6 ms·

If you're in the HN knee-jerk native digital assets hate camp, this is how you attempt to refute bitcoin. As someone who has stood up to FUD about bitcoin on th

If you're in the HN knee-jerk native digital assets hate camp, this is how you attempt to refute bitcoin. As someone who has stood up to FUD about bitcoin on this forum, this paper provides the ammunition that's actually needed and is relevant to discussion on this forum. > Going through monetary history, we show how a true numeraire must be one of minimum variance with respect to an arbitrary basket of goods and services The issue with this paper that I can see is it that it's a purely economic analysis that makes no mention of the inherent value of the technological underpinnings. In other words, it abandons some practical business valuations to the exclusivity of economic/financial ones. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the technological solution to game theoretic challenges like double spending on public digital networks indicates a final value of 0 as he does. I have no idea how to value this properly but have seen proofs by geniuses that are in complete contradiction to each other on the matter.

dreyfan 5y ago
> this is how you refute bitcoin I don’t need to refute cryptocurrency for the same reason the onus isn’t on me to disprove the existence of god.
- canjobear 5y ago
  Obviously you’re not under a moral obligation to make an argument, but what I think the OP means is if you want to actually convince people, and thus actually reduce the usage of cryptocurrency, then this is how you would do it.
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    The fact that I think that all cryptocurrencies are worthless in their current form does not mean that I need to convince people at large of this. (I may want to convince my friends, but my friends are generally already convinced.) The religious argument (I must convert everyone!) resonates most strongly with current true believers. It is the same projection that many Prosperity Gospel Christians feel about atheists wanting to convert them.
    - foogazi 5y ago
      > The fact that I think that all cryptocurrencies are worthless in their current form does not mean that I need to convince people at large of this. How did you convince yourself of this ? A thought is just an idea - it can come from reasoned analysis or irrational feelings. What’s the basis for your thought that current cryptocurrencies are worthless ?
      - dsr_ 5y ago
        I've asked a lot of people what cryptocurrencies are good for, and read many articles on what people think cryptocurrencies are good for, and they never give a satisfactory answer. So: either I haven't asked the right people, or nobody has a good answer. My current prior is about 90% that a good use for cryptocurrency in their current form has yet to be invented, and may never be. Answers I've seen: - you can do various crimes. - you can gamble in many ways. - you can send cryptocurrency to people in places which have reliable electrical, computing and networking environments but no Western Union or equivalent, and they can use that in place of the local currency with other people who are similarly inclined. (Why you would want to do this is rarely specified.) - you can have fun being part of competing/cooperating cults.
        decafninja 5y ago
        Regarding your third point, the argument I've heard for it that I sort of understand is if you're living under a crazy dictator (or other less than stable government) who has ruined the local currency and you have no other way to store or transfer your hard earned money. So you resort to crypto.
  - vmladenov 5y ago
    Is there a name for the phenomenon that just happened here? The GP was speaking from an principled/idealist perspective and you replied with a realpolitik perspective. I see this a lot in discussions and parties mostly end up talking past each other.
    - canjobear 5y ago
      I’d be interested in the name too because it seems to happen to me a lot
- BoiledCabbage 5y ago
  > I don’t need to refute cryptocurrency for the same reason the onus isn’t on me to disprove the existence of god. If you believe Bitcoin is a terrible idea and/or will eventually be you obviously can abstain from it. But if you feel significant portions of society are becoming trapped in it, and will reach an unfortunate end result, that is relevant to you. If you live in that shared society the failure of that idea will impact you. If you are concerned about the future impact on you, you have a reason to be concerned about refuting it. If a bunch of people join a cult, I don't care. If a bunch of people join a cult, and believe that judgement day is at the end of 2022, that they will set fire to all the buildings and people in around them as a test, and their god/leader will protect the true believers leaving them unharmed, I do care. A lot. So the question isn't do you have an obligation to correct everyone who is wrong. The question is, what are the consequences of the belief continuing to spread, and does it negatively/harmfuly impact society and me as a member.
- asdfsd234234444 5y ago
  I believe in the existence of bitcoin.
this_user 5y ago
Refuting crypto is an exercise in futility, because there are only two types of people in that space: True believers who act like literal cultists and who are beyond the reach of rational arguments and hustlers who understand that it is nonsense, but will never admit that, because they are just there to make money from the first group.
