10 ms·

It is really amusing, and a little sad, how desperate people are to "prove" to everyone how amazing this technology is. It's definitely totally not related at a

It is really amusing, and a little sad, how desperate people are to "prove" to everyone how amazing this technology is. It's definitely totally not related at all to how much money anyone has at stake, and how much people stand to lose when it fails. If you look through the history of amazing scientific breakthroughs, I suspect you'll find that the ones that legitimately changed the world didn't require armies of self-proclaimed experts to explain to everyone what the benefit is and what problems it solves. However, when you look through the history of snake oil, boom-and-bust market crashes, and actual Ponzi schemes, that's exactly what you find. If you want to convince people of cryptocurrencies merit, just go solve some real problems that real people have. The fact that cryptocurrency has been around for so long and no use-case has materialized outside of pump-and-dump get-rich-quick schemes tells you everything you need to know.

aceazzameen 5y ago
I'd like to see someone explain the amazing possiblities of crypto currency without them making money off of it.
boringg 5y ago
Too many people are in the value chain at this point - chips manufacturers, electricity generators, programmers, VCs [a16z most active], charlatans, influencers, your neighbors. I don't know where it goes from here - its almost too late for it to prove any real world value. Also note that as equity assets tank so do crypto currencies - that strong correlation reflects how the Feds monetary policy has unfortunately inflated crypto. Wouldn't it be ironic if that was how Bitcoin actually did become a reserve currency (it won't because it doesn't behave like one and have underlying value similar to USD).
randomhodler84 5y ago
It is precisely this kind of ignorance this article is to disperse. Just because you don’t have the imagination to see why peer to peer, censorship resistant, non-state based electronic money might be useful, doesn’t mean we all feel that way. After all these years and you still don’t get it means you live a sheltered life. In fact, you are going out of your way to shout “scam”, meanwhile most of us just ignore you while building the future.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  There it is, the comment that uncritically defends cryptocurrencies. I mean the traits you describe are not wrong, it's just that crypto is not useful as a payment method due to transaction volume, value / exchange rate volatility, acceptance, etc. For a laugh, people bought pizzas and the like with bitcoin. Nowadays they hold onto it because it might be worth fiat money. Why spend something as money if it could be worth 20% more tomorrow? It's an unregulated trading product, it's not practical as electronic money. I mean it might become that, but it would need a lot more oversight, which will cost the traits you mentioned (peer to peer, censorship resistant, etc).
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    It’s fine, Bitcoin has worked exactly as expected for the 13 years of its life. It will work as expected for the next 13. It doesn’t need your approval, it just is. The next 13 years might well be considerably more interesting than the first. You are welcome to throw rocks from the side lines. It is an entirely opt-in and voluntary monetary system.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Flailing wildly around in value, unfit for purpose is how it was intended?
      - randomhodler84 5y ago
        Works for me, maybe you are holding it wrong.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        It's not money if all you do is hold it lol. That makes it an asset. Spending it in exchange for goods and services makes it money, and 4 tx/sec doesn't give you a lot of room to do that. And uh, well, you see, many other assets have outperformed it over the last 5 years.
wesleywt 5y ago
I find commenters on HN are desperately trying to be so rabidly anti-Bitcoin, that their opinions seem to be bitter rather than actual criticisms.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  I find Harry Markopolos desperately trying to be so rabidly anti-Enron, that his opinion seems to be bitter rather than actual criticisms.
  - pushingice 5y ago
    Markopolos was the anti-Madoff guy. Chanos was anti-Enron. Gotta get your greeks in order.
- danlugo92 5y ago
  Yeah
- bitcoin_anon 5y ago
  They'll be even more bitter ten years from now.
  - kordlessagain 5y ago
    False flag schadenfreude is false.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    I wonder if these are bot accounts. 3 months old, 16 karma. One flagged/dead comment, two flame baits.
    - bitcoin_anon 5y ago
      Nope, I just use this account when I talk about Bitcoin. I don't walk down the street advertising how much money I have in my pockets; likewise, I keep the fact that I own Bitcoin private.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
That's exactly it. Even if it's not a ponzi scheme, it's still entirely dependent on trust; if that trust collapses (and it will), its real money value will tank. The advocates will of course mention that fiat money and stocks also depend on trust, but both of those have very powerful organizations presiding over them who ensure that the value of e.g. the dollar will not crash overnight, or that you will be compensated if your account gets plundered, or who will pause trading on a stock (or the market as a whole) if people start panicking and acting irrationally. Decentralized products (whether you consider cryptocurrencies money or assets) do not have these securities and guarantees. Individual players like exchanges might, but if one exchange decides to pause trading, the others will gladly take over that business.
- jmstfv 5y ago
  > it's still entirely dependent on trust; if that trust collapses (and it will), its real money value will tank. Just like any fiat currency?
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    This represents a serious misunderstanding of fiat currencies. Fiat currencies are fully backed when issued. When you take out a loan, the bank creates money, hands it to you, and creates a negative entry on their balance sheet. Once you repay your loan, that money evaporates. However, that money when in circulation is backed by the demand for repayment of the loan itself. A fiat currency will only collapse if you lose faith in the state, your fellow humans and the ability of the judicial system to enforce repayment. Once that happens you have much bigger problems. Like Mad Max style problems.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >A fiat currency will only collapse if you lose faith in the state and the ability of the judicial system to enforce repayment. It will also collapse if people fear that the government will print too much money.
bitcoin_anon 5y ago
> If you want to convince people of cryptocurrencies merit, just go solve some real problems that real people have. It's right in the Genesis block: > The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks The real problem that people have is that the money we currently use is corruptible by those in power.
mattwilsonn888 5y ago
> If you look through the history of amazing scientific breakthroughs, I suspect you'll find that the ones that legitimately changed the world didn't require armies of self-proclaimed experts to explain to everyone what the benefit is and what problems it solves. However, when you look through the history of snake oil, boom-and-bust market crashes, and actual Ponzi schemes, that's exactly what you find. Funny how you carefully avoided making any solid points here. Let's assume what we all know you're saying - Bitcoin, if it was legitimate, would not require shills in order to be successful. Since Bitcoin is fully capable of securing $1 trillion dollars worth of value (unhackable despite the massive prize) I would say its had some success. Are there many shills around for Bitcoin today? Yes. What does that have to do with its success or value? Even further obliterating the point you were too scared to make directly: the initial momentum which got Bitcoin started and gave the protocol its security which gave it that aforementioned success in security was grassroots and based in technological and academic interest. This is very clearly spelled in the blog post. Did you read the content before forming your thoughts about it? You might as well have not. Embarrassing.
danaris 5y ago
I can imagine a scientific breakthrough that does require some nontrivial amount of explaining to the layman to prove that it's more than a scam. This definitely isn't it. The big problem with cryptocurrencies is that most of their promised "benefits" are actually detriments to people who are not anarchocapitalists (or close to it). We don't want government control of money to be "disrupted", because governments are actually, in principle, accountable to us. The fact that there are certain prominent governments that have become corrupted by big money in practice is not even close to a good justification for tossing the whole "democracy experiment" out the window and replacing it with something that in principle does not answer to regular people in any way, shape, or form, and is very likely in practice to be ruled by those with big money from the outset. We have about 80% of a working system already in place. What we need to do is fix the broken 20%, not have the absolute hubris to think that because we're The Smartest Guys In The Room, we can build a better, fairer, system that's built on the pure beauty of unfettered technology.
nayshins 5y ago
Trustless asset transfers are a real problem though. Being able to settle a transfer without an intermediary is a huge advancement.
_ea1k 5y ago
IDK, it seems to me that it took an army of self-proclaimed experts to proclaim the benefits of getting off of the gold standard. Fiat money as it exists today is the result of a process that isn't entirely dissimilar to what is happening with Bitcoin. I don't think the mere presence of a lot of internet arguers is particularly strong evidence of anything, tbh.

