5 ms·

> it's unrelenting hate for crypto and crypto adjacent topics is unfounded. How is it unfounded? The carbon and ewaste problems are well documented. Any fixes

> it's unrelenting hate for crypto and crypto adjacent topics is unfounded. How is it unfounded? The carbon and ewaste problems are well documented. Any fixes for that (eg Proof of Stake) have either compromised Bitcoin's original focus on decentralization, continually delayed release, or both. Over a decade after Bitcoin's launch few use cases have emerged and none of them have proven durable. The ICO craze came and went. DeFi is still muddling along with ever more convoluted cryptoshadows of regulated fiat finance. NFTs are all the rage but currently about as intellectually stimulating as baseball cards. Hacks and scams abound far beyond any other industry. Both "sides" of the crypto debate are welcome to share their opinions on HN. The constant stream of blockchain links on HN makes me think there are plenty of at least crypto-curious folks around. I'm not sure why the pro side feels so attacked. Share your thoughts. Share your use cases. Advance the field. Prove us on the other side wrong.

ryanSrich 5y ago
> How is it unfounded? The carbon and ewaste problems are well documented. Without a benchmark this means nothing. Just because a new technology contributes to ewaste we should just ignore it and bury it? No use in trying to fix it right? Just kill the technology because it contributes to ewaste. That doesn't make any sense. Not to mention the majority of the uproar around Crypto being a danger to the environment is completely overblown https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/20/bitcoin-mining-environmental-impact-new-study.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/20/bitcoin-mining-environmental... > Over a decade after Bitcoin's launch few use cases have emerged and none of them have proven durable Durable in what sense? I can take some Bitcoin right now and purchase almost anything I want. Seems like that money use case is pretty durable to me. > The ICO craze came and went. DeFi is still muddling along with ever more convoluted cryptoshadows of regulated fiat finance. NFTs are all the rage but currently about as intellectually stimulating as baseball cards. Hacks and scams abound far beyond any other industry. You're just conflating scams with crypto as a technology. If you can't find merit in cryptocurrency while at the same time thinking NFTs are mostly a scam you lack imagination. I'll be the first one to admit I think the following are all mostly scams, useless, or only serve to create bag holders: - NFTs - DAOs - ICOs (not really a thing anymore) That doesn't deter me one bit from thinking that Bitcoin, ETH, and a handful of layer 1s are genuinely useful in creating technology to digitize money and decentralize finance. How long is it going to take? Idk. 10 years seems like not enough time. Idk why people are complaining about the lack of use cases. Something as ground breaking as disrupting the banking system is going to be a multi-decade long endeavour. Scams will come and go. That seems like a natural progression.
- bduerst 5y ago
  That article you link is out of date. Global BTC energy consumption is now double[1] what it was in July, meaning the claim that it's somehow getting better spurious. The article also acknowledges that the energy consumption criticism is a valid issue (even despite the stats being out of date). [1] https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index
  - landemva 5y ago
    I think it is worth it to separate money from State. Now we just need the militaries to cut their defense-of-fiat-money forces in half.
    - schmichael 5y ago
      I can respect this view on cryptocurrency. I don't agree with it (I <3 representative democracy), but I can absolutely respect it. Giving up centralization and trust is expensive from an efficiency standpoint. If you look at Bitcoin for every day transactions it lags fiat in almost every functional dimension: latency, user experience, power usage, scalability, etc. But! Bitcoin does have one completely novel trick! It can operate without State backing. No authorities. No trust between parties (whether miner<->miner, node<->miner, or node<->node). Centralization seems somewhat questionable these days, but I think "decentralized enough" is a fair assessment. None of this is something I look for in a currency, but I can appreciate how cryptocurrencies fill that niche for those who do.
    - bduerst 5y ago
      I disagree on the former. Destroying the environment just to get a shitty, inefficient, non-competitive payment system because you don't like the U.S. Federal Reserve isn't a good trade.
- Animats 5y ago
  ICOs (not really a thing anymore) Right. This is why.[1] That's the SEC's list of "cyber enforcement actions". They have been bringing the hammer down on about two ICOs a month since 2018. Last August, they started in on DeFi.[2] “The federal securities laws apply with equal force to age-old frauds wrapped in today’s latest technology,” said Daniel Michael, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Complex Financial Instruments Unit. “Here, the labeling of the offering as decentralized and the securities as governance tokens did not hinder us from ensuring that DeFi Money Market was immediately shut down and that investors were paid back." [1] https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-actions https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti... [2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-145 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-145

