4 ms·

"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

"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.
    - junofan 4y ago
      It’s proven to be a great way to bootstrap new things that have heavy network effects. I think more and more businesses will take advantage of this effect—it’s pretty powerful.
      - nradov 4y ago
        Which new things specifically? And how does that work without violating securities laws?
    - jakupovic 4y ago
      "If you think that cryptocurrency has been or will be a success then the onus is on you to provide proof" The fact that crypto. exists, makes me correct and crypto success provable. Your statement is false as, again, crypto exists. As long as the crypto space exists and has value above 0, it is not worthless and that makes you wrong. Not sure how basic you need this proof to be, but here is one more attempt. 1 > 0, 1 being crypto existence and 0 it not existing.
      - nradov 4y ago
        Pocket lint also exists. Does that prove the success of pocket lint?
        jakupovic 4y ago
        I don't see anyone paying $30k for any amount of lint. So not comparable. What's comparable is something you can get money for, like for example bitcoin. You can also use bitcoin as collateral to buy things. Example: https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/goldman-offers-first-bitcoin-backed-194245858.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/... Now I want to see you bring an example of pocket lint being used as collateral. Pretty sure you cannot, therefore you're wrong again, and probably should admit so and learn something, instead of being ignorant.
- mirceal 4y ago
  > facilitating certain illegal transactions (buying drugs, paying ransoms, evading currency controls). how about sending money all around the world with minimum fees? or paying for your VPN to preserve your privacy? (Mullvad FTW). Or donating to charity? (https://www.savethechildren.org/us/ways-to-help/ways-to-give/ways-to-help/cryptocurrency-donation https://www.savethechildren.org/us/ways-to-help/ways-to-give...). What does currency controls even mean? Hate to brake it to you bud, like 99% of drugs are bought using the good old dollar. Does that make the dollar bad? Should we ban the dollar? People have found real use cases. Just because you haven't experienced something yourself it doesn't mean that it doesn't exists?
rvz 4y ago
> Crypto has not failed. These are your words, not from the article. And where in those words did I say that 'Crypto has failed'? Did I say 'about Crypto'? or was it 'about Bitcoin'?, the one who's author's name is 'Satoshi Nakamoto', and published a white-paper titled: 'Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system'? Of all replies to me, everyone (except you) knew that I was talking about Bitcoin being a failure in its original purpose. The evidence that supports my claim(s) is all backed by the contents of this article and others by the same author, assuming you have read them. But of course, if you needed to misinterpret my own sentence and create a straw-man out of it, that tells me that you still couldn't refute the article or my claim(s) about Bitcoin being a failure in its original purpose. > Is that clearer? Or do you need more words to explain your baseless position. Perhaps you need to explain why you're the only one that knowingly invented a straw-man to escape refuting the article and answering my question. If the majority of commenters to my reply recognised that I am referring to Bitcoin, it's more clearer to me that maybe the article and the replies here are beyond your own reading comprehension. Maybe that explains why you needed to find a way to escape refuting the article and answering my simple question, which is proving to be increasingly difficult for you every time you dodge it. So are you going to finally refute the article and give a sensible answer to my question? Or do you still need more time to finish reading the article before you reply back and post something unintelligent again? Since it turns out you still haven't finished reading it and just rushed into posting here in the comments section.
- mirceal 4y ago
  > Of all replies to me, everyone (except you) knew that I was talking about Bitcoin being a failure in its original purpose. Nope. Not everyone. You are making vague overarching claims. When you get pushback you are moving the goalposts.
  - rvz 4y ago
    > Nope. Not everyone. Yes. Everyone here replying to me. Even in your replies, you still recognised I was talking about Bitcoin. Unless you want to admit to me that you did not read the replies? > You are making vague overarching claims. When you get pushback you are moving the goalposts. At most 24 hours is plenty of time to give you the chance to finish reading the article(s) and come up with a response that directly refutes the article and my questions if you think the claims made there are wrong. So are YOU going to refute them and answer my question(s) if you think they are "vague", "overarching" claims? Every time you hesitate or respond by avoiding the question(s) it is more clearer to me that not only they are difficult for you to answer, but you are unable to refute them.

