7 ms·

> Cryptocurrency is one of the worst inventions of the 21st century. I am ashamed to share an industry with this exploitative grift. It has failed to be a usefu

> Cryptocurrency is one of the worst inventions of the 21st century. I am ashamed to share an industry with this exploitative grift. It has failed to be a useful currency, invented a new class of internet abuse, further enriched the rich, wasted staggering amounts of electricity, hastened climate change, ruined hundreds of otherwise promising projects, provided a climate for hundreds of scams to flourish, created shortages and price hikes for consumer hardware, and injected perverse incentives into technology everywhere. Fuck cryptocurrency.

shrubble 5y ago
Now do the Federal Reserve. 1955 Tappan Zee bridge: $55 million. 2013 Tappan Zee bridge: $4 billion for basically the same bridge. Due in part to the destruction of the USD caused by the Fed.
- SeanLuke 5y ago
  The reason the dollar is a currency is because of the existence of a force (in this case, the Fed) that can tamp down speculation and deflation. Cryptocurrency doesn't have this, and that is its central failing.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    What's inherently bad about deflation? It's happened routinely throughout most of history until recently. Speculation is a good thing, it's a form of entrepreneurship. Example of historic deflation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      Deflation causes a positive feedback loop of reducing trade. If it's better to hoard currency so you can buy 10% more things next year, everyone starts hoarding currency and reducing trade, leading to suppliers dropping prices to encourage purchases, leading to further deflation, and so on. Trade grinds to a halt as everyone holds currency in anticipation of buying more later. Stake: 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
        It will stabilize at some point. We've been trading in deflationary currencies (gold, silver) for most of human history.
      - tom_mellior 5y ago
        > If it's better to hoard currency so you can buy 10% more things next year, everyone starts hoarding currency But they don't. Not if it's things they need now, like food, or want now: electronics have been deflationary for the last 70 years or so -- when you bought the device you typed your comment on, you knew full well that a year later you would get a better one for cheaper, and yet you didn't hoard your currency. Trade in electronics doesn't seem to be grinding to a halt. Useless crap people don't actually need? Sure, that might suffer from deflation. But ideally the world economy wouldn't be founded on useless crap that people don't actually need. Stake: Held some Bitcoin ca. 2011-2021, just enough to buy a nice (not fancy) apartment slightly below market price. Divested now. Miniscule amounts of Monero and Tezos, basically written off.
        Weebs 5y ago
        I would even argue that it's a good thing in our current environment that we don't facilitate trade for things that aren't needed. Much of the arguments of deflation seem to rely on an economy that has maintained high and ideally growing output, while we live in a world of resources being depleted due to inefficient use and failure to reign externalities.
    - tim333 5y ago
      The example in that link >prices of goods, materials and labor decreased, although at a low rate of less than 2% annually you can deal with. Crypto style 50% drop in months type deflation would make debts in that currency unpayable.
- yui43 5y ago
  “Basically the same bridge” is such a hilarious oversimplification that it makes your blame of the Federal Reserve even more amusing. No, absolutely no improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design in sixty years. No added overhead for environmental studies and other regulations. It’s all the Fed. Hacker News discussing economics is like arguing geopolitics with someone on peyote.
  - rjmunro 5y ago
    The thing is that "improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design" should make it cheaper, not more expensive. That's how it works in other industries. Although I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on the Fed. The same thing has happened in the UK and many other places.
    - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
      I find it rather alarming that you equate those improvements with lower cost. Would it be an improvement to build my car out of wood rather than steel? It'd certainly make it a LOT cheaper!
    - yui43 5y ago
      > The thing is that "improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design" should make it cheaper, not more expensive. Only if you’re optimizing for cost, which public infrastructure very obviously isn’t. It’s optimizing for safety.
    - knorker 5y ago
      Environmental impact study, OSHA, etc… are processes that are improvements, that clearly make it more expensive.
  - greenyoda 5y ago
