3 ms·

> MtGox being the most infamous example. I was there for it. I mined my first coins in late 2011. Few people want to run their local node (server), few people

by jmoak3 4y ago

> MtGox being the most infamous example. I was there for it. I mined my first coins in late 2011. Few people want to run their local node (server), few people want to point their wallet at their own node, and fewer people want to run code they've compiled themselves. If you aren't running your own node you are relying on someone else's. As a mass adoption decentralized trust-less technology for transacting, bitcoin has failed. That people are still getting burned by trusting major exchanges is hard to believe, and why you really can't make this up. It's stranger than fiction. >(but I have my suspicions). Yes, it is me. Jamie Dimon. Warren Buffett and George Soros are here next to me too. Bill Gates is on the way, and he's bringing chips and guac. We're all out to get those pesky crypto entrepreneurs.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
olalonde 4y ago
I'd say you have a more black-and-white vision than me. While it's not perfectly decentralized, e.g. some users do delegate their trust to centralized services for convenience or security, it is still more decentralized than fiat where (digital) self-custody is simply not possible. Decentralization and trust are a spectrum, not a binary. Even compiling the software yourself wouldn't get you 100% there [0]. I also feel that it's a bit early to call Bitcoin a failure but I do agree that it has a long way to go for mass atoption. Bitcoin is not disrupting the taxi or the hotel industry. It is disrupting the most entrenched and powerful "status quo" there is on Earth. We're talking about global banking, global finance, powerful governments, etc. Most people have no conception of what money really is or even that it could be different. > That people are still getting burned by trusting major exchanges is hard to believe, and why you really can't make this up. It's stranger than fiction. Surely you knew that Binance existed prior to this tweet? > Yes, it is me. Jamie Dimon. Warren Buffett and George Soros are here next to me too. Bill Gates is on the way, and he's bringing chips and guac. We're all out to get those pesky crypto entrepreneurs. My suspicion was simply that many HNers tend to reflexively upvote any comment that paints crypto in a bad light. [0] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...
- jmoak3 4y ago
  >I'd say you have a more black-and-white vision than me. I definitely do. If a part of bitcoin's chain of usage requires enough trust to ask the government to intervene to protect me, why not just trust the government? >My suspicion was simply that many HNers tend to reflexively upvote any comment that paints crypto in a bad light. I think that many people agree with me, and that it's not some reflex, fud, or deception.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    > I definitely do. If a part of bitcoin's chain of usage requires enough trust to ask the government to intervene to protect me, why not just trust the government? I am not sure I understand the question, Bitcoin does not require trust or intervention from the government. Your original comment is objectively incorrect in two different ways. It's not even remotely a surprising event[0] and most importantly, self-custody does not require running a server. Therefore I maintain my suspicion but enjoy your upvotes. [0] "You can't make this up": used to express great surprise. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/you-couldn-t-make-it-up https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/you-coul...
    - jmoak3 4y ago
      >self-custody does not require running a server. I disagree and have made my case elsewhere. Anymore and I think we'd be going in circles. >You can't make this up": used to express great surprise. I think I used it correctly, but agree to disagree on this as well. Sorry for confusing your suspicions with something more conspiratorial.
- namaria 4y ago
  >It is disrupting the most entrenched and powerful "status quo" there is on Earth. We're talking about global banking, global finance, powerful governments, etc. Quite the opposite. It's getting disrupted by rich, powerful people, who are rocking it as hard as they can to disabuse common people of the notion that they have any alternative.

by jmoak3 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

olalonde 4y ago

I'd say you have a more black-and-white vision than me. While it's not perfectly decentralized, e.g. some users do delegate their trust to centralized services for convenience or security, it is still more decentralized than fiat where (digital) self-custody is simply not possible. Decentralization and trust are a spectrum, not a binary. Even compiling the software yourself wouldn't get you 100% there [0]. I also feel that it's a bit early to call Bitcoin a failure but I do agree that it has a long way to go for mass atoption. Bitcoin is not disrupting the taxi or the hotel industry. It is disrupting the most entrenched and powerful "status quo" there is on Earth. We're talking about global banking, global finance, powerful governments, etc. Most people have no conception of what money really is or even that it could be different. > That people are still getting burned by trusting major exchanges is hard to believe, and why you really can't make this up. It's stranger than fiction. Surely you knew that Binance existed prior to this tweet? > Yes, it is me. Jamie Dimon. Warren Buffett and George Soros are here next to me too. Bill Gates is on the way, and he's bringing chips and guac. We're all out to get those pesky crypto entrepreneurs. My suspicion was simply that many HNers tend to reflexively upvote any comment that paints crypto in a bad light. [0] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...

jmoak3 4y ago
>I'd say you have a more black-and-white vision than me. I definitely do. If a part of bitcoin's chain of usage requires enough trust to ask the government to intervene to protect me, why not just trust the government? >My suspicion was simply that many HNers tend to reflexively upvote any comment that paints crypto in a bad light. I think that many people agree with me, and that it's not some reflex, fud, or deception.
- olalonde 4y ago
  > I definitely do. If a part of bitcoin's chain of usage requires enough trust to ask the government to intervene to protect me, why not just trust the government? I am not sure I understand the question, Bitcoin does not require trust or intervention from the government. Your original comment is objectively incorrect in two different ways. It's not even remotely a surprising event[0] and most importantly, self-custody does not require running a server. Therefore I maintain my suspicion but enjoy your upvotes. [0] "You can't make this up": used to express great surprise. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/you-couldn-t-make-it-up https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/you-coul...
  - jmoak3 4y ago
    >self-custody does not require running a server. I disagree and have made my case elsewhere. Anymore and I think we'd be going in circles. >You can't make this up": used to express great surprise. I think I used it correctly, but agree to disagree on this as well. Sorry for confusing your suspicions with something more conspiratorial.
namaria 4y ago
>It is disrupting the most entrenched and powerful "status quo" there is on Earth. We're talking about global banking, global finance, powerful governments, etc. Quite the opposite. It's getting disrupted by rich, powerful people, who are rocking it as hard as they can to disabuse common people of the notion that they have any alternative.