4 ms·

Open source crypto protocols are completely irrelevant without connections to crypto companies. There's this fantasy that crypto can replace money, and that yo

Open source crypto protocols are completely irrelevant without connections to crypto companies. There's this fantasy that crypto can replace money, and that you would therefore never need to trade it for real dollars. That's not going to happen, for reasons outlined in the article and because no medium of exchange that's deflationary can ever be a currency. If it goes up in value over time, it's an investment and people won't spend it. Will the open source be free forever? Sure. Whatever. Can people run nodes that burn electricity? Yup. Does that matter? In no way that's relevant to the general public. Worse, even the crypto networks themselves are subject to issues with their authority: Enough bad actors who join can steal the value of a large percentage of the network. When we're looking at potential theft of billions of dollars, you better bet that someone will invest the hundreds of millions required to rewrite the chain and take control of a large number of coins. Then what? Then everyone will need to get together and act like a central authority to either rewrite the chain back to its state before the attack, in which case you do need to rely on a central authority, or you need to admit that _allowing untrusted nodes into a financial network is a Bad Idea._ "Censorship resistance" is irrelevant too, by the way.

dogman144 4y ago
> Open source crypto protocols are completely irrelevant without connections to crypto companies Bitcoin, an open source crypto protocol, launched without the existence of crypto companies. Mt Gox, instead of helping btc, almost set it back years due to the hack. Bitcoin grew adoption and scale on tor/DNMs and localbitcoins, both of which had organic, non-exchange economic activity which kept accounting in pure crypto vs returning to fiat/needing an exchange. The attack you’re describing is a 51% attack, and it had yet to happen due to protocol design on the main chains. If it does, I suppose you’d be right. But I generally think you don’t understand how the tech works and what proof of concepts exist to disprove your opinions, or at least strongly counter your opinions. and without addressing why they’re wrong you have a weak argument.
- SomeCallMeTim 4y ago
  What good is Bitcoin without the ability to trade it then? Your assertions are the ones that are extraordinary, so yours is the side that requires proof. You're effectively claiming that a distributed peer database with a somewhat secure history has some kind of intrinsic value. I'm calling that BS. Where is the money? Where is the _value_? The fact that a few people were trading Bitcoins doesn't mean it can ever go mainstream. Something that's a niche hobby isn't going to change the world. If you want to use Bitcoin as a hobby barter medium, then have fun, but that doesn't imply value outside of a tiny community. Prove me wrong. A "proof of concept" is in the technology domain. For crypto to work outside of a community of crypto-libertarians, it needs to be usable by regular people. Libertarians are famous for not actually being able to design social systems that work in the real world; last time they tried they were chased away by bears. [1] And as the article pointed out (did you read it?), most apps that support crypto rely on a centralized server since the chain can't be downloaded to mobile devices. How useful is a medium of exchange that requires you to bring a laptop with you everywhere? [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...
  - dogman144 4y ago
    > Your assertions are the ones that are extraordinary, so yours is the side that requires proof. Ah, or your assertions are akin in a technical sense to saying “the internet is a complex series of tubes, prove me otherwise!” Your criticism is based on a pretty clearly patchy technical understanding.

dogman144 4y ago

> Open source crypto protocols are completely irrelevant without connections to crypto companies Bitcoin, an open source crypto protocol, launched without the existence of crypto companies. Mt Gox, instead of helping btc, almost set it back years due to the hack. Bitcoin grew adoption and scale on tor/DNMs and localbitcoins, both of which had organic, non-exchange economic activity which kept accounting in pure crypto vs returning to fiat/needing an exchange. The attack you’re describing is a 51% attack, and it had yet to happen due to protocol design on the main chains. If it does, I suppose you’d be right. But I generally think you don’t understand how the tech works and what proof of concepts exist to disprove your opinions, or at least strongly counter your opinions. and without addressing why they’re wrong you have a weak argument.

SomeCallMeTim 4y ago
What good is Bitcoin without the ability to trade it then? Your assertions are the ones that are extraordinary, so yours is the side that requires proof. You're effectively claiming that a distributed peer database with a somewhat secure history has some kind of intrinsic value. I'm calling that BS. Where is the money? Where is the _value_? The fact that a few people were trading Bitcoins doesn't mean it can ever go mainstream. Something that's a niche hobby isn't going to change the world. If you want to use Bitcoin as a hobby barter medium, then have fun, but that doesn't imply value outside of a tiny community. Prove me wrong. A "proof of concept" is in the technology domain. For crypto to work outside of a community of crypto-libertarians, it needs to be usable by regular people. Libertarians are famous for not actually being able to design social systems that work in the real world; last time they tried they were chased away by bears. [1] And as the article pointed out (did you read it?), most apps that support crypto rely on a centralized server since the chain can't be downloaded to mobile devices. How useful is a medium of exchange that requires you to bring a laptop with you everywhere? [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...
- dogman144 4y ago
  > Your assertions are the ones that are extraordinary, so yours is the side that requires proof. Ah, or your assertions are akin in a technical sense to saying “the internet is a complex series of tubes, prove me otherwise!” Your criticism is based on a pretty clearly patchy technical understanding.