5 ms·

Except the primary use of the dollar is good. The same can't be said about the primary use for Bitcoin (which is, at best, speculation).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
neals 5y ago
Have you traveled? Enough places where the dollar is not the national currency but still accepted and used for purchasing drug and weapons.
- maxqin1 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with foreign drug and weapons markets, but even so, That is still a significant minority compared to USD as a whole. BTC as a whole is used for just that and gambling.
  - adamhp 5y ago
    I'm not even pro-crypto really, but you keep making this wild claim without substantiating it. You're speculating anecdotally on the majority usage pattern of Bitcoin.
    - maxqin1 5y ago
      Come on, are you really going to argue this well-known fact without providing any examples to the contrary? Well guess what, I have a Q story and I'll sell it for your BTC!
  - jl2718 5y ago
    Even the most Pollyanna reports from firms that exist to ‘fight’ crime say it 2% criminal. I don’t know how much of that is illegal source versus regulatory evasion. World black market GDP is estimated somewhere around 25%. And it make sense that it would be so low. Let’s say you just got $1M in Bitcoin and you have to pay your suppliers $500k in cold cash. Not going to happen. Only from other criminals that take profits in cash. But there is obviously a limit to that. I think the point is that those 2% can help a lot in fighting the 25%. The fear is that illegal commerce could be conducted without fiat conversion. That would require that regular commerce would also be done in the same currency that the criminals use. This is fiat’s game to lose. And by the way, this is why I love crypto. It has promise as an amazing technology for choosing financial participation according to personal and private community values. Although I’ll admit we’re not there yet, and a lot of the stuff might now be owned by people we wouldn’t want to have power over us. We’re still in the phase of speculation and fear and power struggles. I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system.
    - maxqin1 5y ago
      > I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system. That's why people need to call BS on the current hype train. Otherwise, when a sufficient solution surfaces, people are going to distrust it just as much as the old power structures. And I'd say we're already getting close to that point. The problem is, with equal distrust, people will tend to choose the option that doesn't require change.
      - jl2718 5y ago
        It is getting pretty ridiculous out there. The gas price today was higher than recent memory with about half of it spent on dog coins. Also, Vitalik is now far wealthier in dog coins than Ethereum. If he was a US citizen he would owe billions on that, and last I checked, the treasury doesn’t accept dog coins. I’m kind of neutral on which financial system prevails so long as it’s the best for society. I stand to gain a lot more if it’s the cypherpunk version, but, I’m not sure that the conditions that would bring that on would be good. The rule of all aspects of society by a maniacal banking elite is pretty dystopic too though. Ultimately I think the best monetary system will emerge through competition among societies. Obsolescence more than decision. That might take a long time, and perhaps it’s too hopeful. What evidence do I have for that?
  - neals 5y ago
    Looking at your comment history, it's too bad we're seeing this type of trolling leak out of Reddit onto HN.
dsco 5y ago
Isn’t that the same for gold? That it’s for speculation? Or stocks.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  Gold has a practical application creating demand, in addition to it being a speculative product. I guess you could argue the same for BTC in that you can put short messages in it, but I don't think that's a very valuable thing to have.
  - disruptalot 5y ago
    You forget the payment network without a third party.
- robjan 5y ago
  Stocks represent an ownership in a company. They can be speculated on but that's not the primary purpose.
  - ragnese 5y ago
    I very much disagree. How many people with 401ks and/or other retirement vehicles actually know what companies they "own"? How many of them vote? How many of them actually have enough of the right kinds of shares to vote? To say that stocks are about owning a company in practice is the same as saying bitcoin is just money like the dollar. It's true in theory, but it's not the practical reality of this moment in history.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      If they bought the stock they are helping fund the business. The shareholders are keeping the stock because it represents their stake but the actual money paid can be used by the company selling its stock and that’s the primary purpose. Whether the buyer/investor votes, or knows what they bought, doesn’t change anything in that respect.
mmahut 5y ago
I feel the same argument can be make about Tor. While it primary uses are probably illegal (doesn't necessary mean immoral) activity, it helps a lot free press in oppressed regimes (also illegal, but by western standards moral).
- maxqin1 5y ago
  Bitcoin doesn't have the equivalent of a "free press." And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    > And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now. Absolutely not. Internet censorship is growing rapidly - worldwide. A lot of "legitimate" websites like newspapers get blocked around the world and can only be accessed over Tor.
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    In Russia a few independent newspapers were killed by arresting their bank accounts. Signal does not let public fund jurnalists.
- pydry 5y ago
  >I feel the same argument can be make about Tor. While it primary uses are probably illegal I very much doubt that. Its primary uses are probably porn and researching embarrassing medical conditions.
passtheglass 5y ago
I'm confused by this statement. The primary use of the dollar is as a currency. The primary use of Bitcoin is as a currency. The fact that so much of Bitcoin's traded volume is used for speculation is actually an issue with excess dollar liquidity available for speculation, not because of some problem inherent to Bitcoin. That liquidity would just move to some other financial product that probably wouldn't make the news because the concept is too complicated to grok, unlike "BITCOIN BAD AND NOT REAL MONEY".
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > The primary use of Bitcoin is as a currency An intended hypothetical use, or actual use in paying for goods or services now?
dcolkitt 5y ago
The primary use case of Bitcoin is to evade governments control over capital. Sometimes that’s good (governments disgorging kidnappers of their ransom). Sometimes that’s bad (Nazis seizing wealth of targeted groups). Sometimes it depends on your perspective (governments preventing the trade in illicit drugs). Overall how you feel about this in aggregate will depend on how comfortable you are with government power. Let’s even ignore the fact that Bitcoin today is being used to circumvent unquestionably oppressive governments (Venezuela, China, Iran). Even as a hardened libertarian, I’ll freely admit that Americans and Europeans live under a generally fair and just government. Bitcoin is still worth it as a fail safe against future totalitarianism. It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. Not that it’d be impossible, but small frictions can have big impacts on the course of history. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying.
- maxqin1 5y ago
  > It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying. And how'd that work out for you guys on January 6th?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jl2718 5y ago
    It worked out horribly. They were shot, prosecuted, embarrassed, fired from their jobs, and forever surveilled and hunted by the entire domestic apparatus. Your othering use of ‘you guys’ suggests a derogatory view of this event, but your suggestion of its applicability to the text implies that it was a failed protest against ‘would be tyrants’. So it’s a little confusing ideologically, but your rational point is spot on. The notion of any kind of physical power held by citizens over the government was overwhelmingly refuted. Any weakness shown by lack of enforcement against the prior summer of violence, was shown to be fully at their discretion. Absolute physical power. No more delusions. But we’re talking about crypto here, and the international response to this has apparently been an unprecedented wave of panic crypto buying, or equivalently, state fiat selling. Imagine what they must think. I believe the markets; not the ‘official’ sources, not the press, and definitely not social media.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

