It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency • Hacker News Board

Re: It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency

#941

Post by SubiculumCode » Mon, May 31, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

bhouston wrote: post #510

ahallock wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny that these dismissive, trash-talk comments with zero value get upvoted on HN as long as it's against crypto. It really is a double-standard here. Ironically, that comment is also part of the groupthink.

I think the issue is that mostly these smart contracts and efficient coins are not the main attraction. The main attraction is Bitcoin and recently Dogecoin. BTC is slow and costly and mostly a speculative play. Dogecoin is a joke, but also worth billions. Also these coins are speculatively often first, and useful second. Not all but many. Thus instead of being useful for exchange, they become methods of speculation.…

BTC has a marketcap today of 690B. Ethereum 302B Cardana 53B Binance Coin: 52B XRP: 45B Doge: 40B Polkadot: 20B Uniswap: 15B Polygon: 11B Marketcap dominance: Dominance: BTC: 42.6% ETH: 18.7%

Yes there is a lot of money in BTC, but its not more than half, and doge coin is not #2.

Re: It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency

#942

Post by jodrellblank » Mon, May 31, 2021, 6:59 PM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #621

Taniwha wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold also has a fatal flaw, there's only so much of it, building a currency based on gold (ie the US dollar on the gold standard) limits the size of the economy, it can't grow if you can't pay for stuff - it's why we left the gold standard. Bitcoin by design only has a fixed number of coins available, eventually the miners will have mined them all. It has the same limitation that gold has and basing an economy on it…

That's nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to whole coins. The total number of satoshis is crazy big, more than the dollars in the world. Bitcoin is limited by the block size and the lack of working L2 solutions (lightning is permanently broken). But other currencies, like BCH don't have that problem, and can easily represent the whole US economy.

There's 3x10^21 gold atoms in every gram.

You might have difficulty measuring out two atoms of gold to change hands, but that's dwarfed by the difficulty in measuring out two Satoshis - given that they aren't a physical thing at all. So, if you can keep track of it with Satoshis, why couldn't you keep track of it with gold atoms?

That is, if your position is "Bitcoin isn't limited like gold because of Satoshis" then the same argument works equally well for gold with atoms, doesn't it?

That is, gold can't represent the entire economy because nobody would pay so much for a gram of gold, but why would they then pay that much for a quanity of the even less physical Bitcoin?

Re: It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency

#943

Post by lapinot » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

idlewords wrote: post #122

ashtonkem wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no reason to believe it would move laterally, for both technical and social reasons. First, the underpinnings of Bitcoin are ideological, namely in Austrian economics. This means that any change that caused any inflation would be socially resisted. Second, most of the issues with Bitcoin stem from the lack of a central authority to do things like chargebacks and handle conflict resolution. It is not possibl…

Yeah, but when you took away the money part and just looked at the technical idea of a distributed chained ledger with no central point of trust, that was cool. At least, it was cool to me. It seemed like it might go in some interesting other direction.

Taking away the money part you'll probably want to replace "distributed chained ledger" with "distributed database" or "state-machine replication". There's actually a nice academic literature on this topic of having distributed databases that have strong notions of "commit". This is never the case with stuff that gets called "blockchain". I've yet to encounter something that isn't a variation on "rate-limit the ingest so we have time to replicate operations world-wide" or "create internal monkey-money incentives for agents not to diverge from corretness", both of which are trivial hacks that don't advance anything from a scientific point of view. Not my field tho, so here's the few refs i know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science) An old algorithm used for sharding big-data databases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_(algorithm) A simplified version of paxos.

http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/losa:stellar-ins... The new paper about SCP which allows replication with subjective notions of trust (no central participant-stake list like paxos/raft).

ps: actually i remove "chained" from the idea. If you want to keep the whole authenticated linked-list thing and do it right you'll end up somewhere near https://irmin.org/ (a generalization of git), which is very useful, but doesn't tackle the "strong decentralized commit". You'll probably want to either centrally manage the "lastest-hash(s)" (like git is usually done), or pair it with a state-machine replication protocol. In that last case it may seem useless to use the chained thing if you already have a real replication protocol, but it is much like using public-key crypto for encrypting small ephemeral symmetric keys and encrypting actual data with symmetric crypto: it's an optimization.

