5 ms·

For some people here everything is about how crypto is bad.

by Tenoke 4y ago

roflc0ptic 4y ago
It’s a tech site; there’s a whole tech industry devoted to what is basically securities fraud, and it’s annoying. I work in smart contracts trying to build an ambitious global network, so I’m not exactly some Luddite afraid of the future. If I read an article about people artificially inflating the price of something in a pump and dump scheme, I pattern match that to crypto. I’m tired of hearing about it, too, but I to stop hearing about it because someone regulated the fraudsters out of business, not because defrauding unsophisticated people became a norm we don’t criticize.
- jahsome 4y ago
  Just replace "crypto" with "human nature" or "capitalism." Fraud is not exclusive to crypto, it's just laughably easy.
acjohnson55 4y ago
Nah, only 95% of it. Look, there are plenty of technologists who are very into crypto. You can find lots of them here. But to many, it reeks of some long-reviled parts of the tech scene: vaporware and marketing hype. And that's before you get into the astounding levels of fraud and waste. At this point, crypto is much more of a social phenomenon than a technological one. That's not a problem in itself. The issue is that foundation is one where legimately interesting technology is neither necessary nor sufficient to solve very many real-world problems, but the financialization at the core of it facilitates these collective delusions that it is. Everyone's LARPing the original dotcom bubble, but the world's entirely different. The dotcom bubble certainly had its crackpots, but it also had a lot of people who accurately saw that pervasive networking was going to unlock massive opportunity. But the low hanging fruit has been plucked over the past 25 years. Web3 people are trying to tell the world that a decentralized permissionless log is as the same magnitude of technological impact, and it simply isn't.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >Look, there are plenty of technologists who are very into crypto One of the reasons why everything about crypto is bad is because the technologists who are into it can tell you what the code does, but the "business people" who are into it can't tell you why this crypto use case couldn't/shouldn't be backed by a centralized database. Literally name a use case and I will tell you how a centralized database would be better. Even if the Internet boom of the late90's was full of grifters, at least most could explain why an email is better than a letter,
  - SgtBastard 4y ago
    I’m anti-cryptocurrency (forget the tech, the economics make no sense) but the censorship resistance of a distributed ledger is surely stronger than a centralised database?
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      It's not clear that there is really much value in one of those - certainly net-net. The problem is that a blockchain can only trustlessly and verifiably encode things that are wholly represented on-chain. As soon as you bridge it to anything in the real world you're relying on some degree of trust, and trustlessness is all-or-nothing. That's why only proper un-backed-by-anything cryptocurrencies actually make any sense - they're wholly on-chain. On the other hand their value flails around wildly like a balloon you forgot to tie off and that limits their practical value to basically nothing. Their monetary policy is in the hands of some un-elected group of randos accountable only to their own enrichment. Stablecoins: who knows whether they're redeemable? You just have to trust the issuer and the legal system. They also get frozen all the time - Tether freezes more tokens than anyone and there's zero process and probably zero backing. Even Circle/USDC lied about their backing. Deeds on the blockchain: not your keys not your house? Ok, no thanks? If you have to rely on the court to have final say then the real world diverges from the chain and of course then why even have a chain? The iron law of blockchain is "if you think the blockchain is a good solution to any given problem you either don't know enough about the blockchain or you don't know enough about the problem." It's not clear they're anything more than a technological curiosity that's been coopted by anarchocapitalist libertarian grifters.
schrodinger 4y ago
Feels like every new technology starts by innovators and then gets ruined by profiteers. The Internet in general (numerous small hobbyist sites → huge ad revenue behemoths), email (plenty of providers → everyone just use gmail), social media just between friends → massive propaganda machines, independent blogs → twitter/fb, and crypto is no different. Once professional investors got involved the focus changed. Kinda a pessimistic view, and there is some value to centralization (e.g. Apple and Google probably contributed more innovation than a sea of small startups) but there's also a cost.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  It’s not just information technology. Standard Oil was the catalyst for much of US anti-monopoly legislation. Businesses in general tend to consolidate over time.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
And whenever there is a post (rightfully, IMO) criticizing crypto, you get the predictable "you all just hate crypto you luddites!" responses. I didn't originally despise crypto. I remember reading the original bitcoin whitepaper and thinking how genius it was. But I did come to loath crypto over time for 3 reasons: 1. As has been abundantly clear, crypto seems to be a haven for all sorts of hucksters and fraudsters looking for an easy way to commit their fraud, while adding nothing of value. 2. Crypto has developed into this weird cult where people actually believe the meme-y nonsense of r/Bitcoin. 3. Most importantly, though, I came to understand that the fundamental reason for crypto to exist, that you can have irreversible transactions without needing a trusted middle man, is a horrible idea. My favorite very recent simple example of this: Crypto.com is suing a woman to recoup $7 million they accidentally refunded to her because an employee put the account number into the amount field. I.e., they made a payment mistake, and to rectify that mistake they are using the time-honored court system to make judgements about who actually deserves the funds. Crypto.com should be thanking their lucky stars they didn't refund her in actual crypto...

