6 ms·

The central problem in this entire debate is two groups talking past each other. The skeptics say "what is it for?" expecting a detailed answer, and the respons

The central problem in this entire debate is two groups talking past each other. The skeptics say "what is it for?" expecting a detailed answer, and the response from crypto enthusiasts is vague and high level; most of what I hear is heavy on words like "revolutionize" and "decentralize" but very, very short on specifics. Or I get argument by analogy to other technologies. If I heard a single use case where blockchain technology actually created real value in the world, and was better than other alternatives, I'd listen. But it has to create real value, based on the real world and not some fantastical notion of what money is or governments are for. I think we skeptics want a grounded narrative, and we're stuck hearing a thesis statement and nothing to back it up.

rednerrus 5y ago
Crypto was good for blackmarket transactions.
- ryandamm 5y ago
  Still probably is!
  - pclmulqdq 5y ago
    Not now that companies like chainalysis exist: the transactions are on a public ledger. Monero was designed for private payments, and its value hasn't exploded like Bitcoin or Eth...
  - mw888 5y ago
    People this uninformed are somehow the vocal majority of blockchain talk on HackerNews. What a seriously embarrassing misconception which demonstrates ignorance on a fundamental level.
    - RobertRies 5y ago
      Wait, what misconception? That crypto is good for black market transactions? You assert that it isn't?
    - rednerrus 5y ago
      I've been in this space since very early on. I've yet to see another problem that crypto solves other than pseudo anonymous transactions, mostly valuable in the black market space.
okwubodu 5y ago
Blockchain Climate Risk Crop Insurance: https://www.climatefinancelab.org/project/climate-risk-crop-insurance/ https://www.climatefinancelab.org/project/climate-risk-crop-...
- ryandamm 5y ago
  Centralize it and implement something like M-Pesa, or build it on top of the existing mobile networks. The solution is selling standardized contracts to small hold farmers that pay out automatically; the problem has nothing to do with decentralization or trustless transactions. The blockchain adds nothing here, and creates a layer of complexity that makes it more brittle.
  - okwubodu 5y ago
    > The solution is selling standardized contracts to small hold farmers that pay out automatically And how easy do you think that is in Kenya? You and I being able to take stable banking and government for granted says more about our own position in the world than it does about the efficacy of the technology itself.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Daishiman 5y ago
      You think Kenya doesn't have even a single, large, stable bank/trust/underwriter? You think they don't have underwriters that can delegate most of the money and authority to overseas institutions, worse comes to worst? Countries with bad credit frequently issue bonds and instruments in the state of New York. If it's good enough for a nation I'm sure companies can work something out.
mirekrusin 5y ago
Donations for dev's OSS didn't work.
magicjosh 5y ago
Here's a recent article from the NYTimes on buying things with Bitcoin. None of the examples seem impressive, a doctor accepting payments for covid tests, sex worker getting paid: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/style/what-can-you-actually-buy-with-bitcoin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/style/what-can-you-actual...
aaron695 5y ago
Sparyjerry 5y ago
The crux of what makes it popular is decentralization which is a fantastic feature and I'd argue the single feature that it has that regular currencies can't ever have. However, everyone doesn't have a wallet and about 60% of all bitcoin is in the hands of only about 10,000 wallets. It's one of those things, if everyone had it then it would work great but because no one has it, it doesn't work at all. In order to get it you need someone you trust to trade you it, which means a centralized exchange, high fees, and slow transactions. However, if you only ever live in a bitcoin or other decentralized coin economy, meaning you never have to trade out of it into another currency, then it can work for you. Say Tesla accepts bitcoin, and everyonjhe pays in bitcoin, it still has to pay it's suppliers who don't accept bitcoin, this means it has to make a conversion to regular currency, adding an additional step, making things slower and less liquid. It's one of those things that just won't work, until it does.
- twiceaday 5y ago
  I don't buy this framing for a second. Crypto is popular, I mean actually popular amongst most people on the ground, only because the price keeps going up; with the implicit promise that it will keep going up. Everything else is creative story telling. On-paper benefits are trotted out only to post-hoc explain the growth (which is mostly there from pumping and people seeing past growth) and to pump the coin further. "Decentralized" is only as important as it keeps the "this is still crypto right?" identity in lay-peoples minds that is tied to magic money out of nowhere. Otherwise it can be weakened arbitrarily.
democracy 5y ago
I also find funny how all the fighters for the bright future, peace and rainbows are planning to become filthy rich in the process of making the world a better place. People like Vitalik and Charlie Lee (Litecoin) happily cashed out their coins into dirty filthy USD in 2018 and became millionaires. You remove the chance to become crazy rich and who really gonna stay there?
lawn 5y ago
A single use-case? How about uncensorable donations? For example Wikileaks got blocked by banks and payment processors when they wrote about the war crimes the US committed. The US could block the banks, but they could never block crypto donations.
koonsolo 5y ago
Of course there are awesome use-cases, but the real problem of the skeptics is that they can't let go of their fiat. Take Nano for example: sub-second, 0-fee transactions, of any amount, to any (unbanked) person in the world. Of course, there is no way that any other (fiat) system can achieve this (due to operation costs, regulation, etc) But the response of skeptics will always be "but I have to convert my fiat money". And at that point, it's not free and instant anymore. But just because the new system loses its benefits because of backwards compatibility with the old system, doesn't mean that it is inferior. Maybe for some things, you don't need to pass through the old system anymore. One example is mining pool payouts, which can do payments through Nano to get the 0 fee transactions. (see https://2miners.com/blog/how-to-get-payouts-for-ethereum-mining-without-fees/ https://2miners.com/blog/how-to-get-payouts-for-ethereum-min...). You can argue that this mining is all a scam etc, but in the end real value is transferred using the most optimal network. More optimal than any central system that you can think of (remember 0-fee, instant trancations).
- wackro 5y ago
  > ... but the real problem of the skeptics is that they can't let go of their fiat. >But the response of skeptics will always be "but I have to convert my fiat money". Here's a thought experiment for you. Your mother/father/neighbour's entire wealth is converted, at no cost to them, into BTC/ETH/whatever. What is their reaction? Is it, 'thank god we didn't have to pay those conversion fees!' I think not.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    Here's a thought experiment for you. How do you transfer money from US to: Venezuela, Mali, Lybia, Angolia, Tajikistan, Uruguay? I can give you a really simple answer when using crypto: you just transfer it. Can't wait to hear your answer for each of those countries, and the fees and delays associated with it. edit: some people go work in a western country and send money home to their family.
    - wackro 5y ago
      The fact that crypto exists without borders is great. But your idea that the only thing stopping sceptics from embracing it is fees is wrong. Also, your tone makes me think you've got a dog in this fight.

