4 ms·

> Banks and governments are going to realize that Libra helps to defend the them from real cryptocurrencies. That's not really a great selling point. So far mo

> Banks and governments are going to realize that Libra helps to defend the them from real cryptocurrencies. That's not really a great selling point. So far most cryptocurrency adoption has either been for speculation or illegal activity. It hasn't caught on in the mainstream at all, either as a currency or a store of value.

jchw 7y ago
While it obviously hasn’t taken off as a mainstream currency, it certainly entered the mainstream mindshare. And even if it is known for illicit purchases, it’s by no means useless for legitimate purchases. The best use case now is for privacy, which I suppose is misleading since it may lead folks to falsely believe that use of cryptocurrency alone makes them anonymous. Even still, there’s hardly any alternative for that use case. I use it to pay for VPNs just as a matter of principle. Reality: I think cryptocurrency is worse for illicit purchases than many realize and simultaneously better for legitimate purchases than many realize. Pseudonymity is more useful for average users than full anonymity. Hard to really know for sure what dominates the volume, but based on folks I know with large amounts of Bitcoin, I’d actually guess its been mostly investing for a long time. That said, I never store value in any crypto, but I do think it is underrated for more legitimate use cases.
ilaksh 7y ago
That's the problem -- it hasn't really caught on yet. But Libra could be so ubiquitous and convenient, it could catch on, before Bitcoin and Ethereum. And that creates a blocker for more adoption of those things. But real cryptocurrencies can become popular -- they just need to scale and attach themselves to something that is convenient and popular. That could happen with lots of things, for example Status IM and Ethereum. Or Lightning Networks and some WebRTC sex chat site. But if Libra gets in there before those other things take off, it could be lights out for digital cash.
seibelj 7y ago
It’s becoming clear that cryptocurrency is a real threat to major incumbents, and the reason corporations have signed on to Libra is to placate their shareholders who are asking them for a blockchain play. The benefits of digital assets are obviously better than old-school pen and paper assets. The same arguments against the internet are being applied to blockchain, and blockchain is going to win just as the internet won. Fiat currency inflates and is subject to the whims of government. Cryptocurrencies are managed by code. I prefer the code, and I imagine citizens of countries like Venezuela and Turkey would also prefer code over their corrupt governments.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  How is it clear? Ten years on there are zero cryptocurrencies in wide use as actual currencies, and blockchain has drastically changed zero industries (except maybe malware). The Internet had many popular use cases years or decades before investor money poured in. Blockchain has already seen a bubble and a bust with exactly one popular use case: trading cryptocurrency, which itself is only really used for speculation and scams. "Managed by code" is also not really a thing. Humans write the code! And there's no real reason to expect the humans who create the cryptocurrency ecosystem to be any more trustworthy than the humans in government.
  - Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 7y ago
    And it’s not really managed by code anyway. Look at the DAO debacle: they started out saying the code is the law, and when someone found a bug in the code and exploited it, they changed the code by fiat. What is the point if you’re going to end up human arbitrators anyway?
  - anonymous5133 7y ago
    Code can be verified and audited though.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  > Fiat currency inflates and is subject to the whims of government. Cryptocurrencies have proven to be subject to the whims of the masses, shooting up in value (at least in part) because of speculation. At least fiat money backed by governments try to keep them stable (in general).
  - anonymous5133 7y ago
    I've always wondered if it would be possible to create a true decentralized stable coin. Put some sort of mechanics in the code to do proof of stake rewards if the price starts skyrocketing (increase supply) and then maybe increase transaction fees slightly if price is plummeting (decrease demand). The staking nodes would need to have something to check price on non-manipulated exchange though which could be tricky but I find it an interesting idea to think about.
ShorsHammer 7y ago
> It hasn't caught on in the mainstream at all The value of bitcoin has risen well over 100% for each year of it's existence. I'd be shocked to find a person in the western world who hasn't heard of the name at least, while plenty of people I know haven't the slightest clue about slack, atlassian, etc.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  That is a straw man. My point is that it hasn't caught on as a currency. It's fully caught on as an investment opportunity, which is why the value has increased so much every year (except last year, when it crashed by almost 85%!) but also doesn't make it great for everyday transactions.

