7 ms·

This is one of the reasons I dropped out of crypto for years, most of its supporters were completely delusional and tragically uninformed about actual banks. I

by sprafa 7y ago

This is one of the reasons I dropped out of crypto for years, most of its supporters were completely delusional and tragically uninformed about actual banks. I always considered two datapoints to be fulcral A) ease of use, which Bitcoin has never had and B) potential to be overtaken by an actual bank and twisted into whatever purposes it wanted due to the 51% error. That is, how hard would be it for JPMorgan or Deustche Bank to just buy 51% of Bitcoin and make it do whatever they wanted? I could never see the potential for either fact to be avoided, as much as the frothing Bitcoin-enthusiasts would like it to.

panarky 7y ago
> This is one of the reasons I dropped out of crypto for years, most of its supporters were completely delusional and tragically uninformed about actual banks. The reason I stayed in is because Bitcoin solved a seemingly intractable problem, it works in the real world, and it's survived and even thrived in the face of fierce attacks for a decade. Yes, there are many shills who are delusional and ignorant. Yes, speculators and fraudsters are running wild. None of that changes the fundamental characteristics that make this a fascinating and promising technology, network and social movement.
- sprafa 7y ago
  Yes true, this is why I “dropped out of it” then eventually came back to it. The fact that I have Venezuelan friends who started hoarding it to avoid capital controls in their country convinced me of its usefulness and long-term viability.
  - headsoup 7y ago
    So long as someone is there willing to pay the same price for those coins. Do the grocery stores, butchers and other providers accept Bitcoin there? How do they value their goods against a 'currency' that is growing X00% weekly?
    - gomox 7y ago
      The mild fluctuations of the Bitcoin price can look like a walk in the park compared to the Venezuelan local currency.
      - headsoup 7y ago
        I'm not familiar with the history, but is Venezuela's currency constantly volatile or are recent events an anomaly? How do you define Bitcoin's fluctuations as 'mild' - i.e what are you comparing it to other than the local currency to determine stability?
        gomox 7y ago
        The comment was mostly tongue in cheek. Venezuelan currency has been hyperinflating for a while. So people are used to referencing prices in currencies other than the one used for the actual payment.
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      You have brokers that move dollars for bitcoin. So you turn it to actual cash. The key part is that there is no bank involved at any step.
- creato 7y ago
  > and it's survived and even thrived in the face of fierce attacks for a decade What fierce attacks has bitcoin faced? Sure, lots of people mock and criticize it, but no real action has been taken. The people criticizing it have just as much influence (or maybe even less) than the delusional and ignorant true believers. To me, a fierce attack would be regulatory action taken by various world governments, but that hasn't happened. To the contrary, even countries that probably should care (e.g. China, with its capital controls, and bitcoin mining seemingly used to evade them) appear not to. If anything, that shows just how insignificant bitcoin is. My vague impression (I don't follow this closely) of US regulators is that they have given bitcoin reasonable or even slightly favorable treatment.
  - CodiePetersen 7y ago
    >>Sure, lots of people mock and criticize it, Bitcoin and crypto only survive because of trust. There was a time, especially on Bloomberg, when the news was constantly criticising it and sowing mistrust. "It's only used by hackers" or "hit men are murdering people for crypto on the dark web" or "terrorist are funding operations with crypto.". So there have been countless efforts to break the core of what makes a currency valuable. Additionally, Bitcoin specifically is illegal in several countries, China being one of them. The US has also seized several piles of bitcoin and like they do with other seized assets they put it up for auction. These guys buy the stuff up cheap and immediately sell it. Now that's not a specific attack but it is damaging to prices. Lastly exchanges are requiring photo id to buy things now because of regulation which makes it even harder for people to get into. I can buy bullets and in some cases guns more easily. So there is actually plenty, not to mention numerous attacks on the network in the early days. Who knows who was behind those.
  - mntmoss 7y ago