rednerrus 5y ago

Crypto was good for blackmarket transactions.

ryandamm 5y ago
Still probably is!
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  Not now that companies like chainalysis exist: the transactions are on a public ledger. Monero was designed for private payments, and its value hasn't exploded like Bitcoin or Eth...
- mw888 5y ago
  People this uninformed are somehow the vocal majority of blockchain talk on HackerNews. What a seriously embarrassing misconception which demonstrates ignorance on a fundamental level.
  - RobertRies 5y ago
    Wait, what misconception? That crypto is good for black market transactions? You assert that it isn't?
  - rednerrus 5y ago
    I've been in this space since very early on. I've yet to see another problem that crypto solves other than pseudo anonymous transactions, mostly valuable in the black market space.

okwubodu 5y ago

Blockchain Climate Risk Crop Insurance: https://www.climatefinancelab.org/project/climate-risk-crop-insurance/ https://www.climatefinancelab.org/project/climate-risk-crop-...

ryandamm 5y ago
Centralize it and implement something like M-Pesa, or build it on top of the existing mobile networks. The solution is selling standardized contracts to small hold farmers that pay out automatically; the problem has nothing to do with decentralization or trustless transactions. The blockchain adds nothing here, and creates a layer of complexity that makes it more brittle.
- okwubodu 5y ago
  > The solution is selling standardized contracts to small hold farmers that pay out automatically And how easy do you think that is in Kenya? You and I being able to take stable banking and government for granted says more about our own position in the world than it does about the efficacy of the technology itself.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    You think Kenya doesn't have even a single, large, stable bank/trust/underwriter? You think they don't have underwriters that can delegate most of the money and authority to overseas institutions, worse comes to worst? Countries with bad credit frequently issue bonds and instruments in the state of New York. If it's good enough for a nation I'm sure companies can work something out.

