4 ms·

> “You can’t be short it in scale,” agrees the short seller. Like some of the others who fundamentally dislike it, he even has a small position in bitcoin. “If

> “You can’t be short it in scale,” agrees the short seller. Like some of the others who fundamentally dislike it, he even has a small position in bitcoin. “If it goes up, I’ll make a little bit of money. If it goes to zero, I’ll be so happy, I will gladly lose the money.” The attitude that pervades HN in regards to crypto. This website is not a good place for discussion regarding blockchain technologies.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
I don't think that's an accurate read at all. HN appears to me more full of people (like me) who were fired up by the initial promise of (a) blockchain technology (b) intermediary- and free-free transfer of value. What happened instead was that the technology turned out to be one of the worst threats to global warming since farting cows (yes,yes, i know, ethereum makes it all better), the intermediary- and fee-free part never actually worked out at all (because people need accounts somewhere, sorry, wallets), and finally, bitcoin and others turned into a speculating collectors' frenzy that while technically, perhaps, not as absurd as beanie babies or dutch bulbs, is generally adjacent to such historical fancies. Given the energy problems (yes, yes, i know ethereum makes it all better), the attitude towards blockchain itself remains remarkably positive. But the quoted position above isn't about blockchain, it's about bitcoin, and you're distorting facts and also "the HN attitude" (which doesn't really exist) by attempting to conflate the two.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > What happened instead was that the technology turned out to be one of the worst threats to global warming since farting cows (yes,yes, i know, ethereum makes it all better) This has been overstated by critics. It's currently at something like a half a percent of world electricity usage. Which as an absolute number is really big, but as a contribution to global warming it's just not a meaningful percentage. And even ignoring something like proof of stake or Chia, it gets solved the same way as the rest of the problem -- replace generation capacity with non-carbon sources. Institute a carbon tax. Then people will mine Bitcoin using renewables and that'll be the end of it. > the intermediary- and fee-free part never actually worked out at all (because people need accounts somewhere, sorry, wallets) It turns out people often want this because they don't want to lose all their money if they accidentally drop their phone in a river. The key is to make sure that it's still possible to do it without an intermediary, because that's what keeps the intermediary from becoming an abusive chokepoint for authoritarian policies, since any attempt to implement them there would only overtake the benefit of their convenience and cause people to switch to direct transactions. > bitcoin and others turned into a speculating collectors' frenzy that while technically, perhaps, not as absurd as beanie babies or dutch bulbs, is generally adjacent to such historical fancies. This was made significantly worse by the design of Bitcoin in particular since there is a limit to the amount of Bitcoin that will ever exist. Which makes it not only not inflationary but heavily deflationary, which promotes speculation. It's plausible that some other cryptocurrency that limits volume only in proportion to some scarcity (whether or not it's still compute) but has no fixed maximum number of coins would be less subject to speculation and therefore less volatile. And then the lower volatility might cause it to have higher adoption in the long term.
- justshowpost 5y ago
  There ain't no such thing as a fee-free lunch. There have to be some interest rate in fund transfer, otherwise there will be no reason to keep transaction records. > HN attitude There are some opinions which endorsed here and some which suppressed, for example eco-terrorists and police-hating criminals are holy cows here.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > There have to be some interest rate in fund transfer, otherwise there will be no reason to keep transaction records. Potential legal penalties often work quite well.
    - justshowpost 5y ago
      Sure thing, gubment-regulated banking requires very formal bookkeeping. But in the imaginary fee-free crypto system how would you motivate participants to maintain verifiable records of your transactions (for purpose of proving you really paid for some e-commerce deal which in non-immediate)?

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

I don't think that's an accurate read at all. HN appears to me more full of people (like me) who were fired up by the initial promise of (a) blockchain technology (b) intermediary- and free-free transfer of value. What happened instead was that the technology turned out to be one of the worst threats to global warming since farting cows (yes,yes, i know, ethereum makes it all better), the intermediary- and fee-free part never actually worked out at all (because people need accounts somewhere, sorry, wallets), and finally, bitcoin and others turned into a speculating collectors' frenzy that while technically, perhaps, not as absurd as beanie babies or dutch bulbs, is generally adjacent to such historical fancies. Given the energy problems (yes, yes, i know ethereum makes it all better), the attitude towards blockchain itself remains remarkably positive. But the quoted position above isn't about blockchain, it's about bitcoin, and you're distorting facts and also "the HN attitude" (which doesn't really exist) by attempting to conflate the two.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> What happened instead was that the technology turned out to be one of the worst threats to global warming since farting cows (yes,yes, i know, ethereum makes it all better) This has been overstated by critics. It's currently at something like a half a percent of world electricity usage. Which as an absolute number is really big, but as a contribution to global warming it's just not a meaningful percentage. And even ignoring something like proof of stake or Chia, it gets solved the same way as the rest of the problem -- replace generation capacity with non-carbon sources. Institute a carbon tax. Then people will mine Bitcoin using renewables and that'll be the end of it. > the intermediary- and fee-free part never actually worked out at all (because people need accounts somewhere, sorry, wallets) It turns out people often want this because they don't want to lose all their money if they accidentally drop their phone in a river. The key is to make sure that it's still possible to do it without an intermediary, because that's what keeps the intermediary from becoming an abusive chokepoint for authoritarian policies, since any attempt to implement them there would only overtake the benefit of their convenience and cause people to switch to direct transactions. > bitcoin and others turned into a speculating collectors' frenzy that while technically, perhaps, not as absurd as beanie babies or dutch bulbs, is generally adjacent to such historical fancies. This was made significantly worse by the design of Bitcoin in particular since there is a limit to the amount of Bitcoin that will ever exist. Which makes it not only not inflationary but heavily deflationary, which promotes speculation. It's plausible that some other cryptocurrency that limits volume only in proportion to some scarcity (whether or not it's still compute) but has no fixed maximum number of coins would be less subject to speculation and therefore less volatile. And then the lower volatility might cause it to have higher adoption in the long term.
justshowpost 5y ago
There ain't no such thing as a fee-free lunch. There have to be some interest rate in fund transfer, otherwise there will be no reason to keep transaction records. > HN attitude There are some opinions which endorsed here and some which suppressed, for example eco-terrorists and police-hating criminals are holy cows here.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > There have to be some interest rate in fund transfer, otherwise there will be no reason to keep transaction records. Potential legal penalties often work quite well.
  - justshowpost 5y ago
    Sure thing, gubment-regulated banking requires very formal bookkeeping. But in the imaginary fee-free crypto system how would you motivate participants to maintain verifiable records of your transactions (for purpose of proving you really paid for some e-commerce deal which in non-immediate)?