4 ms·

Many of us were excited when bitcoin came out, about both the technology, and the concept of a currency that sovereigns can't control. The problem is, blockchai

Many of us were excited when bitcoin came out, about both the technology, and the concept of a currency that sovereigns can't control. The problem is, blockchain / cryptocurrency failed to deliver in any practical way, and as a concept was hijacked by scammers, so the only real hype now is from people trying to bypass securities laws so they can scam you. Find a way I can actually electronically teleport money to pay for something without a trusted authority, without volatility and fees and scams, and I'll be all over it. But most of us went up and down the hype cycle on bitcoin years ago, and are just watching it's vestigial promise be used to promote a scam, so we're negative about it.

neb_b 5y ago
I think it's more that it's delivering in a practical way to people that live in authoritarian governments with currencies that are more unstable than bitcoin. In places where the citizens have to deal with their governments literally trying to steal their hard assets. For those of us who live in countries with a good banking system and mostly stable currencies (which is most of hn), bitcoin isn't a necessity.
- laszlo-kiss 5y ago
  It seems Canada matches the 'good banking system' and 'stable currency' attributes, yet didn't the truckers get robbed by the government? When a government is able to engage in financial retribution against its critics, its own citizenry, Bitcoin might be necessary.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    Idk about that characterization, but I don’t see how crypto changes anything. They’ll just hold you in contempt until you turn over the keys or hack you.
    - andirk 5y ago
      Plenty of us have cold storage wallets from years ago. Not theoretically impossible to track but pretty darn difficult. To contrast, any and every bank account and ETF holdings (in the USA) are extremely KYC'd.
  - aroberge 5y ago
    > yet didn't the truckers get robbed by the government? No. In the end, a few accounts were proactively and temporarily frozen by banks acting on their own, which they could (possibly would) have done due to fintrac [1] requirements. [1] https://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/intro-eng https://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/intro-eng
laszlo-kiss 5y ago
Indeed using Bitcoin for payment does not seem a good fit. However, Bitcoin could be viewed as the world reserve currency that is impossible to debase. This can give stability to all other currencies that are based on it. I think that would be a good thing. It would reduce governments' ability to deficit spend, thus reduce the likelihood of financing armies that can be used for aggression... It would not eliminate wars entirely, but would make financing them very difficult. Unfortunately, scammers are everywhere. I think it is my responsibility to do the best I can to avoid falling for various schemes. I hold that Bitcoin is not the cause of the scams. I unfortunately missed the early days of Bitcoin because I was concerned about being robbed and secondarily I did not understand (or even known about) the intent Satoshi had when he invented the thing... Thank you for your feedback!
- smoldesu 5y ago
  > I hold that Bitcoin is not the cause of the scams. I wish I could agree, as someone who remains eternally hopeful for crypto. Unfortunately, it's almost certainly not the case. When half a billion dollars goes missing from the US banking system, we can follow the paper trail every time. Criminals never cash out at that scale, especially when they wire money digitally. There's always an account to find, a wire transfer to track, or another bank to contact. The centralization is their saving grace against these scams. When half a billion dollars goes missing from a DAO or someone's cold wallet, they're fucked. Those coins get tumbled and are almost certainly never seen again. The bad guys win every time, which makes it highly unattractive for any investment at scale. Which raises the ultimatum of Bitcoin, and cryptocurrency as a whole: to hold, or not to hold? That is the question. Custody is the bottom line here, and there's no easy answer. The public will always prefer to have someone else manage their account, which removes their agency and increases the capability of private parties debasing the asset. The higher the demand, the further the centralization progresses. Unfortunately, that demand is nearly unlimited and the benefits of managing your own wallet are slim compared to the work and upfront knowledge it requires. > It would reduce governments' ability to deficit spend, thus reduce the likelihood of financing armies that can be used for aggression... It would not eliminate wars entirely, but would make financing them very difficult. This is completely false. There is not a single first-world country that would base the value of their currency on crypto, and having cryptocurrency exist as an independent fiat makes it extraordinarily easy to fund combat. Terrorist organizations could accept donations via untraceable coins and cash out anonymously. Extremist sects could fund themselves privately without scrutiny. Even in your idyllic example, it would only embolden countries like Russia to pillage their neighbors since they don't need to worry about the consequences of financial sanctions, being cut off from the world's banking system, or even worrying about the value of their own currency. If anything, the world embracing crypto all at once would escalate the financing of combat to unconscionable heights.
kradeelav 5y ago
+1, plus the negative effects bitcoin mining are having on the environment as well as the chip shortage.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
andirk 5y ago
I use bitcoin to do my sports gambling all the time. Works out great and the online bookie I use gives incentives to use it as well. It works perfectly for that. I also give BTC as gifts. Also works perfectly for that. It's not a day-to-day thing for me because I use USD and my insurance-backed credit card for that.
aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
How about Dogecoin via a random Starlink base far from your normal route? That could be coming soon. If it doesn't, something like it will.