mirekrusin 5y ago

Donations for dev's OSS didn't work.

magicjosh 5y ago

Here's a recent article from the NYTimes on buying things with Bitcoin. None of the examples seem impressive, a doctor accepting payments for covid tests, sex worker getting paid: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/style/what-can-you-actually-buy-with-bitcoin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/style/what-can-you-actual...

aaron695 5y ago

Sparyjerry 5y ago

The crux of what makes it popular is decentralization which is a fantastic feature and I'd argue the single feature that it has that regular currencies can't ever have. However, everyone doesn't have a wallet and about 60% of all bitcoin is in the hands of only about 10,000 wallets. It's one of those things, if everyone had it then it would work great but because no one has it, it doesn't work at all. In order to get it you need someone you trust to trade you it, which means a centralized exchange, high fees, and slow transactions. However, if you only ever live in a bitcoin or other decentralized coin economy, meaning you never have to trade out of it into another currency, then it can work for you. Say Tesla accepts bitcoin, and everyonjhe pays in bitcoin, it still has to pay it's suppliers who don't accept bitcoin, this means it has to make a conversion to regular currency, adding an additional step, making things slower and less liquid. It's one of those things that just won't work, until it does.

twiceaday 5y ago
I don't buy this framing for a second. Crypto is popular, I mean actually popular amongst most people on the ground, only because the price keeps going up; with the implicit promise that it will keep going up. Everything else is creative story telling. On-paper benefits are trotted out only to post-hoc explain the growth (which is mostly there from pumping and people seeing past growth) and to pump the coin further. "Decentralized" is only as important as it keeps the "this is still crypto right?" identity in lay-peoples minds that is tied to magic money out of nowhere. Otherwise it can be weakened arbitrarily.

democracy 5y ago

I also find funny how all the fighters for the bright future, peace and rainbows are planning to become filthy rich in the process of making the world a better place. People like Vitalik and Charlie Lee (Litecoin) happily cashed out their coins into dirty filthy USD in 2018 and became millionaires. You remove the chance to become crazy rich and who really gonna stay there?

lawn 5y ago

A single use-case? How about uncensorable donations? For example Wikileaks got blocked by banks and payment processors when they wrote about the war crimes the US committed. The US could block the banks, but they could never block crypto donations.

koonsolo 5y ago

Of course there are awesome use-cases, but the real problem of the skeptics is that they can't let go of their fiat. Take Nano for example: sub-second, 0-fee transactions, of any amount, to any (unbanked) person in the world. Of course, there is no way that any other (fiat) system can achieve this (due to operation costs, regulation, etc) But the response of skeptics will always be "but I have to convert my fiat money". And at that point, it's not free and instant anymore. But just because the new system loses its benefits because of backwards compatibility with the old system, doesn't mean that it is inferior. Maybe for some things, you don't need to pass through the old system anymore. One example is mining pool payouts, which can do payments through Nano to get the 0 fee transactions. (see https://2miners.com/blog/how-to-get-payouts-for-ethereum-mining-without-fees/ https://2miners.com/blog/how-to-get-payouts-for-ethereum-min...). You can argue that this mining is all a scam etc, but in the end real value is transferred using the most optimal network. More optimal than any central system that you can think of (remember 0-fee, instant trancations).

wackro 5y ago
> ... but the real problem of the skeptics is that they can't let go of their fiat. >But the response of skeptics will always be "but I have to convert my fiat money". Here's a thought experiment for you. Your mother/father/neighbour's entire wealth is converted, at no cost to them, into BTC/ETH/whatever. What is their reaction? Is it, 'thank god we didn't have to pay those conversion fees!' I think not.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  Here's a thought experiment for you. How do you transfer money from US to: Venezuela, Mali, Lybia, Angolia, Tajikistan, Uruguay? I can give you a really simple answer when using crypto: you just transfer it. Can't wait to hear your answer for each of those countries, and the fees and delays associated with it. edit: some people go work in a western country and send money home to their family.
  - wackro 5y ago
    The fact that crypto exists without borders is great. But your idea that the only thing stopping sceptics from embracing it is fees is wrong. Also, your tone makes me think you've got a dog in this fight.