4 ms·

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

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.

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.