3 ms·

There needs to be a HN bot that just copy and pastes the same old stuff to comments like mine so people don't have to waste energy doing it over and over again.

There needs to be a HN bot that just copy and pastes the same old stuff to comments like mine so people don't have to waste energy doing it over and over again. The fact that you're comparing Visa with Bitcoin is exactly my point: Humans make decisions based on the things they can immediately see and neglect things they can't see. That's what you're doing when you're comparing visa to bitcoin. I can't really explain this in a single HN comment, which is why I recommended studying economics. If this was so easy that I could explain it in a page nobody would need to read books or take classes.

mrep 9y ago
> The fact that you're comparing Visa with Bitcoin is exactly my point: Humans make decisions based on the things they can immediately see and neglect things they can't see. That's what you're doing when you're comparing visa to bitcoin. Then can you explain the economic utility that bitcoin provides because it is more innificient way to store and exchange "value" than what banks provide? > I can't really explain this in a single HN comment, which is why I recommended studying economics. If this was so easy that I could explain it in a page nobody would need to read books or take classes. I have taken many econ classes and I have read dozens of econ textbooks. You are handwaving about "ripple effects" and that if I knew econ it would all make sense.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  > Then can you explain the economic utility that bitcoin provides because it is more innificient way to store and exchange "value" than what banks provide? Let me ask you back. Can you prove with 100% certainty that banks are more "efficient" than bitcoin? What does "efficient" even mean? Did you take into account all the jobs required to run the banks? Did you take into account all the energy these bank employees consume? Did you take into account all the side industries that arise around banking system? Did you take into account all the corruption that took place over and over and over throughout history that eventually took everything down to zero? This question is really meaningless when you consider all these factors. People tend to arrogantly think that they understand the world when they don't. All they do is try their best to make sense of things, and even with these scientific theories, nothing is absolute. Note that I'm not calling YOU arrogant. I'm calling humans as a whole. I am not saying PoW is better. I'm saying people who think PoS is absolutely better than PoW are leaving a lot of things out of the picture when they draw that conclusion. Nobody knows what's better or what's more efficient. Maybe banking IS more efficient, but maybe in the long term (as in 100 years) it may be more inefficient. (History shows that there's A LOT of invisible inefficiency in the banking system, manifested as economic depressions)
  - mrep 9y ago
    > Let me ask you back. Can you prove with 100% certainty that banks are more "efficient" than bitcoin? What does "efficient" even mean? Did you take into account all the jobs required to run the banks? Did you take into account all the energy these bank employees consume? Did you take into account all the side industries that arise around banking system? What? I thought you said you were well versed in economics. This is literally one of the core concepts for the benefits of economics because you can evaluate things on their "efficiency" (costs) versus the value they provide (revenue). Every "job", "energy cost", and "side industries that arise around banking system" are evaluated in the cost to run the business and if they were greater than the value they provided, they would not be in bunessines because revenue would be less than sum of those costs. > Did you take into account all the corruption that took place over and over and over throughout history that eventually took everything down to zero? Obviously corruption is not good for our systems neither are other economic problems such as negative externalities [0]. However, I don't see how cryptocurrencies solve them in a way that makes them better than current solutions as a whole. > This question is really meaningless when you consider all these factors. I'm not asking you to write a phd. Just give me one good economic use case outside of illegal markets for cryptocurrencies that is better than current technological solutions. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative
    - aianus 9y ago
      > Just give me one good economic use case outside of illegal markets for cryptocurrencies that is better than current technological solutions. Transfer $1000 from your Coinbase (or other electronic) account in the US to cash in Indonesia, in less than 20 minutes, at a better rate than spot. I did it yesterday with ETH and even made $20 on the spread after all the fees. The cheapest conventional alternative would have been a Visa or Plus ATM card which would have cost around $14-$47 depending on how good your card is.
      - mrep 9y ago
        You may have found one temporary use case but I don't expect that to last if cryptocurrencies gain in value. How much did it cost to exchange USD -> crypto -> Indonesia money?

mrep 9y ago

> The fact that you're comparing Visa with Bitcoin is exactly my point: Humans make decisions based on the things they can immediately see and neglect things they can't see. That's what you're doing when you're comparing visa to bitcoin. Then can you explain the economic utility that bitcoin provides because it is more innificient way to store and exchange "value" than what banks provide? > I can't really explain this in a single HN comment, which is why I recommended studying economics. If this was so easy that I could explain it in a page nobody would need to read books or take classes. I have taken many econ classes and I have read dozens of econ textbooks. You are handwaving about "ripple effects" and that if I knew econ it would all make sense.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
> Then can you explain the economic utility that bitcoin provides because it is more innificient way to store and exchange "value" than what banks provide? Let me ask you back. Can you prove with 100% certainty that banks are more "efficient" than bitcoin? What does "efficient" even mean? Did you take into account all the jobs required to run the banks? Did you take into account all the energy these bank employees consume? Did you take into account all the side industries that arise around banking system? Did you take into account all the corruption that took place over and over and over throughout history that eventually took everything down to zero? This question is really meaningless when you consider all these factors. People tend to arrogantly think that they understand the world when they don't. All they do is try their best to make sense of things, and even with these scientific theories, nothing is absolute. Note that I'm not calling YOU arrogant. I'm calling humans as a whole. I am not saying PoW is better. I'm saying people who think PoS is absolutely better than PoW are leaving a lot of things out of the picture when they draw that conclusion. Nobody knows what's better or what's more efficient. Maybe banking IS more efficient, but maybe in the long term (as in 100 years) it may be more inefficient. (History shows that there's A LOT of invisible inefficiency in the banking system, manifested as economic depressions)
- mrep 9y ago
  > Let me ask you back. Can you prove with 100% certainty that banks are more "efficient" than bitcoin? What does "efficient" even mean? Did you take into account all the jobs required to run the banks? Did you take into account all the energy these bank employees consume? Did you take into account all the side industries that arise around banking system? What? I thought you said you were well versed in economics. This is literally one of the core concepts for the benefits of economics because you can evaluate things on their "efficiency" (costs) versus the value they provide (revenue). Every "job", "energy cost", and "side industries that arise around banking system" are evaluated in the cost to run the business and if they were greater than the value they provided, they would not be in bunessines because revenue would be less than sum of those costs. > Did you take into account all the corruption that took place over and over and over throughout history that eventually took everything down to zero? Obviously corruption is not good for our systems neither are other economic problems such as negative externalities [0]. However, I don't see how cryptocurrencies solve them in a way that makes them better than current solutions as a whole. > This question is really meaningless when you consider all these factors. I'm not asking you to write a phd. Just give me one good economic use case outside of illegal markets for cryptocurrencies that is better than current technological solutions. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative
  - aianus 9y ago
    > Just give me one good economic use case outside of illegal markets for cryptocurrencies that is better than current technological solutions. Transfer $1000 from your Coinbase (or other electronic) account in the US to cash in Indonesia, in less than 20 minutes, at a better rate than spot. I did it yesterday with ETH and even made $20 on the spread after all the fees. The cheapest conventional alternative would have been a Visa or Plus ATM card which would have cost around $14-$47 depending on how good your card is.
    - mrep 9y ago
      You may have found one temporary use case but I don't expect that to last if cryptocurrencies gain in value. How much did it cost to exchange USD -> crypto -> Indonesia money?