aceazzameen 5y ago

I'd like to see someone explain the amazing possiblities of crypto currency without them making money off of it.

boringg 5y ago

Too many people are in the value chain at this point - chips manufacturers, electricity generators, programmers, VCs [a16z most active], charlatans, influencers, your neighbors. I don't know where it goes from here - its almost too late for it to prove any real world value. Also note that as equity assets tank so do crypto currencies - that strong correlation reflects how the Feds monetary policy has unfortunately inflated crypto. Wouldn't it be ironic if that was how Bitcoin actually did become a reserve currency (it won't because it doesn't behave like one and have underlying value similar to USD).

randomhodler84 5y ago

It is precisely this kind of ignorance this article is to disperse. Just because you don’t have the imagination to see why peer to peer, censorship resistant, non-state based electronic money might be useful, doesn’t mean we all feel that way. After all these years and you still don’t get it means you live a sheltered life. In fact, you are going out of your way to shout “scam”, meanwhile most of us just ignore you while building the future.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
There it is, the comment that uncritically defends cryptocurrencies. I mean the traits you describe are not wrong, it's just that crypto is not useful as a payment method due to transaction volume, value / exchange rate volatility, acceptance, etc. For a laugh, people bought pizzas and the like with bitcoin. Nowadays they hold onto it because it might be worth fiat money. Why spend something as money if it could be worth 20% more tomorrow? It's an unregulated trading product, it's not practical as electronic money. I mean it might become that, but it would need a lot more oversight, which will cost the traits you mentioned (peer to peer, censorship resistant, etc).
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  It’s fine, Bitcoin has worked exactly as expected for the 13 years of its life. It will work as expected for the next 13. It doesn’t need your approval, it just is. The next 13 years might well be considerably more interesting than the first. You are welcome to throw rocks from the side lines. It is an entirely opt-in and voluntary monetary system.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Flailing wildly around in value, unfit for purpose is how it was intended?
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      Works for me, maybe you are holding it wrong.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        It's not money if all you do is hold it lol. That makes it an asset. Spending it in exchange for goods and services makes it money, and 4 tx/sec doesn't give you a lot of room to do that. And uh, well, you see, many other assets have outperformed it over the last 5 years.

