14 ms·

I'm still surprised that bitcoin is hated here, such a great technology. It's a decentralised currency, and it's working really well. A lot of big institutions

I'm still surprised that bitcoin is hated here, such a great technology. It's a decentralised currency, and it's working really well. A lot of big institutions are taking it seriously now. Does paper cash printed by government make more sense?

bawolff 6y ago
As an abstract symbol to represent value, yes, government printed cash works better for most people's use cases. Bitcoin is interesting because of its decentralization, but it definitely pays a high cost to support that feature. If decentralization is not a feature you care about, than a central authority printing cash is a much better system.
seibelj 6y ago
Typical HN user: “Disrupt incumbents! Topple the establishment! We have the power to do great things! Let’s found a startup!” When it comes to bitcoin: “Well actually individuals shouldn’t be trusted, decentralization bad, I LOVE my ancient bank with its shitty website, how dare you question authority?”
analog31 6y ago
In my view, money is a technology. A technology is designed to serve a purpose, and is said to work if it achieves that purpose reasonably well. My simplistic view is that government money such as the dollar serves a small handful of purposes: It's a medium of exchange, short term store of value, and tool of government economic policy. The government has loosely defined "short term" by the target inflation rate. I suppose that regularizing the taxation process is another purpose. Does it work? Apparently some national currencies work better than others. People in some countries will, if possible, use some other country's money in preference over their own, for all but minor daily transactions. Thus, objecting to one kind of money, and swapping it for another, predates bitcoins. What I think makes bitcoin different is that no government can influence its purpose, leaving its purpose up to each user to define on their own terms. Perhaps another way of thinking about it, is that its own behavior defines its purpose, because if your use is in opposition to its behavior, then it doesn't work for you. This could be said to be true of dollars as well.
scoopertrooper 6y ago
One of the big selling points of Bitcoin was it was supposed to enable free and fast transactions. As it turns out, the average transaction clearing time is 200 minutes and transaction fee is about $11. Now, compare that to Australia's New Payments Platform, which enable instant free transfers of fiat. https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-transaction-fees-hashrate https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-transaction-fees-hashrate https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-confirmation-time https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-confirmation-time
- timbit42 6y ago
  Perhaps there were people who thought Bitcoin was supposed to enable free and fast transactions but obviously it isn't. There are other cryptocurrencies that are. Bitcoin is more like digital gold.
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    But Bitcoin has proven itself to be a highly volatile asset, so even by that standard it has failed.
    - timbit42 6y ago
      I wouldn't say it has failed. I would say there is still a lot of speculation in it. It is maturing over time and becoming more stable.
ponyfleisch 6y ago
> Does paper cash printed by government make more sense? Than energy wasting cash computed by chinese miners and (in the early days) a select group of early adopters? Yes, it makes more sense.
timbit42 6y ago
For everyday transactions, paper cash makes more sense than Bitcoin, which isn't designed for everyday transactions. There are other cryptocurrencies designed for everyday transactions.

bawolff 6y ago

As an abstract symbol to represent value, yes, government printed cash works better for most people's use cases. Bitcoin is interesting because of its decentralization, but it definitely pays a high cost to support that feature. If decentralization is not a feature you care about, than a central authority printing cash is a much better system.

seibelj 6y ago

Typical HN user: “Disrupt incumbents! Topple the establishment! We have the power to do great things! Let’s found a startup!” When it comes to bitcoin: “Well actually individuals shouldn’t be trusted, decentralization bad, I LOVE my ancient bank with its shitty website, how dare you question authority?”

analog31 6y ago

In my view, money is a technology. A technology is designed to serve a purpose, and is said to work if it achieves that purpose reasonably well. My simplistic view is that government money such as the dollar serves a small handful of purposes: It's a medium of exchange, short term store of value, and tool of government economic policy. The government has loosely defined "short term" by the target inflation rate. I suppose that regularizing the taxation process is another purpose. Does it work? Apparently some national currencies work better than others. People in some countries will, if possible, use some other country's money in preference over their own, for all but minor daily transactions. Thus, objecting to one kind of money, and swapping it for another, predates bitcoins. What I think makes bitcoin different is that no government can influence its purpose, leaving its purpose up to each user to define on their own terms. Perhaps another way of thinking about it, is that its own behavior defines its purpose, because if your use is in opposition to its behavior, then it doesn't work for you. This could be said to be true of dollars as well.

scoopertrooper 6y ago

One of the big selling points of Bitcoin was it was supposed to enable free and fast transactions. As it turns out, the average transaction clearing time is 200 minutes and transaction fee is about $11. Now, compare that to Australia's New Payments Platform, which enable instant free transfers of fiat. https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-transaction-fees-hashrate https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-transaction-fees-hashrate https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-confirmation-time https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-confirmation-time

timbit42 6y ago
Perhaps there were people who thought Bitcoin was supposed to enable free and fast transactions but obviously it isn't. There are other cryptocurrencies that are. Bitcoin is more like digital gold.
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  But Bitcoin has proven itself to be a highly volatile asset, so even by that standard it has failed.
  - timbit42 6y ago
    I wouldn't say it has failed. I would say there is still a lot of speculation in it. It is maturing over time and becoming more stable.

ponyfleisch 6y ago

> Does paper cash printed by government make more sense? Than energy wasting cash computed by chinese miners and (in the early days) a select group of early adopters? Yes, it makes more sense.

timbit42 6y ago

For everyday transactions, paper cash makes more sense than Bitcoin, which isn't designed for everyday transactions. There are other cryptocurrencies designed for everyday transactions.