Re: It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency

#944

Post by api » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

mikedilger wrote: post #667

Taniwha wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold also has a fatal flaw, there's only so much of it, building a currency based on gold (ie the US dollar on the gold standard) limits the size of the economy, it can't grow if you can't pay for stuff - it's why we left the gold standard. Bitcoin by design only has a fixed number of coins available, eventually the miners will have mined them all. It has the same limitation that gold has and basing an economy on it…

It doesn't limit the size of the economy. It incentivises saving over investing, since the value of the currency tends to increase as the economy grows. Modern fiat currency is designed to disincentivise savings and incentivise investing, in order to supercharge economic growth. A counter-position from the Austrian/Chicago school is that supercharging growth drives malinvestment, and they can't be entirely wrong abou…

Incentivizing investment is generally better from a national prosperity and power point of view in spite of the waste it creates.

Wealth is a verb, not a noun. The wealth of nations is measured in how much they do, not how much they have.

The US arguably defeated the USSR via looser monetary policy. China is now doing the same to the US.

Re: It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency

#945

Post by fleddr » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

knorker wrote: post #877

fleddr wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have thing upside down. Crypto, its fast-moving technology and implications on the financial system, economics, politics and the media is so vast that it costs thousands of hours to study. Your strategy is to say "you're wrong, prove me right". No, I won't be writing book-length comments here to convince some internet stranger whom is categorically against it. I have no burden of proof. I'm not even a proponent o…

If this were in isolation then yes I'd agree. And twitter is not the best way to make points. But I'm pointing out that this is ALWAYS the argument pro-cryptocurrency. It's not this instance, but a pattern. Cryptocurrency people refute entire books and deep analysis (from actual experts) with "everything you just said is wrong, but I have to go now so can't say why". It's not this in isolation, but the fact that it's…

I get what you're saying. You think I'm the typical crypto "bro" fleeing the scene as soon as some evidence need to be produced.

I'm not a crypto bro, so I don't need to defend the case for crypto. 6 months ago I was in exactly the same spot as most people here dismissing the industry as a whole.

Admittedly, largely based on hear-say and the mainstream narrative. Not by actually knowing anything about it. After taking a deep dive I've changed my mind on some aspects, but not all. I would not agree with my past self, I was ignorant.

Even if you do study it deeply and still conclude it's all garbage, it's an intellectually fascinating journey. You get to learn a lot about history, human psychology, our financial system, politics, trading...basically how the world works.

Interesting stuff to debate, but this is not the place. Fine.

Re: It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency

#946

Post by jodrellblank » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #693

idlewords wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seriously considered acceptiong bitcoin payments (it was a fad, why not) but did not want to connect something like Mt. Gox to my bank account. That was the stumbling block for me. It did not occur to me at the time that I should hoard these payments until they were worth millions in 2021; back then we were still thinking of cryptocurrency in terms of something you'd get paid in and convert to a bank balance.

If you were cashing out as the money was coming in, then you wouldn't have lost all of it in a "hack", would you? So, which is it? Would you have lost all of it in a hack or would you be withdrawing straight to a bank balance because you abhor "hoarding"? It can't be both.

I like the way you scarequote 'hack' as if the MtGox hack was made up FUD[1]. And the way you change "I didn't think of keeping it" to "you abhor hoarding". If he didn't lose it all in said hack because he was selling it back for US dollars as it came in, then he wouldn't have got fabulously wealthy from holding it; in that case why should he have accepted Bitcoin if it was only a less convenient, more effortful, more risky way to get ordinary amounts of money?

It can't be that the only reason for Pinboard to accept Bitcoin in 2013 was to get rich quick, and it's not a get rich quick scam, it can't be both at the same time?

It's like the problem where every time travel dicussion has turned from Morks and Eloi, becoming your own grandpa, treading on a butterfly in the Jurassic period and altering all history to "I'd buy Apple shares" "I'd buy Bitcoin" "I'd tell my parents to buy Apple shares" "I'd buy crypto" "I'd buy crypto" "I'd buy crypto".

[1] https://blockonomi.com/mt-gox-hack/

Re: It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency

#947

Post by aeternum » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

pnt12 wrote: post #931

ric2b wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying something is a scam is a claim in itself.

First it was a payment method, now the fees are too high. Then it was a store of value, but it is too volatile for people who want a safe storage. It's also not private, as appare tly payments can be traced back to their user. So, what's left? I know you can still make money with it if you joined earlier and you're lucky. Same with a MLM, but at least those don't waste so much energy nor ruin the GPU markets.

How about:

- Instant loans without paperwork or credit agencies, algorithmically collateralized

- Micropayments to websites you visit rather than ads

- Electronic payments that can remain private if participants are smart. Much better privacy protections than electronic payment options like Visa/Paypal.

- Truly democratic governance protocols in which important decisions can be voted on in real-time by participants with skin in the game.