neals 5y ago

Have you traveled? Enough places where the dollar is not the national currency but still accepted and used for purchasing drug and weapons.

maxqin1 5y ago
I'm not familiar with foreign drug and weapons markets, but even so, That is still a significant minority compared to USD as a whole. BTC as a whole is used for just that and gambling.
- adamhp 5y ago
  I'm not even pro-crypto really, but you keep making this wild claim without substantiating it. You're speculating anecdotally on the majority usage pattern of Bitcoin.
  - maxqin1 5y ago
    Come on, are you really going to argue this well-known fact without providing any examples to the contrary? Well guess what, I have a Q story and I'll sell it for your BTC!
- jl2718 5y ago
  Even the most Pollyanna reports from firms that exist to ‘fight’ crime say it 2% criminal. I don’t know how much of that is illegal source versus regulatory evasion. World black market GDP is estimated somewhere around 25%. And it make sense that it would be so low. Let’s say you just got $1M in Bitcoin and you have to pay your suppliers $500k in cold cash. Not going to happen. Only from other criminals that take profits in cash. But there is obviously a limit to that. I think the point is that those 2% can help a lot in fighting the 25%. The fear is that illegal commerce could be conducted without fiat conversion. That would require that regular commerce would also be done in the same currency that the criminals use. This is fiat’s game to lose. And by the way, this is why I love crypto. It has promise as an amazing technology for choosing financial participation according to personal and private community values. Although I’ll admit we’re not there yet, and a lot of the stuff might now be owned by people we wouldn’t want to have power over us. We’re still in the phase of speculation and fear and power struggles. I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system.
  - maxqin1 5y ago
    > I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system. That's why people need to call BS on the current hype train. Otherwise, when a sufficient solution surfaces, people are going to distrust it just as much as the old power structures. And I'd say we're already getting close to that point. The problem is, with equal distrust, people will tend to choose the option that doesn't require change.
    - jl2718 5y ago
      It is getting pretty ridiculous out there. The gas price today was higher than recent memory with about half of it spent on dog coins. Also, Vitalik is now far wealthier in dog coins than Ethereum. If he was a US citizen he would owe billions on that, and last I checked, the treasury doesn’t accept dog coins. I’m kind of neutral on which financial system prevails so long as it’s the best for society. I stand to gain a lot more if it’s the cypherpunk version, but, I’m not sure that the conditions that would bring that on would be good. The rule of all aspects of society by a maniacal banking elite is pretty dystopic too though. Ultimately I think the best monetary system will emerge through competition among societies. Obsolescence more than decision. That might take a long time, and perhaps it’s too hopeful. What evidence do I have for that?
- neals 5y ago
  Looking at your comment history, it's too bad we're seeing this type of trolling leak out of Reddit onto HN.