For some people here everything is about how crypto is bad.

by Tenoke 4y ago

For some people here everything is about how crypto is bad.

It’s a tech site; there’s a whole tech industry devoted to what is basically securities fraud, and it’s annoying. I work in smart contracts trying to build an ambitious global network, so I’m not exactly some Luddite afraid of the future. If I read an article about people artificially inflating the price of something in a pump and dump scheme, I pattern match that to crypto. I’m tired of hearing about it, too, but I to stop hearing about it because someone regulated the fraudsters out of business, not because defrauding unsophisticated people became a norm we don’t criticize.

jahsome 4y ago
Just replace "crypto" with "human nature" or "capitalism." Fraud is not exclusive to crypto, it's just laughably easy.

acjohnson55 4y ago

Nah, only 95% of it. Look, there are plenty of technologists who are very into crypto. You can find lots of them here. But to many, it reeks of some long-reviled parts of the tech scene: vaporware and marketing hype. And that's before you get into the astounding levels of fraud and waste. At this point, crypto is much more of a social phenomenon than a technological one. That's not a problem in itself. The issue is that foundation is one where legimately interesting technology is neither necessary nor sufficient to solve very many real-world problems, but the financialization at the core of it facilitates these collective delusions that it is. Everyone's LARPing the original dotcom bubble, but the world's entirely different. The dotcom bubble certainly had its crackpots, but it also had a lot of people who accurately saw that pervasive networking was going to unlock massive opportunity. But the low hanging fruit has been plucked over the past 25 years. Web3 people are trying to tell the world that a decentralized permissionless log is as the same magnitude of technological impact, and it simply isn't.

RC_ITR 4y ago
>Look, there are plenty of technologists who are very into crypto One of the reasons why everything about crypto is bad is because the technologists who are into it can tell you what the code does, but the "business people" who are into it can't tell you why this crypto use case couldn't/shouldn't be backed by a centralized database. Literally name a use case and I will tell you how a centralized database would be better. Even if the Internet boom of the late90's was full of grifters, at least most could explain why an email is better than a letter,
- SgtBastard 4y ago
  I’m anti-cryptocurrency (forget the tech, the economics make no sense) but the censorship resistance of a distributed ledger is surely stronger than a centralised database?
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    It's not clear that there is really much value in one of those - certainly net-net. The problem is that a blockchain can only trustlessly and verifiably encode things that are wholly represented on-chain. As soon as you bridge it to anything in the real world you're relying on some degree of trust, and trustlessness is all-or-nothing. That's why only proper un-backed-by-anything cryptocurrencies actually make any sense - they're wholly on-chain. On the other hand their value flails around wildly like a balloon you forgot to tie off and that limits their practical value to basically nothing. Their monetary policy is in the hands of some un-elected group of randos accountable only to their own enrichment. Stablecoins: who knows whether they're redeemable? You just have to trust the issuer and the legal system. They also get frozen all the time - Tether freezes more tokens than anyone and there's zero process and probably zero backing. Even Circle/USDC lied about their backing. Deeds on the blockchain: not your keys not your house? Ok, no thanks? If you have to rely on the court to have final say then the real world diverges from the chain and of course then why even have a chain? The iron law of blockchain is "if you think the blockchain is a good solution to any given problem you either don't know enough about the blockchain or you don't know enough about the problem." It's not clear they're anything more than a technological curiosity that's been coopted by anarchocapitalist libertarian grifters.

schrodinger 4y ago

Feels like every new technology starts by innovators and then gets ruined by profiteers. The Internet in general (numerous small hobbyist sites → huge ad revenue behemoths), email (plenty of providers → everyone just use gmail), social media just between friends → massive propaganda machines, independent blogs → twitter/fb, and crypto is no different. Once professional investors got involved the focus changed. Kinda a pessimistic view, and there is some value to centralization (e.g. Apple and Google probably contributed more innovation than a sea of small startups) but there's also a cost.

jimbokun 4y ago
It’s not just information technology. Standard Oil was the catalyst for much of US anti-monopoly legislation. Businesses in general tend to consolidate over time.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

And whenever there is a post (rightfully, IMO) criticizing crypto, you get the predictable "you all just hate crypto you luddites!" responses. I didn't originally despise crypto. I remember reading the original bitcoin whitepaper and thinking how genius it was. But I did come to loath crypto over time for 3 reasons: 1. As has been abundantly clear, crypto seems to be a haven for all sorts of hucksters and fraudsters looking for an easy way to commit their fraud, while adding nothing of value. 2. Crypto has developed into this weird cult where people actually believe the meme-y nonsense of r/Bitcoin. 3. Most importantly, though, I came to understand that the fundamental reason for crypto to exist, that you can have irreversible transactions without needing a trusted middle man, is a horrible idea. My favorite very recent simple example of this: Crypto.com is suing a woman to recoup $7 million they accidentally refunded to her because an employee put the account number into the amount field. I.e., they made a payment mistake, and to rectify that mistake they are using the time-honored court system to make judgements about who actually deserves the funds. Crypto.com should be thanking their lucky stars they didn't refund her in actual crypto...