5 ms·
>instead of the ecosystem of cryptocurrencies we actually have, which is more like Hayek's proposal for competing privately-issued currencies. That's interesti
by simias 9y ago
>instead of the ecosystem of cryptocurrencies we actually have, which is more like Hayek's proposal for competing privately-issued currencies.
That's interesting, it's the first time I hear about this concept. I just barely skimmed a few articles about the concept but I'm not sure how this would solve the problems in TFA. In particular deflation: if I need to invest in a currency why would I even elect to use an inflationary one? What would be the incentive?
Also a currency is only as good as the things it can buy, if you end up having to convert your WhateverCoin to BTC or ETH before spending, does it change anything? You could use special-purpose crypto currencies to replace frequent-flier miles, starbucks credit and other privately owned "currencies", but what would be the point of that?
>As a payment system I think cryptocurrency is vastly better; the more I use my hardware wallet, the more I'm horrified by legacy systems that work by giving vendors the ability to withdraw as much as they want. It's a fundamentally insecure system, made sort of workable by layers of hacky mitigations.
Is it a problem in practice? If a vendor overcharges me I complain to my bank, the charge is reverted and then the bank takes care of dealing with the misbehaving party. If anything it's the opposite that's usually the problem in practice, people using chargeback fraudulently.
Meanwhile in the crypto world if your wallet is compromised or if you get scammed you're on your own.
Bitcoin is great for buying drugs but for legit purchases Visa is a whole lot more convenient. It's quicker, easier and offers much stronger guarantees. From the vendor's point of view it's less great but as TFA points out "Sellers bear costs from reversibility, but those are offset by increased buyer confidence." No citation though, unfortunately.
That's one of the weaknesses of crypto IMO, it's all about "trustless" transactions, except that when you actually use your currency to buy something outside of the blockchain at some point you have to trust somebody (or somebodies) to actually provide the goods or services you're purchasing. All the systems that try to work around that so far seem to simply reinvent the banking system with extra steps (trusted 3rd parties etc...).
- DennisP 9y agoHayek points out that you wouldn't choose an inflationary currency. He relies on that to limit overall inflation. But you also don't have the deflationary problems of the gold standard, since it's possible to make more money at will if you need it. Regarding payments: suppose we were starting from scratch, with two proposed systems: (1) user signs transactions that authorize transfers with specific recipients and amounts, or (2) user gives multiple parties enough information to withdraw unlimited amounts, hoping unauthorized parties don't get hold of it, and we make up for the inevitable thefts with statistical antifraud protection, manual intervention, and banks just eating the losses. I can't imagine anyone choosing the second option.
- monkmartinez 9y agoYou're proposing a false dichotomy regarding payments... As if the cryptocurrency way has no flaws and the other is chalk full of them. If life has taught us anything it is that; Given things of value, people will find a way to defraud, game or otherwise manipulate said items of value. I am positive that people will abuse or are abusing the cryptosystems to the same extent people abuse fiat given more time.
- DennisP 9y agoI'm not saying that at all, and fiat payment security is improving. But the very fact that it's able to improve implies that some systems are more secure than others.
- simias 9y ago>suppose we were starting from scratch "What-ifs" are always an interesting game but practically we're veeeery far from starting from scratch with the economy. But okay, I'll play. >user signs transactions that authorize transfers with specific recipients and amounts Great, but you've only secured one tiny part of the "earn money/spend money" loop. What if the service/goods you buy turns out to be a scam or something defective? What if my company stops paying me? What if the government starts unfairly taxing me and threatens to throw me in jail if I don't comply? Our current economy is a lot more than just adding a value on one counter while decrementing an other. It's a complex web of laws, regulations and arbitrations that mean that I can buy something on Amazon without having to cross my fingers that I'll get what I paid for. That's where this whole libertarian wet dream collapses for me. The whole argument behind bitcoin seems to be "what if your government turns into a fascist state, do you really want them to control your money?" And clearly the answer is no, but if we end up in this situation my savings account might not be the first of my worries. Nor would having my money in bitcoins prevent me from being thrown in jail if I refuse to yield my secret keys to the neo-gestapo. On the other hand if the government is benevolent and works for the good of the people then I really want it to be able to control the currency, be able to cease the money generated by illegal activities and tax legitimate income fairly in order to build roads, hospitals, schools, the police and firestations (amongst other things). I don't want to live in a society where I can't trust my democratically elected government. So maybe we should work on fixing that rather than coming up with incomplete workarounds. "Hey, my sister got detained for thought crime yesterday, but at least I can send her Bitcoins to prison unhindered! Take that Ür-Hitler!"