3 ms·

Bitcoin is dead and has been for years. And nobody broke it, it is just a solution without a problem. Sure, Mt. Gox, ASICs and the block size debate didn't exac

by danbruc 11y ago

Bitcoin is dead and has been for years. And nobody broke it, it is just a solution without a problem. Sure, Mt. Gox, ASICs and the block size debate didn't exactly help Bitcoin, but nothing of that broke it. Yes, Bitcoin has some nice theoretical properties, but the masses don't need them. What good is an anonymous currency for buying stuff if the next thing I do is entering my shipping address? Whether the system is decentralized or centralized, the average user doesn't give a shit as long as it works. I don't have to trust a bank? I don't care, I never had any issues. And with Bitcoin I have to trust every single seller, no way to charge back in case they don't deliverer. Multisignature escrow transaction you say? Well, now we are back at square one with trusted third parties. I am from first world country with working banking system, Bitcoin is for countries with a lot of unbanked people you say? A system that needlessly burns electricity worth hundreds of millions of Dollars every year to provide anonymity no one asked for can hardly be the best solution. People that are still into Bitcoin just haven't yet really thought things through, hope to capitalize on greater fools, are into some less legal business or something along that line. Half a decade ago I really loved the idea of Bitcoin but since then enough time has passed to really understand the system and its implications. He's dead, Jim.

adrianmacneil 11y ago
I think you're missing the point that Bitcoin is an interesting payment network, despite the fact that as a consumer currency it's not particularly useful. Regardless of whether you or anyone wants an anonymous digital currency, or whether Bitcoin succeeds as being the dominant blockchain network in the long run, there's no denying that it's an interesting and useful technology. I see many commenters on HN who don't seem to understand the difference between these.
- danbruc 11y ago
  It is an interesting idea, definitely. I can also easily imagine that a future cryptocurrency will see widespread adoption. But I can not see how Bitcoin or something build on top of Bitcoin or something very similar to Bitcoin could achieve this. What I don't understand in your comment, what is the relevant difference between Bitcoin as payment network and Bitcoin as currency that may make it work in one case but not the other. Interesting, yes, useful in its current incarnation, I don't see that.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
ikeboy 11y ago
I find it difficult to call any system with >1billion market cap "dead". Maybe "soon to die", but it can't be called dead until it's no longer valuable, IMO.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
Anonymous money is good for something - for anonymous micro payments for electronic goods - content. No personal information is involved, so no personal information is leaked. Payments are minuscule, so the risk of single transaction is very low.
dwild 11y ago
I never seen Bitcoin as a way to be anonymous. For me it was always a decentralized way to handle transactions. If I do a transaction through a bank, it take days to clear. If I need to accept transaction, I need to pass through a merchant account or Paypal. There's no in between. Paypal like to freeze my account? Well too bad... If I want to handle transactions lower than 2 cents, there's no way for it. > I have to trust every single seller, no way to charge back in case they don't deliverer. > I don't care, I never had any issues. I agree with you, I didn't ever had any issues with my sellers either. I trust both my bank and them. It's not a trust issue, it's a functionality one. We are stuck with a limited amount of competition and they all work the same which is sad. > A system that needlessly burns electricity worth hundreds of millions of Dollars every year to provide anonymity no one asked for can hardly be the best solution. To provide functionalities, the same way computers "burns electricity worth hundreds of millions of Dollars every year". I'm pretty sure most way to handle transactions (cash, visa, etc..) burns millions of dollars every year too.

by danbruc 11y ago

adrianmacneil 11y ago

I think you're missing the point that Bitcoin is an interesting payment network, despite the fact that as a consumer currency it's not particularly useful. Regardless of whether you or anyone wants an anonymous digital currency, or whether Bitcoin succeeds as being the dominant blockchain network in the long run, there's no denying that it's an interesting and useful technology. I see many commenters on HN who don't seem to understand the difference between these.

danbruc 11y ago
It is an interesting idea, definitely. I can also easily imagine that a future cryptocurrency will see widespread adoption. But I can not see how Bitcoin or something build on top of Bitcoin or something very similar to Bitcoin could achieve this. What I don't understand in your comment, what is the relevant difference between Bitcoin as payment network and Bitcoin as currency that may make it work in one case but not the other. Interesting, yes, useful in its current incarnation, I don't see that.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

ikeboy 11y ago

I find it difficult to call any system with >1billion market cap "dead". Maybe "soon to die", but it can't be called dead until it's no longer valuable, IMO.

eveningcoffee 11y ago

Anonymous money is good for something - for anonymous micro payments for electronic goods - content. No personal information is involved, so no personal information is leaked. Payments are minuscule, so the risk of single transaction is very low.

dwild 11y ago

I never seen Bitcoin as a way to be anonymous. For me it was always a decentralized way to handle transactions. If I do a transaction through a bank, it take days to clear. If I need to accept transaction, I need to pass through a merchant account or Paypal. There's no in between. Paypal like to freeze my account? Well too bad... If I want to handle transactions lower than 2 cents, there's no way for it. > I have to trust every single seller, no way to charge back in case they don't deliverer. > I don't care, I never had any issues. I agree with you, I didn't ever had any issues with my sellers either. I trust both my bank and them. It's not a trust issue, it's a functionality one. We are stuck with a limited amount of competition and they all work the same which is sad. > A system that needlessly burns electricity worth hundreds of millions of Dollars every year to provide anonymity no one asked for can hardly be the best solution. To provide functionalities, the same way computers "burns electricity worth hundreds of millions of Dollars every year". I'm pretty sure most way to handle transactions (cash, visa, etc..) burns millions of dollars every year too.