    Some other differences between the new bridge and the old bridge that would account for higher cost: - The new bridge is designed to handle a much larger capacity than the old one, which was built starting in 1952, when there were many fewer commuters from distant suburbs trying to get to the NYC area. - The new bridge has a bicycle/pedestrian path. - The new bridge had to be built while the old bridge was still standing. Its construction costs presumably included the demolition of the old bridge and the rerouting of the highway, first from the old bridge to the first completed span of the new bridge (which initially handled traffic in both directions), then to the second span when that was completed. - The old bridge was designed with a a life-span of only 50 years, so it was built using cheaper materials. 50 years seems like a very short life-span for a bridge. For example, the Brooklyn Bridge, opened in 1883, is now well into its second century of operation (although it has undergone various renovations, it hasn't required demolition). Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tappan_Zee_Bridge_(2017%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tappan_Zee_Bridge_(2017%E2%80%...
- tome 5y ago
  How is that indicative of destruction? If someone really believes that inflation is destruction they can hold one of the many assets that are protected against inflation, such as stocks, inflation-adjusted bonds, real estate or gold. Why is cryptocurrency supposedly the only solution here?
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  TFA says "Hey! If you write a comment about this article online, disclose your stake in cryptocurrency." Otherwise I think we can safely ignore it. Stake: 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH
  - cle 5y ago
    And what do we do if someone has a large stake? Ignore their arguments? Should we do the same if they have no stake and are criticizing it? How much stake is enough, given a particular argument, to consider it on its own merits and not reject it based on cui bono? If someone doesn't disclose their stake, should we assume the worst, the best, the average? What if they're lying? (I have no stake in anything crypto related, so hopefully my argument won't be dismissed. But maybe I'm lying.)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - knorker 5y ago
      Not ignore it, but take it into consideration. If I told you I earned $1M a year, you should keep that in mind when I say that we should lower income taxes for the betterment of the poor. It's a suspiciously self-serving conclusion for me to have, wouldn't you say?
      - yui43 5y ago
        What a weird opinion to hold in a society totally dominated by incentive. Serving yourself is the entire point since we have structured nearly all of human existence around incentive instead of command. Discounting the argument that it would help the poor (objectively) because it helps the person making the suggestion is like being angry at the sky for being blue. The incentives produced the outcome and should in no way surprise you. That’s why people who act selflessly are notable. You’ve got this backwards. Selflessness is notable. Selfishness is par until all of Maslow’s is handed to you free of charge. Noticing someone is advocating for an improvement to their situation, even disingenuously, is equally pointless with that in mind. People do things in their interest because that’s how we have built human civilizations that pay any respect to the concept of freedom. If the suggestion benefits others, maybe go with it? Or build a civilization where everyone can be selfless all the time and have no self-serving motives; that sounds pretty great until you get to the “how to direct an economy” part of the equation.
- knorker 5y ago
  OSHA didn't change anything?
- shkkmo 5y ago
  If you are going to edit your comments, it is polite to indicate what parts have been added/changed.
- SeanLuke 5y ago
  > Due in part to the destruction of the USD caused by the Fed. In small part. Inflation from 1955 to 2013 is almost exactly 9 times. That accounts for $495 million.
- nullsmack 5y ago
  Your whataboutism destroys your whole argument. Pointless.
kordlessagain 5y ago
If we look at Lightning, it enables a full implementation of the 402 response code flow, which would allow for decentralized identity and payments in the use of machine learning networks for a wide variety of AI based systems. One such use case may end up being the "killer" use case for crypto and may make up for the speculative phase we're in now.
- knorker 5y ago
  > One such use case may end up being the "killer" use case for crypto and may make up for the speculative phase we're in now. If I had a penny for every time someone said "X may be the killer use case for cryptocurrencies"...
  - jarym 5y ago
    Yep. So far crypto has been the killer use case for the problem of excess electricity. 100% no BS its true.
  - yui43 5y ago
    You’d have 587 million dogecoin, which is totally useful currency and not a speculative joke named after a meme.
- pk_kinetic 5y ago
  It seems rather poor form to ask someone to disclose their exact crypto holdings for the sake of legitimizing, or delegitimizating their position. Couldn’t it just be a binary yes or no? Disclosure: I own some crypto.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    No I don't think it's poor form. If we had a forum full of people talking about how great Facebook is, and when forced to disclose their $FB holdings, realize everyone is holding $100,000+ of $FB, we might realize we have skin in the game to talk it up instead of objectively evaluating it. Big difference in incentives between $10 and $100,000. Stake 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH
ninju 5y ago
I wish the author would tell us how he really feels :-)

shrubble 5y ago

Now do the Federal Reserve. 1955 Tappan Zee bridge: $55 million. 2013 Tappan Zee bridge: $4 billion for basically the same bridge. Due in part to the destruction of the USD caused by the Fed.