- md2020 5y ago
  Terrible comment, this isn’t Reddit. Take your smugness somewhere else please.
- apatters 5y ago
  Not sure why this is getting downvoted - to some degree or another it describes the majority of the crypto enthusiasts I know. Furthermore I'm not even going to bother sending them this paper because I know that most of them rarely read anything longer than a Tweet.
  - seanhunter 5y ago
    It's being downvoted because these kinds of black and white arguments which just call people names don't actually add anything to understanding. There are plenty of people other than died-in-the-wool haters or blind enthusiasts/hucksters. I personally fall between those two camps as do several others in these threads.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Well you describe them as "crypto enthusiasts" so maybe the part of the crypto community you are interacting with is self-selecting?
  - capableweb 5y ago
    > Not sure why this is getting downvoted I'm not entirely sure either (and I didn't, for the record) but I could imagine why people would. Grouping a huge industry into just two groups generally is seen as over-simplification, and I would agree with that. There are clearly people working in the space that don't fit in in either groups.
rapind 5y ago
The hype train is all I need to know to stay away from it.
ShamelessC 5y ago
There are many crypto-enthusiasts for whom no level of rigor will ever satisfy them despite being obsessed with various "whitepapers" which are mostly marketing fluff. They endlessly defer to various whataboutism's until you find out they are taking an inherently political position (usually some sort of neo-libertarian) and hence the "merits" of the proposed currency _really_ only apply to people who are disenfranchised by existing economic systems. Usually, little is said of how to improve existing systems as that challenges the notion that the status quo is so flawed that it needs to be replaced wholesale. Any idea how to refute crypto to these folks?
- capableweb 5y ago
  Why do you have to refute cryptocurrencies to anyone? Make up your own mind and leave it at that. I'm atheist, but I'm not gonna go around and try to refute religion just because I don't believe in it, although I do think it does more harm than good. People will believe in what they want to believe in, and there is little you can do to change their mind if it's already made up.
  - ShamelessC 5y ago
    I was doing just this until they came up with that silly "web 3.0" moniker which is trying to attract developers for smart contracts. As a developer, I have zero desire to code for any of that stuff as it sounds like a security nightmare. Hopefully other developers here reach similar conclusions in light of good discussion on HN; but that could be naive as you suggest.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      But then you've haven't been doing that at all? "web3" has been around as a concept since before Ethereum was even launched, plenty of people in the space have been talking about it for ages (internet time), and it is nothing new. What is new is the internet outrage against it, but easy to avoid that outrage too. If you have zero desire for something, just stay away? I don't want to write Java code, so I don't. Hopefully other developers will do whatever the fuck they want to do. Wanna work on cryptocurrencies? Go for it. Wanna write Java code? Sure, why not! Why care about what others are doing?
Trasmatta 5y ago
> As someone who has stood up to FUD about bitcoin on this forum One of the problems with cryptocurrency communities is that they often immediately label any criticism they don't like as "FUD". It's a thought stopping cliche.
sniperjoe360 5y ago
To be fair to Mr. Taleb, he does mention the technology argument at the very end of his paper in the conclusion - although his counterargument is very much a handwave. "The customary standard argument is that "bitcoin has its flaws but we are getting a great technology; we will do wonders with the blockchain". No, there is no evidence that we are getting a great technology — unless "great technology" doesn’t mean "useful". And at the time of writing —in spite of all the fanfare — we have done still close to nothing with the blockchain. So we close with a Damascus joke. One vendor was selling the exact same variety of cucumbers at two different prices. "Why is this one twice the price?", the merchant was asked. "They came on higher quality mules" was the answer. We only judge a technology by how it solves problems, not by what technological attributes it has."
irq-1 5y ago
> Going through monetary history, we show how a true numeraire must be one of minimum variance with respect to an arbitrary basket of goods and services This isn't true. In the 14th century, for example, someone would find a silver mine, get the blessing of the king and start making money. Money wasn't connected in any way to "an arbitrary basket of goods and services." If Taleb rejects silver coins as a 'true' numeraire then he's just arguing a definition.
- defgeneric 5y ago
  But that's not really a counter example. Discovering a silver mine would not alter the price (in silver) of an arbitrary basket of goods and services.