dsco 5y ago

Isn’t that the same for gold? That it’s for speculation? Or stocks.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
Gold has a practical application creating demand, in addition to it being a speculative product. I guess you could argue the same for BTC in that you can put short messages in it, but I don't think that's a very valuable thing to have.
- disruptalot 5y ago
  You forget the payment network without a third party.
robjan 5y ago
Stocks represent an ownership in a company. They can be speculated on but that's not the primary purpose.
- ragnese 5y ago
  I very much disagree. How many people with 401ks and/or other retirement vehicles actually know what companies they "own"? How many of them vote? How many of them actually have enough of the right kinds of shares to vote? To say that stocks are about owning a company in practice is the same as saying bitcoin is just money like the dollar. It's true in theory, but it's not the practical reality of this moment in history.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    If they bought the stock they are helping fund the business. The shareholders are keeping the stock because it represents their stake but the actual money paid can be used by the company selling its stock and that’s the primary purpose. Whether the buyer/investor votes, or knows what they bought, doesn’t change anything in that respect.

mmahut 5y ago

I feel the same argument can be make about Tor. While it primary uses are probably illegal (doesn't necessary mean immoral) activity, it helps a lot free press in oppressed regimes (also illegal, but by western standards moral).

maxqin1 5y ago
Bitcoin doesn't have the equivalent of a "free press." And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now. Absolutely not. Internet censorship is growing rapidly - worldwide. A lot of "legitimate" websites like newspapers get blocked around the world and can only be accessed over Tor.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  In Russia a few independent newspapers were killed by arresting their bank accounts. Signal does not let public fund jurnalists.
pydry 5y ago
>I feel the same argument can be make about Tor. While it primary uses are probably illegal I very much doubt that. Its primary uses are probably porn and researching embarrassing medical conditions.

passtheglass 5y ago

I'm confused by this statement. The primary use of the dollar is as a currency. The primary use of Bitcoin is as a currency. The fact that so much of Bitcoin's traded volume is used for speculation is actually an issue with excess dollar liquidity available for speculation, not because of some problem inherent to Bitcoin. That liquidity would just move to some other financial product that probably wouldn't make the news because the concept is too complicated to grok, unlike "BITCOIN BAD AND NOT REAL MONEY".

alkonaut 5y ago
> The primary use of Bitcoin is as a currency An intended hypothetical use, or actual use in paying for goods or services now?

dcolkitt 5y ago

The primary use case of Bitcoin is to evade governments control over capital. Sometimes that’s good (governments disgorging kidnappers of their ransom). Sometimes that’s bad (Nazis seizing wealth of targeted groups). Sometimes it depends on your perspective (governments preventing the trade in illicit drugs). Overall how you feel about this in aggregate will depend on how comfortable you are with government power. Let’s even ignore the fact that Bitcoin today is being used to circumvent unquestionably oppressive governments (Venezuela, China, Iran). Even as a hardened libertarian, I’ll freely admit that Americans and Europeans live under a generally fair and just government. Bitcoin is still worth it as a fail safe against future totalitarianism. It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. Not that it’d be impossible, but small frictions can have big impacts on the course of history. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying.

maxqin1 5y ago
> It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying. And how'd that work out for you guys on January 6th?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jl2718 5y ago
  It worked out horribly. They were shot, prosecuted, embarrassed, fired from their jobs, and forever surveilled and hunted by the entire domestic apparatus. Your othering use of ‘you guys’ suggests a derogatory view of this event, but your suggestion of its applicability to the text implies that it was a failed protest against ‘would be tyrants’. So it’s a little confusing ideologically, but your rational point is spot on. The notion of any kind of physical power held by citizens over the government was overwhelmingly refuted. Any weakness shown by lack of enforcement against the prior summer of violence, was shown to be fully at their discretion. Absolute physical power. No more delusions. But we’re talking about crypto here, and the international response to this has apparently been an unprecedented wave of panic crypto buying, or equivalently, state fiat selling. Imagine what they must think. I believe the markets; not the ‘official’ sources, not the press, and definitely not social media.