SeanLuke 5y ago
The reason the dollar is a currency is because of the existence of a force (in this case, the Fed) that can tamp down speculation and deflation. Cryptocurrency doesn't have this, and that is its central failing.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  What's inherently bad about deflation? It's happened routinely throughout most of history until recently. Speculation is a good thing, it's a form of entrepreneurship. Example of historic deflation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    Deflation causes a positive feedback loop of reducing trade. If it's better to hoard currency so you can buy 10% more things next year, everyone starts hoarding currency and reducing trade, leading to suppliers dropping prices to encourage purchases, leading to further deflation, and so on. Trade grinds to a halt as everyone holds currency in anticipation of buying more later. Stake: 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
      It will stabilize at some point. We've been trading in deflationary currencies (gold, silver) for most of human history.
    - tom_mellior 5y ago
      > If it's better to hoard currency so you can buy 10% more things next year, everyone starts hoarding currency But they don't. Not if it's things they need now, like food, or want now: electronics have been deflationary for the last 70 years or so -- when you bought the device you typed your comment on, you knew full well that a year later you would get a better one for cheaper, and yet you didn't hoard your currency. Trade in electronics doesn't seem to be grinding to a halt. Useless crap people don't actually need? Sure, that might suffer from deflation. But ideally the world economy wouldn't be founded on useless crap that people don't actually need. Stake: Held some Bitcoin ca. 2011-2021, just enough to buy a nice (not fancy) apartment slightly below market price. Divested now. Miniscule amounts of Monero and Tezos, basically written off.
      - Weebs 5y ago
        I would even argue that it's a good thing in our current environment that we don't facilitate trade for things that aren't needed. Much of the arguments of deflation seem to rely on an economy that has maintained high and ideally growing output, while we live in a world of resources being depleted due to inefficient use and failure to reign externalities.
  - tim333 5y ago
    The example in that link >prices of goods, materials and labor decreased, although at a low rate of less than 2% annually you can deal with. Crypto style 50% drop in months type deflation would make debts in that currency unpayable.
yui43 5y ago
“Basically the same bridge” is such a hilarious oversimplification that it makes your blame of the Federal Reserve even more amusing. No, absolutely no improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design in sixty years. No added overhead for environmental studies and other regulations. It’s all the Fed. Hacker News discussing economics is like arguing geopolitics with someone on peyote.
- rjmunro 5y ago
  The thing is that "improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design" should make it cheaper, not more expensive. That's how it works in other industries. Although I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on the Fed. The same thing has happened in the UK and many other places.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    I find it rather alarming that you equate those improvements with lower cost. Would it be an improvement to build my car out of wood rather than steel? It'd certainly make it a LOT cheaper!
  - yui43 5y ago
    > The thing is that "improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design" should make it cheaper, not more expensive. Only if you’re optimizing for cost, which public infrastructure very obviously isn’t. It’s optimizing for safety.
  - knorker 5y ago
    Environmental impact study, OSHA, etc… are processes that are improvements, that clearly make it more expensive.
- greenyoda 5y ago
  Some other differences between the new bridge and the old bridge that would account for higher cost: - The new bridge is designed to handle a much larger capacity than the old one, which was built starting in 1952, when there were many fewer commuters from distant suburbs trying to get to the NYC area. - The new bridge has a bicycle/pedestrian path. - The new bridge had to be built while the old bridge was still standing. Its construction costs presumably included the demolition of the old bridge and the rerouting of the highway, first from the old bridge to the first completed span of the new bridge (which initially handled traffic in both directions), then to the second span when that was completed. - The old bridge was designed with a a life-span of only 50 years, so it was built using cheaper materials. 50 years seems like a very short life-span for a bridge. For example, the Brooklyn Bridge, opened in 1883, is now well into its second century of operation (although it has undergone various renovations, it hasn't required demolition). Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tappan_Zee_Bridge_(2017%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tappan_Zee_Bridge_(2017%E2%80%...
tome 5y ago
How is that indicative of destruction? If someone really believes that inflation is destruction they can hold one of the many assets that are protected against inflation, such as stocks, inflation-adjusted bonds, real estate or gold. Why is cryptocurrency supposedly the only solution here?
reducesuffering 5y ago
TFA says "Hey! If you write a comment about this article online, disclose your stake in cryptocurrency." Otherwise I think we can safely ignore it. Stake: 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH
- cle 5y ago
  And what do we do if someone has a large stake? Ignore their arguments? Should we do the same if they have no stake and are criticizing it? How much stake is enough, given a particular argument, to consider it on its own merits and not reject it based on cui bono? If someone doesn't disclose their stake, should we assume the worst, the best, the average? What if they're lying? (I have no stake in anything crypto related, so hopefully my argument won't be dismissed. But maybe I'm lying.)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - knorker 5y ago
    Not ignore it, but take it into consideration. If I told you I earned $1M a year, you should keep that in mind when I say that we should lower income taxes for the betterment of the poor. It's a suspiciously self-serving conclusion for me to have, wouldn't you say?
    - yui43 5y ago
      What a weird opinion to hold in a society totally dominated by incentive. Serving yourself is the entire point since we have structured nearly all of human existence around incentive instead of command. Discounting the argument that it would help the poor (objectively) because it helps the person making the suggestion is like being angry at the sky for being blue. The incentives produced the outcome and should in no way surprise you. That’s why people who act selflessly are notable. You’ve got this backwards. Selflessness is notable. Selfishness is par until all of Maslow’s is handed to you free of charge. Noticing someone is advocating for an improvement to their situation, even disingenuously, is equally pointless with that in mind. People do things in their interest because that’s how we have built human civilizations that pay any respect to the concept of freedom. If the suggestion benefits others, maybe go with it? Or build a civilization where everyone can be selfless all the time and have no self-serving motives; that sounds pretty great until you get to the “how to direct an economy” part of the equation.
knorker 5y ago
OSHA didn't change anything?
shkkmo 5y ago
If you are going to edit your comments, it is polite to indicate what parts have been added/changed.
SeanLuke 5y ago
> Due in part to the destruction of the USD caused by the Fed. In small part. Inflation from 1955 to 2013 is almost exactly 9 times. That accounts for $495 million.
nullsmack 5y ago
Your whataboutism destroys your whole argument. Pointless.