dreyfan 5y ago

> this is how you refute bitcoin I don’t need to refute cryptocurrency for the same reason the onus isn’t on me to disprove the existence of god.

canjobear 5y ago
Obviously you’re not under a moral obligation to make an argument, but what I think the OP means is if you want to actually convince people, and thus actually reduce the usage of cryptocurrency, then this is how you would do it.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  The fact that I think that all cryptocurrencies are worthless in their current form does not mean that I need to convince people at large of this. (I may want to convince my friends, but my friends are generally already convinced.) The religious argument (I must convert everyone!) resonates most strongly with current true believers. It is the same projection that many Prosperity Gospel Christians feel about atheists wanting to convert them.
  - foogazi 5y ago
    > The fact that I think that all cryptocurrencies are worthless in their current form does not mean that I need to convince people at large of this. How did you convince yourself of this ? A thought is just an idea - it can come from reasoned analysis or irrational feelings. What’s the basis for your thought that current cryptocurrencies are worthless ?
    - dsr_ 5y ago
      I've asked a lot of people what cryptocurrencies are good for, and read many articles on what people think cryptocurrencies are good for, and they never give a satisfactory answer. So: either I haven't asked the right people, or nobody has a good answer. My current prior is about 90% that a good use for cryptocurrency in their current form has yet to be invented, and may never be. Answers I've seen: - you can do various crimes. - you can gamble in many ways. - you can send cryptocurrency to people in places which have reliable electrical, computing and networking environments but no Western Union or equivalent, and they can use that in place of the local currency with other people who are similarly inclined. (Why you would want to do this is rarely specified.) - you can have fun being part of competing/cooperating cults.
      - decafninja 5y ago
        Regarding your third point, the argument I've heard for it that I sort of understand is if you're living under a crazy dictator (or other less than stable government) who has ruined the local currency and you have no other way to store or transfer your hard earned money. So you resort to crypto.
- vmladenov 5y ago
  Is there a name for the phenomenon that just happened here? The GP was speaking from an principled/idealist perspective and you replied with a realpolitik perspective. I see this a lot in discussions and parties mostly end up talking past each other.
  - canjobear 5y ago
    I’d be interested in the name too because it seems to happen to me a lot
BoiledCabbage 5y ago
> I don’t need to refute cryptocurrency for the same reason the onus isn’t on me to disprove the existence of god. If you believe Bitcoin is a terrible idea and/or will eventually be you obviously can abstain from it. But if you feel significant portions of society are becoming trapped in it, and will reach an unfortunate end result, that is relevant to you. If you live in that shared society the failure of that idea will impact you. If you are concerned about the future impact on you, you have a reason to be concerned about refuting it. If a bunch of people join a cult, I don't care. If a bunch of people join a cult, and believe that judgement day is at the end of 2022, that they will set fire to all the buildings and people in around them as a test, and their god/leader will protect the true believers leaving them unharmed, I do care. A lot. So the question isn't do you have an obligation to correct everyone who is wrong. The question is, what are the consequences of the belief continuing to spread, and does it negatively/harmfuly impact society and me as a member.
asdfsd234234444 5y ago
I believe in the existence of bitcoin.

this_user 5y ago

Refuting crypto is an exercise in futility, because there are only two types of people in that space: True believers who act like literal cultists and who are beyond the reach of rational arguments and hustlers who understand that it is nonsense, but will never admit that, because they are just there to make money from the first group.

