4 ms·

Is it safe to say that Bitcoin failed?

randomhodler84 4y ago
It is not safe to say, but rvz likes to keep saying it. When the blocks stop, it has failed. It’s a timechain, a decentralized clock. Tick Tock Next Block.
- rvz 4y ago
  > It is not safe to say, but rvz likes to keep saying it. Yes it is. Assuming you have read the whole article, it is safe to say that it has failed in its original purpose. I and and many others keep saying it because it is an irrefutable fact after many years of its existence. In the case of the author on Bitcoin and the contents of this article, he has made that totally clear. Hence, can one use it for on-chain payments as described in Satoshi's white-paper which was supposed to be better than the current system or even as a currency? Please think about your response to this question before answering.
  - jakupovic 4y ago
    Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true, same goes for your statements. Tick-tock next block ...
    - rvz 4y ago
      > Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true My 'statements' and that 'something' that I am repeating are based on the contents of the article. That is why I am assuming you also have read all of it before commenting here and some of the author's previous articles. So when are you going to refute them and answer a simple question? Or did you just rush here to comment knowing that you cannot answer the question and just repeat 'Tick-tock next block' after the next commenter? Is that why you cannot refute me or the article?
      - jakupovic 4y ago
        "As for the crypto-maximalists screaming about Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for on-chain payments and as a currency, it is safe to say that experiment has totally failed and that was found out the hard way." Crypto has not failed. These are your words, not from the article. You are wrong, as you don't have any proof. Also, the onus is on you to prove your statement. Right now it's baseless and doesn't further conversation. Is that clearer? Or do you need more words to explain your baseless position.
        nradov 4y ago
        So far cryptocurrency has failed for everything except facilitating certain illegal transactions (buying drugs, paying ransoms, evading currency controls). Someday we might find a real use case for it and then you can claim success, but that hasn't happened yet.
        jakupovic 4y ago
        Here we go again with baseless statements generalizing crypto success or not. Please prove or at least give a source for a sweeping statement you make: "So far cryptocurrency has failed for everything except facilitating certain illegal transactions (buying drugs, paying ransoms, evading currency controls)." Unless you can prove above it's worthless, and obviously you don't know this and as such your sweeping generalizations are worth exactly 0 (choose your currency). There are problems with any currency/commodity/anything, but saying X is failed/stupid/useless or anything else is worthless without proof, and as I was saying in my previous comments, none can predict future, so these general statements about future or present are completely pointless and go against HN standards, as again ther is no proof.
        nradov 4y ago
        That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. If you think that cryptocurrency has been or will be a success then the onus is on you to provide proof. So far it's just worthless garbage.
  - nwiswell 4y ago
    Broadly, I agree with you, Bitcoin has not yet lived up to the hopes and dreams of the early days. But that isn't the whole story, and it is not really honest to pretend like it is. While it has not become a widely-adopted currency, or even a widely-used payment settlement mechanism, it has become wildly successful as a speculative investment and on that basis it has burrowed deeply into the public consciousness. So while it's normally the case that when a new innovation comes along and fails to cross the adoption "chasm", we can close the book and say that it has "failed"; the odds it will have another chance are approximated by zero. But it appears that time remains on the side of bitcoin and cryptocurrency. Look how many headlines there are about crypto at the moment. We're talking about it on Hacker News, and the whitepaper was released in 2008. Crypto will almost assuredly get many more chances to eventually cross the chasm... perhaps someday it will succeed, when volatility has settled down and L2 technology is mature. We are still in the "periodic block halvings drive crazy bubbles" stage of life, but the impact of the halvings are sinking exponentially into irrelevance. In the end, you might be right; Bitcoin may never be a currency used for mundane payments. In fact, I personally agree that you probably will be right about that; the competing solutions are much, much better than they were in 2008. But it is simply too early to say, and it is definitely not "totally clear".
  - mirceal 4y ago
    that's some great mental gymnastics and goal post moving. "original purpose", "irrefutable fact", "many years of existence", "author of Bitcoin", "supposed to be better" yes, people use it for payments. yes, it is better than the "current system" as it literally cannot be censored (as shown by its banning - multiple times - in China).
    - rvz 4y ago
      There is no goal-post moving from me as it is straightforward to understand what the whole point of Bitcoin is about as explained by Satoshi Nakamoto himself in the white-paper. Assuming that you have read it, so is Satoshi moving the goal posts for Bitcoin? or is it the maximalists? > people use it for payments. Like in El Salvador who has adopted it as its 'legal tender'? It is going great isn't it and especially better and envisioned by Satoshi as a form of on-chain payment system? > as it literally cannot be censored (as shown by its banning - multiple times - in China). That is because its due to it being on-chain which that is decentralised despite the bans, which that is the whole point of Bitcoin. Is that what El Salvador and others are using it for?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