kordlessagain 5y ago

If we look at Lightning, it enables a full implementation of the 402 response code flow, which would allow for decentralized identity and payments in the use of machine learning networks for a wide variety of AI based systems. One such use case may end up being the "killer" use case for crypto and may make up for the speculative phase we're in now.

knorker 5y ago
> One such use case may end up being the "killer" use case for crypto and may make up for the speculative phase we're in now. If I had a penny for every time someone said "X may be the killer use case for cryptocurrencies"...
- jarym 5y ago
  Yep. So far crypto has been the killer use case for the problem of excess electricity. 100% no BS its true.
- yui43 5y ago
  You’d have 587 million dogecoin, which is totally useful currency and not a speculative joke named after a meme.
pk_kinetic 5y ago
It seems rather poor form to ask someone to disclose their exact crypto holdings for the sake of legitimizing, or delegitimizating their position. Couldn’t it just be a binary yes or no? Disclosure: I own some crypto.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  No I don't think it's poor form. If we had a forum full of people talking about how great Facebook is, and when forced to disclose their $FB holdings, realize everyone is holding $100,000+ of $FB, we might realize we have skin in the game to talk it up instead of objectively evaluating it. Big difference in incentives between $10 and $100,000. Stake 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH

ninju 5y ago

I wish the author would tell us how he really feels :-)