md2020 5y ago
Terrible comment, this isn’t Reddit. Take your smugness somewhere else please.
apatters 5y ago
Not sure why this is getting downvoted - to some degree or another it describes the majority of the crypto enthusiasts I know. Furthermore I'm not even going to bother sending them this paper because I know that most of them rarely read anything longer than a Tweet.
- seanhunter 5y ago
  It's being downvoted because these kinds of black and white arguments which just call people names don't actually add anything to understanding. There are plenty of people other than died-in-the-wool haters or blind enthusiasts/hucksters. I personally fall between those two camps as do several others in these threads.
- fastball 5y ago
  Well you describe them as "crypto enthusiasts" so maybe the part of the crypto community you are interacting with is self-selecting?
- capableweb 5y ago
  > Not sure why this is getting downvoted I'm not entirely sure either (and I didn't, for the record) but I could imagine why people would. Grouping a huge industry into just two groups generally is seen as over-simplification, and I would agree with that. There are clearly people working in the space that don't fit in in either groups.

rapind 5y ago

The hype train is all I need to know to stay away from it.

ShamelessC 5y ago

There are many crypto-enthusiasts for whom no level of rigor will ever satisfy them despite being obsessed with various "whitepapers" which are mostly marketing fluff. They endlessly defer to various whataboutism's until you find out they are taking an inherently political position (usually some sort of neo-libertarian) and hence the "merits" of the proposed currency _really_ only apply to people who are disenfranchised by existing economic systems. Usually, little is said of how to improve existing systems as that challenges the notion that the status quo is so flawed that it needs to be replaced wholesale. Any idea how to refute crypto to these folks?

capableweb 5y ago
Why do you have to refute cryptocurrencies to anyone? Make up your own mind and leave it at that. I'm atheist, but I'm not gonna go around and try to refute religion just because I don't believe in it, although I do think it does more harm than good. People will believe in what they want to believe in, and there is little you can do to change their mind if it's already made up.
- ShamelessC 5y ago
  I was doing just this until they came up with that silly "web 3.0" moniker which is trying to attract developers for smart contracts. As a developer, I have zero desire to code for any of that stuff as it sounds like a security nightmare. Hopefully other developers here reach similar conclusions in light of good discussion on HN; but that could be naive as you suggest.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    But then you've haven't been doing that at all? "web3" has been around as a concept since before Ethereum was even launched, plenty of people in the space have been talking about it for ages (internet time), and it is nothing new. What is new is the internet outrage against it, but easy to avoid that outrage too. If you have zero desire for something, just stay away? I don't want to write Java code, so I don't. Hopefully other developers will do whatever the fuck they want to do. Wanna work on cryptocurrencies? Go for it. Wanna write Java code? Sure, why not! Why care about what others are doing?

Trasmatta 5y ago

> As someone who has stood up to FUD about bitcoin on this forum One of the problems with cryptocurrency communities is that they often immediately label any criticism they don't like as "FUD". It's a thought stopping cliche.

sniperjoe360 5y ago

To be fair to Mr. Taleb, he does mention the technology argument at the very end of his paper in the conclusion - although his counterargument is very much a handwave. "The customary standard argument is that "bitcoin has its flaws but we are getting a great technology; we will do wonders with the blockchain". No, there is no evidence that we are getting a great technology — unless "great technology" doesn’t mean "useful". And at the time of writing —in spite of all the fanfare — we have done still close to nothing with the blockchain. So we close with a Damascus joke. One vendor was selling the exact same variety of cucumbers at two different prices. "Why is this one twice the price?", the merchant was asked. "They came on higher quality mules" was the answer. We only judge a technology by how it solves problems, not by what technological attributes it has."

irq-1 5y ago

> Going through monetary history, we show how a true numeraire must be one of minimum variance with respect to an arbitrary basket of goods and services This isn't true. In the 14th century, for example, someone would find a silver mine, get the blessing of the king and start making money. Money wasn't connected in any way to "an arbitrary basket of goods and services." If Taleb rejects silver coins as a 'true' numeraire then he's just arguing a definition.

defgeneric 5y ago
But that's not really a counter example. Discovering a silver mine would not alter the price (in silver) of an arbitrary basket of goods and services.