    With Bitcoin, there are certain elements that make it desirable as a bargaining chip during internal power struggles. The claim of banking and government being joined at the hip is true due to pragmatic convenience: If you want to have power over things like militaries and social services, you need a solution for financing and that sends you into the arms of the bankers. But if you start having an option to opt out, to say as a large institution, "we don't need you," then the banks have to start to compete. At the end of that struggle, you still have a government in control of its financing, but the shape of it, borne through so many battles, is likely to be more efficient.
kitten_smuggler 7y ago
> This is one of the reasons I dropped out of crypto for years, most of its supporters were completely delusional and tragically uninformed about actual banks. I don't think you understand bitcoin as well as you think you do. 51% attacks do not work like this.
- sprafa 7y ago
  I would welcome a correction! My impression is if anyone has 51% of all bitcoin they can write whatever they’d like on the blockchain and validate it at will. Is this wrong?
  - MichaelConlon 7y ago
    Bitcoin uses proof of work [1] to verify transactions on the network. For someone to effectively rewrite the network they would need to control 51% of the total computing power (in hashes/sec) on the bitcoin network. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work
    - sprafa 7y ago
      I see so I was mistaken about that. I still don’t understand why people don’t see that it would be trivial for a major bank (or now that Bitcoin has grown, a government) to look into making enough computational power they would destroy it.
      - dave7 7y ago
        For Bitcoin specifically (by far the largest), the amount of computational power is now very large indeed. An argument often seen against Bitcoin is that of it's environmental damages - quotes like "it uses more power than the whole of Denmark!". So yes, 51% control could be usurped by a dedicated attacker - but the resources are no longer trivial. And as noted, this "control" doesn't buy you a great deal unless you keep it going for eternity, and for the time period you do have control all you can do is basically stop it working properly by preventing new transactions - rewriting history is exponentially more expensive the farther back you try to go.
tiluha 7y ago
I think you are misinformed about how bitcoin works. Bitcoin doesn't care how much of it you have, as it uses Proof-of-Work not Proof-of-Stake. The only thing that matters is you computational power. Now it is true that large banks could just buy lots of ASICs and try to beat the network, but that would mean a continued investment: As soon as they stop mining, the network would return to normal. They can hurt bitcoin (not that cheap anymore) by making it unusable for a period of time, but unless they are willing to keep mining until everybody else stops, they won't be able to kill it. As far as usability goes i don't think bitcoin is that hard: Download an app, scan a QR-code, send money. Not that complicated. The transaction rate is a problem, though. I agree that some people are too enthusiastic about crypto, but I think it still has its place. It doesn't have to kill banks.
- sprafa 7y ago
  The transaction rate is deadly in my opinion, not just bad. A year or so ago the rates were running at ridiculous prices. It’s a black eye on the Bitcoin Core that they haven’t fixed this nor do they seem inclined to (the Bitcoin Cash Core seemed convinced they wanted nothing else but to control Bitcoin entirely).
  - bduerst 7y ago
    It hasn't changed because the people who control the hard fork, the miners, benefit from the increased transaction fees that the low rate produces through competition to get in on the next (small) block. It's a textbook example of Tragedy of the Commons.
  - CodiePetersen 7y ago
    I do agree the transaction rate and fee are horrid. But there are other coins that solve this problem in a dectralized manner. Also there are some block chains that all cross chain atomic swaps. I've been working with a blockchain called Xaya and there is mentions of maybe implementing that as well. I might help on that front after my game is finished. More importantly though. Xaya implements merged mining and you can mine xaya( the coin is called chi) and bitcoin at the same time. So there are not so many problems as people claim or think with crypto.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sharadov 7y ago
My fundamental issue was that the value is so wildly varying and not being accepted at regular places that it fails horribly as a medium of exchange for goods and services.