wesleywt 5y ago

I find commenters on HN are desperately trying to be so rabidly anti-Bitcoin, that their opinions seem to be bitter rather than actual criticisms.

arcticbull 5y ago
I find Harry Markopolos desperately trying to be so rabidly anti-Enron, that his opinion seems to be bitter rather than actual criticisms.
- pushingice 5y ago
  Markopolos was the anti-Madoff guy. Chanos was anti-Enron. Gotta get your greeks in order.
danlugo92 5y ago
Yeah
bitcoin_anon 5y ago
They'll be even more bitter ten years from now.
- kordlessagain 5y ago
  False flag schadenfreude is false.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  I wonder if these are bot accounts. 3 months old, 16 karma. One flagged/dead comment, two flame baits.
  - bitcoin_anon 5y ago
    Nope, I just use this account when I talk about Bitcoin. I don't walk down the street advertising how much money I have in my pockets; likewise, I keep the fact that I own Bitcoin private.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

That's exactly it. Even if it's not a ponzi scheme, it's still entirely dependent on trust; if that trust collapses (and it will), its real money value will tank. The advocates will of course mention that fiat money and stocks also depend on trust, but both of those have very powerful organizations presiding over them who ensure that the value of e.g. the dollar will not crash overnight, or that you will be compensated if your account gets plundered, or who will pause trading on a stock (or the market as a whole) if people start panicking and acting irrationally. Decentralized products (whether you consider cryptocurrencies money or assets) do not have these securities and guarantees. Individual players like exchanges might, but if one exchange decides to pause trading, the others will gladly take over that business.

jmstfv 5y ago
> it's still entirely dependent on trust; if that trust collapses (and it will), its real money value will tank. Just like any fiat currency?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  This represents a serious misunderstanding of fiat currencies. Fiat currencies are fully backed when issued. When you take out a loan, the bank creates money, hands it to you, and creates a negative entry on their balance sheet. Once you repay your loan, that money evaporates. However, that money when in circulation is backed by the demand for repayment of the loan itself. A fiat currency will only collapse if you lose faith in the state, your fellow humans and the ability of the judicial system to enforce repayment. Once that happens you have much bigger problems. Like Mad Max style problems.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >A fiat currency will only collapse if you lose faith in the state and the ability of the judicial system to enforce repayment. It will also collapse if people fear that the government will print too much money.

bitcoin_anon 5y ago

> If you want to convince people of cryptocurrencies merit, just go solve some real problems that real people have. It's right in the Genesis block: > The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks The real problem that people have is that the money we currently use is corruptible by those in power.

mattwilsonn888 5y ago

> If you look through the history of amazing scientific breakthroughs, I suspect you'll find that the ones that legitimately changed the world didn't require armies of self-proclaimed experts to explain to everyone what the benefit is and what problems it solves. However, when you look through the history of snake oil, boom-and-bust market crashes, and actual Ponzi schemes, that's exactly what you find. Funny how you carefully avoided making any solid points here. Let's assume what we all know you're saying - Bitcoin, if it was legitimate, would not require shills in order to be successful. Since Bitcoin is fully capable of securing $1 trillion dollars worth of value (unhackable despite the massive prize) I would say its had some success. Are there many shills around for Bitcoin today? Yes. What does that have to do with its success or value? Even further obliterating the point you were too scared to make directly: the initial momentum which got Bitcoin started and gave the protocol its security which gave it that aforementioned success in security was grassroots and based in technological and academic interest. This is very clearly spelled in the blog post. Did you read the content before forming your thoughts about it? You might as well have not. Embarrassing.

danaris 5y ago

I can imagine a scientific breakthrough that does require some nontrivial amount of explaining to the layman to prove that it's more than a scam. This definitely isn't it. The big problem with cryptocurrencies is that most of their promised "benefits" are actually detriments to people who are not anarchocapitalists (or close to it). We don't want government control of money to be "disrupted", because governments are actually, in principle, accountable to us. The fact that there are certain prominent governments that have become corrupted by big money in practice is not even close to a good justification for tossing the whole "democracy experiment" out the window and replacing it with something that in principle does not answer to regular people in any way, shape, or form, and is very likely in practice to be ruled by those with big money from the outset. We have about 80% of a working system already in place. What we need to do is fix the broken 20%, not have the absolute hubris to think that because we're The Smartest Guys In The Room, we can build a better, fairer, system that's built on the pure beauty of unfettered technology.

nayshins 5y ago

Trustless asset transfers are a real problem though. Being able to settle a transfer without an intermediary is a huge advancement.

_ea1k 5y ago

IDK, it seems to me that it took an army of self-proclaimed experts to proclaim the benefits of getting off of the gold standard. Fiat money as it exists today is the result of a process that isn't entirely dissimilar to what is happening with Bitcoin. I don't think the mere presence of a lot of internet arguers is particularly strong evidence of anything, tbh.