ryanSrich 5y ago

> How is it unfounded? The carbon and ewaste problems are well documented. Without a benchmark this means nothing. Just because a new technology contributes to ewaste we should just ignore it and bury it? No use in trying to fix it right? Just kill the technology because it contributes to ewaste. That doesn't make any sense. Not to mention the majority of the uproar around Crypto being a danger to the environment is completely overblown https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/20/bitcoin-mining-environmental-impact-new-study.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/20/bitcoin-mining-environmental... > Over a decade after Bitcoin's launch few use cases have emerged and none of them have proven durable Durable in what sense? I can take some Bitcoin right now and purchase almost anything I want. Seems like that money use case is pretty durable to me. > The ICO craze came and went. DeFi is still muddling along with ever more convoluted cryptoshadows of regulated fiat finance. NFTs are all the rage but currently about as intellectually stimulating as baseball cards. Hacks and scams abound far beyond any other industry. You're just conflating scams with crypto as a technology. If you can't find merit in cryptocurrency while at the same time thinking NFTs are mostly a scam you lack imagination. I'll be the first one to admit I think the following are all mostly scams, useless, or only serve to create bag holders: - NFTs - DAOs - ICOs (not really a thing anymore) That doesn't deter me one bit from thinking that Bitcoin, ETH, and a handful of layer 1s are genuinely useful in creating technology to digitize money and decentralize finance. How long is it going to take? Idk. 10 years seems like not enough time. Idk why people are complaining about the lack of use cases. Something as ground breaking as disrupting the banking system is going to be a multi-decade long endeavour. Scams will come and go. That seems like a natural progression.

bduerst 5y ago
That article you link is out of date. Global BTC energy consumption is now double[1] what it was in July, meaning the claim that it's somehow getting better spurious. The article also acknowledges that the energy consumption criticism is a valid issue (even despite the stats being out of date). [1] https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index
- landemva 5y ago
  I think it is worth it to separate money from State. Now we just need the militaries to cut their defense-of-fiat-money forces in half.
  - schmichael 5y ago
    I can respect this view on cryptocurrency. I don't agree with it (I <3 representative democracy), but I can absolutely respect it. Giving up centralization and trust is expensive from an efficiency standpoint. If you look at Bitcoin for every day transactions it lags fiat in almost every functional dimension: latency, user experience, power usage, scalability, etc. But! Bitcoin does have one completely novel trick! It can operate without State backing. No authorities. No trust between parties (whether miner<->miner, node<->miner, or node<->node). Centralization seems somewhat questionable these days, but I think "decentralized enough" is a fair assessment. None of this is something I look for in a currency, but I can appreciate how cryptocurrencies fill that niche for those who do.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    I disagree on the former. Destroying the environment just to get a shitty, inefficient, non-competitive payment system because you don't like the U.S. Federal Reserve isn't a good trade.
Animats 5y ago
ICOs (not really a thing anymore) Right. This is why.[1] That's the SEC's list of "cyber enforcement actions". They have been bringing the hammer down on about two ICOs a month since 2018. Last August, they started in on DeFi.[2] “The federal securities laws apply with equal force to age-old frauds wrapped in today’s latest technology,” said Daniel Michael, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Complex Financial Instruments Unit. “Here, the labeling of the offering as decentralized and the securities as governance tokens did not hinder us from ensuring that DeFi Money Market was immediately shut down and that investors were paid back." [1] https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-actions https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti... [2] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-145 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-145