7 ms·

>Of course this could be a Hacker News Dropbox comment moment. It's not. Cryptocurrency has been around for over a decade at this point, suffice to say that it

>Of course this could be a Hacker News Dropbox comment moment. It's not. Cryptocurrency has been around for over a decade at this point, suffice to say that it doesn't work. And why should it? The stated purpose of it is to be another form of unregulated private money, which we already knew was a bad idea hundreds of years ago. Wrapping it up in layers and layers of confusing (and pointless) technology doesn't make it any less of a bad idea.

jchw 5y ago
I’m with you. Of the folks I know who mess with crypto stuff in any capacity, none of them seem to actually think it’s a good idea. It’s just a way to make money. I don’t think VC-funded companies see it any differently. Maybe referencing the Dropbox comment is unfair. I know it gets widely over-referenced to begin with. I mostly just mean, I could always be wrong.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  I really can't blame them for doing it, when everyone around you appears to be in a mad gold rush then it makes sense to start selling shovels. At least if you get stuck with a bunch of shovels you can't sell, you can start a landscaping business or a farm. With crypto not so much.
zozbot234 5y ago
The purpose of crypto is to build a trusted, decentralized ledger that allows for the implementation of "smart contracts" defined by code. That could have plenty of applicability as a basic layer for all sorts of things. "Currency" might be one of them but not exclusively.
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  >defined by code. Humans a worse at writing code that does what it should and only what it should then they are at writing thing in their native languages.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  That's revisionist history, smart contracts did not come until way later. And smart contracts are also not anything remarkable, nor are they trusted or or even desirable. They are the equivalent to stored procedures in any other database, except bugs in them allow people to steal money straight out of your bank account with no recourse. This is why these discussions of blockchains are so frustrating to me. Do you think your bank couldn't allow you to upload random code into their internal database? On a purely technical level of course they could, it wouldn't even be that hard. But there are many, many reasons why they shouldn't and they don't.
  - Daviey 5y ago
    Why should your bank get to decide: - Which code you can run on your own funds - Decide which interfaces you can use to manage your funds - Where you are allowed to send it I'm quite ok with extended checks with crypto on/off ramps, but once it is in the network, I want control of my funds. [I say this as someone that has spent the last decade working in finance]
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      A big problem is that if you can run arbitrary code on your transactions, other people can too. This creates the financialization of everything at best. At worst, your access to basic systems is based on your past behavior.
    - throwaway82652 5y ago
      Because that is the entire point of keeping your money in a bank. Those things are all there to prevent other people from defrauding you. In a sense that's also why banks allow you to store money there "for free". This is the service you paid for. And even if you disagree with that premise, the solution is still not smart contracts because you also don't control those. This is more of the same frustrating conversation. You've named a problem and the solution is assumed to be blockchains but the dots don't connect at all. Don't think that finance companies can't get caught up in a market mania, because we know by now that they're often the worst victims.

jchw 5y ago

I’m with you. Of the folks I know who mess with crypto stuff in any capacity, none of them seem to actually think it’s a good idea. It’s just a way to make money. I don’t think VC-funded companies see it any differently. Maybe referencing the Dropbox comment is unfair. I know it gets widely over-referenced to begin with. I mostly just mean, I could always be wrong.

throwaway82652 5y ago
I really can't blame them for doing it, when everyone around you appears to be in a mad gold rush then it makes sense to start selling shovels. At least if you get stuck with a bunch of shovels you can't sell, you can start a landscaping business or a farm. With crypto not so much.

zozbot234 5y ago

The purpose of crypto is to build a trusted, decentralized ledger that allows for the implementation of "smart contracts" defined by code. That could have plenty of applicability as a basic layer for all sorts of things. "Currency" might be one of them but not exclusively.

JaimeThompson 5y ago
>defined by code. Humans a worse at writing code that does what it should and only what it should then they are at writing thing in their native languages.
throwaway82652 5y ago
That's revisionist history, smart contracts did not come until way later. And smart contracts are also not anything remarkable, nor are they trusted or or even desirable. They are the equivalent to stored procedures in any other database, except bugs in them allow people to steal money straight out of your bank account with no recourse. This is why these discussions of blockchains are so frustrating to me. Do you think your bank couldn't allow you to upload random code into their internal database? On a purely technical level of course they could, it wouldn't even be that hard. But there are many, many reasons why they shouldn't and they don't.
- Daviey 5y ago
  Why should your bank get to decide: - Which code you can run on your own funds - Decide which interfaces you can use to manage your funds - Where you are allowed to send it I'm quite ok with extended checks with crypto on/off ramps, but once it is in the network, I want control of my funds. [I say this as someone that has spent the last decade working in finance]
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    A big problem is that if you can run arbitrary code on your transactions, other people can too. This creates the financialization of everything at best. At worst, your access to basic systems is based on your past behavior.
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    Because that is the entire point of keeping your money in a bank. Those things are all there to prevent other people from defrauding you. In a sense that's also why banks allow you to store money there "for free". This is the service you paid for. And even if you disagree with that premise, the solution is still not smart contracts because you also don't control those. This is more of the same frustrating conversation. You've named a problem and the solution is assumed to be blockchains but the dots don't connect at all. Don't think that finance companies can't get caught up in a market mania, because we know by now that they're often the worst victims.