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.
  - junofan 4y ago
    It’s proven to be a great way to bootstrap new things that have heavy network effects. I think more and more businesses will take advantage of this effect—it’s pretty powerful.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Which new things specifically? And how does that work without violating securities laws?
  - jakupovic 4y ago
    "If you think that cryptocurrency has been or will be a success then the onus is on you to provide proof" The fact that crypto. exists, makes me correct and crypto success provable. Your statement is false as, again, crypto exists. As long as the crypto space exists and has value above 0, it is not worthless and that makes you wrong. Not sure how basic you need this proof to be, but here is one more attempt. 1 > 0, 1 being crypto existence and 0 it not existing.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Pocket lint also exists. Does that prove the success of pocket lint?
      - jakupovic 4y ago
        I don't see anyone paying $30k for any amount of lint. So not comparable. What's comparable is something you can get money for, like for example bitcoin. You can also use bitcoin as collateral to buy things. Example: https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/goldman-offers-first-bitcoin-backed-194245858.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/... Now I want to see you bring an example of pocket lint being used as collateral. Pretty sure you cannot, therefore you're wrong again, and probably should admit so and learn something, instead of being ignorant.
mirceal 4y ago
> facilitating certain illegal transactions (buying drugs, paying ransoms, evading currency controls). how about sending money all around the world with minimum fees? or paying for your VPN to preserve your privacy? (Mullvad FTW). Or donating to charity? (https://www.savethechildren.org/us/ways-to-help/ways-to-give/ways-to-help/cryptocurrency-donation https://www.savethechildren.org/us/ways-to-help/ways-to-give...). What does currency controls even mean? Hate to brake it to you bud, like 99% of drugs are bought using the good old dollar. Does that make the dollar bad? Should we ban the dollar? People have found real use cases. Just because you haven't experienced something yourself it doesn't mean that it doesn't exists?

rvz 4y ago

> Crypto has not failed. These are your words, not from the article. And where in those words did I say that 'Crypto has failed'? Did I say 'about Crypto'? or was it 'about Bitcoin'?, the one who's author's name is 'Satoshi Nakamoto', and published a white-paper titled: 'Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system'? Of all replies to me, everyone (except you) knew that I was talking about Bitcoin being a failure in its original purpose. The evidence that supports my claim(s) is all backed by the contents of this article and others by the same author, assuming you have read them. But of course, if you needed to misinterpret my own sentence and create a straw-man out of it, that tells me that you still couldn't refute the article or my claim(s) about Bitcoin being a failure in its original purpose. > Is that clearer? Or do you need more words to explain your baseless position. Perhaps you need to explain why you're the only one that knowingly invented a straw-man to escape refuting the article and answering my question. If the majority of commenters to my reply recognised that I am referring to Bitcoin, it's more clearer to me that maybe the article and the replies here are beyond your own reading comprehension. Maybe that explains why you needed to find a way to escape refuting the article and answering my simple question, which is proving to be increasingly difficult for you every time you dodge it. So are you going to finally refute the article and give a sensible answer to my question? Or do you still need more time to finish reading the article before you reply back and post something unintelligent again? Since it turns out you still haven't finished reading it and just rushed into posting here in the comments section.

mirceal 4y ago
> Of all replies to me, everyone (except you) knew that I was talking about Bitcoin being a failure in its original purpose. Nope. Not everyone. You are making vague overarching claims. When you get pushback you are moving the goalposts.
- rvz 4y ago
  > Nope. Not everyone. Yes. Everyone here replying to me. Even in your replies, you still recognised I was talking about Bitcoin. Unless you want to admit to me that you did not read the replies? > You are making vague overarching claims. When you get pushback you are moving the goalposts. At most 24 hours is plenty of time to give you the chance to finish reading the article(s) and come up with a response that directly refutes the article and my questions if you think the claims made there are wrong. So are YOU going to refute them and answer my question(s) if you think they are "vague", "overarching" claims? Every time you hesitate or respond by avoiding the question(s) it is more clearer to me that not only they are difficult for you to answer, but you are unable to refute them.