- The ability for a code itself, not associated with a human, to earn and hold money.

- Algorithmically enforced contracts that are more resilient to bribes and other forms of subversion compared to traditional court systems.

Re: It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency

#948

Post by fleddr » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

jfrunyon wrote: post #431

toyg wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Crypto is so large, complex and fast-moving that it takes thousands of hours to grasp. The thing is, regular money is, from a certain perspective, also a "scam". A lot of the financial system is effectively make-believe, with massive conflicts of interest at every corner and dynamics that keep working because everyone believes they should - until, for one reason or another, they stop believing, and then you have 20…

Fiat money has value because it is widely, almost universally, accepted in exchange for things of intrinsic value (food, shelter, toys, tools). I'm not aware of any non-government-backed fiat currency which has gained widespread use in the history of humanity. And in fact all of the fiat currencies I know of originated as representative money. Bitcoin is not widely accepted in exchange for things of values, and I see…

Fiat money is legal tender, so "acceptance" suggests a choice that isn't there. Regardless, enforced or not, wide acceptance is of course no lie for hard fiat currencies. Fine.

Bitcoin in its current form should not be seen as a payment currency, instead as digital gold. A new asset class similar to actual gold/silver, real estate, stocks, etc.

Something to put part of your wealth in, hoping it appreciates over time. And as Bitcoin appreciates over time so well so far (12 years of 200% appreciation per year on average), it doesn't really make sense to spend Bitcoin. It is deflationary by design.

Bitcoin already is a killer "app" as such. An accessible way for anybody to preserve/grow wealth, a hedge against inflation and the lack of return on a normal savings account.

Your take on crypto for payments is needlessly pessimistic. It's inevitable, the winner just isn't clear yet.

Re: It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency

#949

Post by mosheroperandi » Mon, May 31, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

xpe wrote: post #653

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that it hasn't produced any value of note in 13 years, I'm gonna go out a limb here and say I don't think it's worth 2% of the entire world's wealth - and certainly not 3% of the world's energy.

In this comment, I'm assuming you are talking about Bitcoin. > I don't think it's worth 2% of the entire world's wealth Taken literally, if 2% of the world's wealth is in Bitcoin, so isn't that its value, by definition? I'm not trying to nitpick. I'm trying to push back on what seems to be a glossing over of the fundamentals. I wonder if what you mean is that you don't think it is _wise_ for people to put so much of…

Post-communist Albania offers a interesting parable: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/jarvis.ht...

Various pyramid-like enterprises sprung up in the new, underregulated markets. At their peak, the schemes were worth upwards of half Albania's GDP, were participated in by 1/3 to 1/2 of the population, and enjoyed support from the government.

For a time, all investors enjoyed good interest payments. But all the popular adoption and shared belief in value couldn't fix their underlying insolvency and the ensuing collapse once new deposits dried up.

Whatever quantifiable value, if any, Bitcoin produces for being a BFT ledger is not nearly enough to offset the constant, massive value drag require to pay for mining costs. That x% of the world's wealth is currently tied up in it is not proof against its fundamental insolvency.

Re: It's time for us in the tech world to speak out about cryptocurrency

#950

Post by knorker » Mon, May 31, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

fleddr wrote: post #945

knorker wrote: post #877

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this were in isolation then yes I'd agree. And twitter is not the best way to make points. But I'm pointing out that this is ALWAYS the argument pro-cryptocurrency. It's not this instance, but a pattern. Cryptocurrency people refute entire books and deep analysis (from actual experts) with "everything you just said is wrong, but I have to go now so can't say why". It's not this in isolation, but the fact that it's…

I get what you're saying. You think I'm the typical crypto "bro" fleeing the scene as soon as some evidence need to be produced. I'm not a crypto bro, so I don't need to defend the case for crypto. 6 months ago I was in exactly the same spot as most people here dismissing the industry as a whole. Admittedly, largely based on hear-say and the mainstream narrative. Not by actually knowing anything about it. After takin…

It's probably not the place. But I'd like to say still that my opinion is not based on ignorance. The more I read (and I mean books too, not just rando's blogs and tweetstorms) on this, listen to pro-coin as well as anti, and talk to actual lawyers and economists about what problems the space actually has, the more I see it's just a scam.

Well, almost. Probably cryptocurrencies have more of a chance of actually succeeding in providing realistic microtransactions. Not BTC (PoW and way WAY too few tps, too slow, too high fees, etc...), but it's something traditional finance has failed to provide.

(cryptocurrencies have, for a decade now, also failed though. So I'm not getting my hopes up)