neb_b 5y ago

I think it's more that it's delivering in a practical way to people that live in authoritarian governments with currencies that are more unstable than bitcoin. In places where the citizens have to deal with their governments literally trying to steal their hard assets. For those of us who live in countries with a good banking system and mostly stable currencies (which is most of hn), bitcoin isn't a necessity.

laszlo-kiss 5y ago
It seems Canada matches the 'good banking system' and 'stable currency' attributes, yet didn't the truckers get robbed by the government? When a government is able to engage in financial retribution against its critics, its own citizenry, Bitcoin might be necessary.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  Idk about that characterization, but I don’t see how crypto changes anything. They’ll just hold you in contempt until you turn over the keys or hack you.
  - andirk 5y ago
    Plenty of us have cold storage wallets from years ago. Not theoretically impossible to track but pretty darn difficult. To contrast, any and every bank account and ETF holdings (in the USA) are extremely KYC'd.
- aroberge 5y ago
  > yet didn't the truckers get robbed by the government? No. In the end, a few accounts were proactively and temporarily frozen by banks acting on their own, which they could (possibly would) have done due to fintrac [1] requirements. [1] https://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/intro-eng https://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/intro-eng

laszlo-kiss 5y ago

Indeed using Bitcoin for payment does not seem a good fit. However, Bitcoin could be viewed as the world reserve currency that is impossible to debase. This can give stability to all other currencies that are based on it. I think that would be a good thing. It would reduce governments' ability to deficit spend, thus reduce the likelihood of financing armies that can be used for aggression... It would not eliminate wars entirely, but would make financing them very difficult. Unfortunately, scammers are everywhere. I think it is my responsibility to do the best I can to avoid falling for various schemes. I hold that Bitcoin is not the cause of the scams. I unfortunately missed the early days of Bitcoin because I was concerned about being robbed and secondarily I did not understand (or even known about) the intent Satoshi had when he invented the thing... Thank you for your feedback!

smoldesu 5y ago
> I hold that Bitcoin is not the cause of the scams. I wish I could agree, as someone who remains eternally hopeful for crypto. Unfortunately, it's almost certainly not the case. When half a billion dollars goes missing from the US banking system, we can follow the paper trail every time. Criminals never cash out at that scale, especially when they wire money digitally. There's always an account to find, a wire transfer to track, or another bank to contact. The centralization is their saving grace against these scams. When half a billion dollars goes missing from a DAO or someone's cold wallet, they're fucked. Those coins get tumbled and are almost certainly never seen again. The bad guys win every time, which makes it highly unattractive for any investment at scale. Which raises the ultimatum of Bitcoin, and cryptocurrency as a whole: to hold, or not to hold? That is the question. Custody is the bottom line here, and there's no easy answer. The public will always prefer to have someone else manage their account, which removes their agency and increases the capability of private parties debasing the asset. The higher the demand, the further the centralization progresses. Unfortunately, that demand is nearly unlimited and the benefits of managing your own wallet are slim compared to the work and upfront knowledge it requires. > It would reduce governments' ability to deficit spend, thus reduce the likelihood of financing armies that can be used for aggression... It would not eliminate wars entirely, but would make financing them very difficult. This is completely false. There is not a single first-world country that would base the value of their currency on crypto, and having cryptocurrency exist as an independent fiat makes it extraordinarily easy to fund combat. Terrorist organizations could accept donations via untraceable coins and cash out anonymously. Extremist sects could fund themselves privately without scrutiny. Even in your idyllic example, it would only embolden countries like Russia to pillage their neighbors since they don't need to worry about the consequences of financial sanctions, being cut off from the world's banking system, or even worrying about the value of their own currency. If anything, the world embracing crypto all at once would escalate the financing of combat to unconscionable heights.

kradeelav 5y ago

+1, plus the negative effects bitcoin mining are having on the environment as well as the chip shortage.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

andirk 5y ago

I use bitcoin to do my sports gambling all the time. Works out great and the online bookie I use gives incentives to use it as well. It works perfectly for that. I also give BTC as gifts. Also works perfectly for that. It's not a day-to-day thing for me because I use USD and my insurance-backed credit card for that.

aaaaaaaaata 5y ago

How about Dogecoin via a random Starlink base far from your normal route? That could be coming soon. If it doesn't, something like it will.