6 ms·
I was skeptical about Bitcoin for a long time. I could not understand how the price kept going up every year for so many years. So I started reading everything
by cryptica 6y ago
I was skeptical about Bitcoin for a long time. I could not understand how the price kept going up every year for so many years.
So I started reading everything I could about our monetary system and learned that it essentially became a ponzi scheme in 1971.
Then I found out about Proof of Stake and learned that it consumes very little electricity and doesn't require specialized hardware and that's what won me over.
I feel like the HN community and many people in tech are in the same boat as I was 3 years ago. 3 years ago, when I saw people buying up $20K worth of crypto, I thought that they were completely reckless and that they would lose everything. Now, I feel like crypto is the safest asset of all (same level as Gold and Silver). I think people are insane to keep more than $20K in the stock market.
Given what I know now, I could not bring myself to invest even $10K of my hard-earned money in the stock market because:
- I don't trust the stock broker (intermediary) to hold my shares on my behalf. What if they go bankrupt? What if they are malicious and disappear with my money?
- I don't trust corporate executives to have my best interests.
- I don't trust corporation revenue numbers because they are inflated by artificial currency supply and manipulation (e.g. corporations feeding off of debt-fueled shell companies to generate fake revenue).
With cryptocurrency, I hold my money in my own wallet on-chain so I trust no one and I benefit from the inflation and manipulations of reserve banks and corporations without actually participating in it.
----
As a developer, the mental hurdles which were holding me back 3 years ago included:
- Insane amount of electricity consumption of Bitcoin - I can now see the benefits of this in terms of added security, but for me personally (as someone who is not a billionaire), it's way overkill so I can't say that I've moved past that mental hurdle. I've heard some decent arguments about Bitcoin mostly consuming surplus or green electricity from the grid but I'd probably have to see it for myself to fully believe it.
- A blockchain's scalability has hard limits. As a developer who had experience in building scalable (centralized) systems, this perplexed me a lot initially. Now, I see it as an advantage in that it will ensure decentralization by forcing people to adopt multi-blockchain interoperability solutions as they become more popular. I think that interoperable blockchains will end up forming hierarchies and you will be able to pay for stuff using any token from any blockchain within that hierarchy; different blockchain tokens will be accepted interchangeably since the historical price and volume data can be calculated from the blockchains themselves. They will all be connected together via decentralized exchanges.
- bb88 6y ago> Then I found out about Proof of Stake and learned that it consumes very little electricity and doesn't require specialized hardware So I'm skeptical about this frankly. Mostly because the security is inherent in no one having 51% of the currency. Given that governments can create currency at will, I don't foresee the rank and file bitcoin devotees to fall in line with this at all. The thing about bitcoin is there's this "Gold Rush" aspect to it. Remove that and you remove all of its popularity.
- cryptica 6y ago>> So I'm skeptical about this frankly. Mostly because the security is inherent in no one having 51% of the currency. I find that this is not a problem in practice. Even the government with infinite money would struggle to buy even 20% of circulating supply because they would have to drive the price to absolutely insane amounts in order to achieve that. I'm involved in a DPoS project called Lisk and participants are constantly observing each other's wallets on the blockchain. If a whale tries to move too many tokens to an exchange to sell, the whole community will know and that individual risks losing their delegate position. There is a strong incentive to not sell too many tokens because everyone in the community can see it and it can have negative ramifications. Some groups of forgers make deals with each other and they agree to keep 50% of their forged tokens as reserves in exchange for votes. Also, you can vote to earn interest on your tokens so a lot of people only sell a portion of the interest they earn and would never sell their principal. In practice, investors' hands tend to become stronger as the price goes up. It would be essentially impossible for an outsider to accumulate 51% of tokens. By the time they accumulated 10%, they would have paid so much money to get them that they would totally lose the incentive to harm the project.
- xur17 6y ago> I find that this is not a problem in practice. Even the government with infinite money would struggle to buy even 20% of circulating supply because they would have to drive the price to absolutely insane amounts in order to achieve that. And even if they did accumulate enough to carry out a 51% attack, they could only attack once, and then would be slashed [0]. [0] https://cointelegraph.com/news/vitalik-buterin-reveals-why-a-51-attack-on-eth-2-0-would-not-be-fatal https://cointelegraph.com/news/vitalik-buterin-reveals-why-a...