It is not safe to say, but rvz likes to keep saying it. When the blocks stop, it has failed. It’s a timechain, a decentralized clock. Tick Tock Next Block.

rvz 4y ago
> It is not safe to say, but rvz likes to keep saying it. Yes it is. Assuming you have read the whole article, it is safe to say that it has failed in its original purpose. I and and many others keep saying it because it is an irrefutable fact after many years of its existence. In the case of the author on Bitcoin and the contents of this article, he has made that totally clear. Hence, can one use it for on-chain payments as described in Satoshi's white-paper which was supposed to be better than the current system or even as a currency? Please think about your response to this question before answering.
- jakupovic 4y ago
  Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true, same goes for your statements. Tick-tock next block ...
  - rvz 4y ago
    > Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true My 'statements' and that 'something' that I am repeating are based on the contents of the article. That is why I am assuming you also have read all of it before commenting here and some of the author's previous articles. So when are you going to refute them and answer a simple question? Or did you just rush here to comment knowing that you cannot answer the question and just repeat 'Tick-tock next block' after the next commenter? Is that why you cannot refute me or the article?
    - jakupovic 4y ago
      "As for the crypto-maximalists screaming about Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for on-chain payments and as a currency, it is safe to say that experiment has totally failed and that was found out the hard way." Crypto has not failed. These are your words, not from the article. You are wrong, as you don't have any proof. Also, the onus is on you to prove your statement. Right now it's baseless and doesn't further conversation. Is that clearer? Or do you need more words to explain your baseless position.
      - nradov 4y ago
        So far cryptocurrency has failed for everything except facilitating certain illegal transactions (buying drugs, paying ransoms, evading currency controls). Someday we might find a real use case for it and then you can claim success, but that hasn't happened yet.
        jakupovic 4y ago
        Here we go again with baseless statements generalizing crypto success or not. Please prove or at least give a source for a sweeping statement you make: "So far cryptocurrency has failed for everything except facilitating certain illegal transactions (buying drugs, paying ransoms, evading currency controls)." Unless you can prove above it's worthless, and obviously you don't know this and as such your sweeping generalizations are worth exactly 0 (choose your currency). There are problems with any currency/commodity/anything, but saying X is failed/stupid/useless or anything else is worthless without proof, and as I was saying in my previous comments, none can predict future, so these general statements about future or present are completely pointless and go against HN standards, as again ther is no proof.
        nradov 4y ago
        That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. If you think that cryptocurrency has been or will be a success then the onus is on you to provide proof. So far it's just worthless garbage.
- nwiswell 4y ago
  Broadly, I agree with you, Bitcoin has not yet lived up to the hopes and dreams of the early days. But that isn't the whole story, and it is not really honest to pretend like it is. While it has not become a widely-adopted currency, or even a widely-used payment settlement mechanism, it has become wildly successful as a speculative investment and on that basis it has burrowed deeply into the public consciousness. So while it's normally the case that when a new innovation comes along and fails to cross the adoption "chasm", we can close the book and say that it has "failed"; the odds it will have another chance are approximated by zero. But it appears that time remains on the side of bitcoin and cryptocurrency. Look how many headlines there are about crypto at the moment. We're talking about it on Hacker News, and the whitepaper was released in 2008. Crypto will almost assuredly get many more chances to eventually cross the chasm... perhaps someday it will succeed, when volatility has settled down and L2 technology is mature. We are still in the "periodic block halvings drive crazy bubbles" stage of life, but the impact of the halvings are sinking exponentially into irrelevance. In the end, you might be right; Bitcoin may never be a currency used for mundane payments. In fact, I personally agree that you probably will be right about that; the competing solutions are much, much better than they were in 2008. But it is simply too early to say, and it is definitely not "totally clear".
- mirceal 4y ago
  that's some great mental gymnastics and goal post moving. "original purpose", "irrefutable fact", "many years of existence", "author of Bitcoin", "supposed to be better" yes, people use it for payments. yes, it is better than the "current system" as it literally cannot be censored (as shown by its banning - multiple times - in China).
  - rvz 4y ago
    There is no goal-post moving from me as it is straightforward to understand what the whole point of Bitcoin is about as explained by Satoshi Nakamoto himself in the white-paper. Assuming that you have read it, so is Satoshi moving the goal posts for Bitcoin? or is it the maximalists? > people use it for payments. Like in El Salvador who has adopted it as its 'legal tender'? It is going great isn't it and especially better and envisioned by Satoshi as a form of on-chain payment system? > as it literally cannot be censored (as shown by its banning - multiple times - in China). That is because its due to it being on-chain which that is decentralised despite the bans, which that is the whole point of Bitcoin. Is that what El Salvador and others are using it for?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]