. That's why we have the volume of ransomware we do, because in the past you couldn't send millions of dollars in Starbucks gift cards by FedEx to get your data decrypted.

Given substantially all legal use cases are served better, faster, cheaper, safer and more reliably using classical systems it's no surprise crypto self-selects for criminality.

The volatility is an objective reality. Its easily one of the most volatile assets on the market today.

I'm sure DDT salesmen would agree feel the same way if I said that DDT was 'just bad' despite its obvious and measurable negative effects on the environment, but I can't say I shed a tear when the eagles managed to emerge from their shells with all their limbs.

Re: Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

#87

Post by tastyfreeze »

kube-system wrote: post #84
tastyfreeze wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't entirely correct. The mint changes coin composition to reduce the intrinsic value of a coin to be less than face value. It is classic debasement. Gold was removed from coins in 1933, silver in 1965, and most of the copper in 1983. In all cases the coin composition was changed because the intrinsic value was greater than the face value. Paper and ink do have a marginal intrinsic value. It just isn't that mu…

Because the mint has a budget and the cost of metals impacts that budget. It is not due to considerations about giving the coin any particular intrinsic value. https://www.usmint.gov/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/...

Your statement and mine are in alignment. Metal content is changed to reduce the cost to make a coin which results in an intrinsic value lower than face value. The reason that the mint changes coin composition is that the existing composition has an intrinsic value higher than face value. The Mint counts the difference between melt and face value as revenue. If a coin is intrinsically worth more than its face value it is a loss to the Mint. So, they change the composition to be less than face value so that coin makes them revenue again.

Re: Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

#88

Post by arcticbull »

overthrow wrote: post #58
arcticbull wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (a) scams and (b) insane volatility. The folks you are alluding to who fall into this category are the least sophisticated and most desperate. This makes them easy marks. They shouldn't be buying into unregistered securities to resolve their banking problems. That's how we got the Great Depression and why we not have an SEC. Further, these folks are disproportionately affected by the insane volatility and high fe…

Maybe instead of saying what people should and shouldn't be doing, you should ask yourself why they're using it anyway despite the obvious downsides. Lightning fees are less than $0.01 - much better than the alternative of $20 for cashing a check. And the volatility is a small price to pay for financial control, for someone who (with good reason) doesn't trust banks or the government that's failing them. Actually the…

> Maybe instead of saying what people should and shouldn't be doing, you should ask yourself why they're using it anyway despite the obvious downsides.

They're not using it, at all. Trading volumes have plummeted, nobody uses it for exchange of value due to the volatility and the fees. You wouldn't say people are 'using Apple' because they're holding Apple stock, and you shouldn't say people are 'using Bitcoin' because they're holding onto it in a portfolio they've probably written off due to massive losses.

> Lightning fees are less than $0.01 - much better than the alternative of $20 for cashing a check. And the volatility is a small price to pay for financial control, for someone who (with good reason) doesn't trust banks or the government that's failing them.

(a) Lightning is totally unsustainable because it requires you complete an on-chain transaction to open a channel, which would take about 75 years, trillions of dollars and all the remaining block reward to do for everyone on earth. It would even take months to open a channel for everyone in the Bay Area. Then it suffers from quadratic routing complexity, and offers few if any of the guarantees of the underlying chain.

(b) It's not the replacement for $20 check cashing, that's a loan, a cash advance. That's what you're paying for. You can cash checks for free at any online bank.

> And the volatility is a small price to pay for financial control, for someone who (with good reason) doesn't trust banks or the government that's failing them.

It's literally down 60% from a year ago (almost 70% adjusting for inflation). By any objective or subjective measure that's a "big price to pay" for anyone who purchased last year. So no, it's not.

You yourself called these people out as 'living paycheck to paycheck' so by definition your own users would be utterly rekt using what you're advocating for.

Setting aside the 'crypto' third-rail, what if I came up with a way for anyone without AML or KYC to buy and sell shares of GameStop. Would you then immediately tell me that poor people should use shares of GameStop as money? In Africa? I suspect that would be viewed as overwhelmingly predatory.

Re: Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

#89

Post by arcticbull »

latchkey wrote: post #68
arcticbull wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (a) scams and (b) insane volatility. The folks you are alluding to who fall into this category are the least sophisticated and most desperate. This makes them easy marks. They shouldn't be buying into unregistered securities to resolve their banking problems. That's how we got the Great Depression and why we not have an SEC. Further, these folks are disproportionately affected by the insane volatility and high fe…

Everything of value has volatility, zoom out on that gold chart please.

Which is why gold is a bad currency.

And as an asset, gold is priced dramatically over it's industrial value, and it's un-productive. People shouldn't invest in shiny pebbles anymore than they should invest in digital magic beans, IMO.

Re: Bitcoin physical bearer instrument using NFC JavaCards

#90

Post by latchkey »

arcticbull wrote: post #89
latchkey wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything of value has volatility, zoom out on that gold chart please.

Which is why gold is a bad currency. And as an asset, gold is priced dramatically over it's industrial value, and it's un-productive. People shouldn't invest in shiny pebbles anymore than they should invest in digital magic beans, IMO.

How people decide to invest their money, isn't up to you.
Post reply on HN