by sprafa 7y ago

panarky 7y ago

> This is one of the reasons I dropped out of crypto for years, most of its supporters were completely delusional and tragically uninformed about actual banks. The reason I stayed in is because Bitcoin solved a seemingly intractable problem, it works in the real world, and it's survived and even thrived in the face of fierce attacks for a decade. Yes, there are many shills who are delusional and ignorant. Yes, speculators and fraudsters are running wild. None of that changes the fundamental characteristics that make this a fascinating and promising technology, network and social movement.

sprafa 7y ago
Yes true, this is why I “dropped out of it” then eventually came back to it. The fact that I have Venezuelan friends who started hoarding it to avoid capital controls in their country convinced me of its usefulness and long-term viability.
- headsoup 7y ago
  So long as someone is there willing to pay the same price for those coins. Do the grocery stores, butchers and other providers accept Bitcoin there? How do they value their goods against a 'currency' that is growing X00% weekly?
  - gomox 7y ago
    The mild fluctuations of the Bitcoin price can look like a walk in the park compared to the Venezuelan local currency.
    - headsoup 7y ago
      I'm not familiar with the history, but is Venezuela's currency constantly volatile or are recent events an anomaly? How do you define Bitcoin's fluctuations as 'mild' - i.e what are you comparing it to other than the local currency to determine stability?
      - gomox 7y ago
        The comment was mostly tongue in cheek. Venezuelan currency has been hyperinflating for a while. So people are used to referencing prices in currencies other than the one used for the actual payment.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    You have brokers that move dollars for bitcoin. So you turn it to actual cash. The key part is that there is no bank involved at any step.
creato 7y ago
> and it's survived and even thrived in the face of fierce attacks for a decade What fierce attacks has bitcoin faced? Sure, lots of people mock and criticize it, but no real action has been taken. The people criticizing it have just as much influence (or maybe even less) than the delusional and ignorant true believers. To me, a fierce attack would be regulatory action taken by various world governments, but that hasn't happened. To the contrary, even countries that probably should care (e.g. China, with its capital controls, and bitcoin mining seemingly used to evade them) appear not to. If anything, that shows just how insignificant bitcoin is. My vague impression (I don't follow this closely) of US regulators is that they have given bitcoin reasonable or even slightly favorable treatment.
- CodiePetersen 7y ago
  >>Sure, lots of people mock and criticize it, Bitcoin and crypto only survive because of trust. There was a time, especially on Bloomberg, when the news was constantly criticising it and sowing mistrust. "It's only used by hackers" or "hit men are murdering people for crypto on the dark web" or "terrorist are funding operations with crypto.". So there have been countless efforts to break the core of what makes a currency valuable. Additionally, Bitcoin specifically is illegal in several countries, China being one of them. The US has also seized several piles of bitcoin and like they do with other seized assets they put it up for auction. These guys buy the stuff up cheap and immediately sell it. Now that's not a specific attack but it is damaging to prices. Lastly exchanges are requiring photo id to buy things now because of regulation which makes it even harder for people to get into. I can buy bullets and in some cases guns more easily. So there is actually plenty, not to mention numerous attacks on the network in the early days. Who knows who was behind those.
- mntmoss 7y ago
  With Bitcoin, there are certain elements that make it desirable as a bargaining chip during internal power struggles. The claim of banking and government being joined at the hip is true due to pragmatic convenience: If you want to have power over things like militaries and social services, you need a solution for financing and that sends you into the arms of the bankers. But if you start having an option to opt out, to say as a large institution, "we don't need you," then the banks have to start to compete. At the end of that struggle, you still have a government in control of its financing, but the shape of it, borne through so many battles, is likely to be more efficient.

kitten_smuggler 7y ago

> This is one of the reasons I dropped out of crypto for years, most of its supporters were completely delusional and tragically uninformed about actual banks. I don't think you understand bitcoin as well as you think you do. 51% attacks do not work like this.

sprafa 7y ago
I would welcome a correction! My impression is if anyone has 51% of all bitcoin they can write whatever they’d like on the blockchain and validate it at will. Is this wrong?
- MichaelConlon 7y ago
  Bitcoin uses proof of work [1] to verify transactions on the network. For someone to effectively rewrite the network they would need to control 51% of the total computing power (in hashes/sec) on the bitcoin network. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work
  - sprafa 7y ago
    I see so I was mistaken about that. I still don’t understand why people don’t see that it would be trivial for a major bank (or now that Bitcoin has grown, a government) to look into making enough computational power they would destroy it.
    - dave7 7y ago
      For Bitcoin specifically (by far the largest), the amount of computational power is now very large indeed. An argument often seen against Bitcoin is that of it's environmental damages - quotes like "it uses more power than the whole of Denmark!". So yes, 51% control could be usurped by a dedicated attacker - but the resources are no longer trivial. And as noted, this "control" doesn't buy you a great deal unless you keep it going for eternity, and for the time period you do have control all you can do is basically stop it working properly by preventing new transactions - rewriting history is exponentially more expensive the farther back you try to go.

tiluha 7y ago

I think you are misinformed about how bitcoin works. Bitcoin doesn't care how much of it you have, as it uses Proof-of-Work not Proof-of-Stake. The only thing that matters is you computational power. Now it is true that large banks could just buy lots of ASICs and try to beat the network, but that would mean a continued investment: As soon as they stop mining, the network would return to normal. They can hurt bitcoin (not that cheap anymore) by making it unusable for a period of time, but unless they are willing to keep mining until everybody else stops, they won't be able to kill it. As far as usability goes i don't think bitcoin is that hard: Download an app, scan a QR-code, send money. Not that complicated. The transaction rate is a problem, though. I agree that some people are too enthusiastic about crypto, but I think it still has its place. It doesn't have to kill banks.

sprafa 7y ago
The transaction rate is deadly in my opinion, not just bad. A year or so ago the rates were running at ridiculous prices. It’s a black eye on the Bitcoin Core that they haven’t fixed this nor do they seem inclined to (the Bitcoin Cash Core seemed convinced they wanted nothing else but to control Bitcoin entirely).
- bduerst 7y ago
  It hasn't changed because the people who control the hard fork, the miners, benefit from the increased transaction fees that the low rate produces through competition to get in on the next (small) block. It's a textbook example of Tragedy of the Commons.
- CodiePetersen 7y ago
  I do agree the transaction rate and fee are horrid. But there are other coins that solve this problem in a dectralized manner. Also there are some block chains that all cross chain atomic swaps. I've been working with a blockchain called Xaya and there is mentions of maybe implementing that as well. I might help on that front after my game is finished. More importantly though. Xaya implements merged mining and you can mine xaya( the coin is called chi) and bitcoin at the same time. So there are not so many problems as people claim or think with crypto.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sharadov 7y ago

My fundamental issue was that the value is so wildly varying and not being accepted at regular places that it fails horribly as a medium of exchange for goods and services.