jchw 7y ago

While it obviously hasn’t taken off as a mainstream currency, it certainly entered the mainstream mindshare. And even if it is known for illicit purchases, it’s by no means useless for legitimate purchases. The best use case now is for privacy, which I suppose is misleading since it may lead folks to falsely believe that use of cryptocurrency alone makes them anonymous. Even still, there’s hardly any alternative for that use case. I use it to pay for VPNs just as a matter of principle. Reality: I think cryptocurrency is worse for illicit purchases than many realize and simultaneously better for legitimate purchases than many realize. Pseudonymity is more useful for average users than full anonymity. Hard to really know for sure what dominates the volume, but based on folks I know with large amounts of Bitcoin, I’d actually guess its been mostly investing for a long time. That said, I never store value in any crypto, but I do think it is underrated for more legitimate use cases.

ilaksh 7y ago

That's the problem -- it hasn't really caught on yet. But Libra could be so ubiquitous and convenient, it could catch on, before Bitcoin and Ethereum. And that creates a blocker for more adoption of those things. But real cryptocurrencies can become popular -- they just need to scale and attach themselves to something that is convenient and popular. That could happen with lots of things, for example Status IM and Ethereum. Or Lightning Networks and some WebRTC sex chat site. But if Libra gets in there before those other things take off, it could be lights out for digital cash.

seibelj 7y ago

It’s becoming clear that cryptocurrency is a real threat to major incumbents, and the reason corporations have signed on to Libra is to placate their shareholders who are asking them for a blockchain play. The benefits of digital assets are obviously better than old-school pen and paper assets. The same arguments against the internet are being applied to blockchain, and blockchain is going to win just as the internet won. Fiat currency inflates and is subject to the whims of government. Cryptocurrencies are managed by code. I prefer the code, and I imagine citizens of countries like Venezuela and Turkey would also prefer code over their corrupt governments.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
How is it clear? Ten years on there are zero cryptocurrencies in wide use as actual currencies, and blockchain has drastically changed zero industries (except maybe malware). The Internet had many popular use cases years or decades before investor money poured in. Blockchain has already seen a bubble and a bust with exactly one popular use case: trading cryptocurrency, which itself is only really used for speculation and scams. "Managed by code" is also not really a thing. Humans write the code! And there's no real reason to expect the humans who create the cryptocurrency ecosystem to be any more trustworthy than the humans in government.
- Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 7y ago
  And it’s not really managed by code anyway. Look at the DAO debacle: they started out saying the code is the law, and when someone found a bug in the code and exploited it, they changed the code by fiat. What is the point if you’re going to end up human arbitrators anyway?
- anonymous5133 7y ago
  Code can be verified and audited though.
RHSeeger 7y ago
> Fiat currency inflates and is subject to the whims of government. Cryptocurrencies have proven to be subject to the whims of the masses, shooting up in value (at least in part) because of speculation. At least fiat money backed by governments try to keep them stable (in general).
- anonymous5133 7y ago
  I've always wondered if it would be possible to create a true decentralized stable coin. Put some sort of mechanics in the code to do proof of stake rewards if the price starts skyrocketing (increase supply) and then maybe increase transaction fees slightly if price is plummeting (decrease demand). The staking nodes would need to have something to check price on non-manipulated exchange though which could be tricky but I find it an interesting idea to think about.

ShorsHammer 7y ago

> It hasn't caught on in the mainstream at all The value of bitcoin has risen well over 100% for each year of it's existence. I'd be shocked to find a person in the western world who hasn't heard of the name at least, while plenty of people I know haven't the slightest clue about slack, atlassian, etc.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
That is a straw man. My point is that it hasn't caught on as a currency. It's fully caught on as an investment opportunity, which is why the value has increased so much every year (except last year, when it crashed by almost 85%!) but also doesn't make it great for everyday transactions.