4 ms·

I think it's more a case that anyone who was involved in crypto early, and who has actually taken the time to understand the technology, has realised about a de

I think it's more a case that anyone who was involved in crypto early, and who has actually taken the time to understand the technology, has realised about a decade ago that crypto currencies are mostly useless. But then people had they idea that they could still make money from it by grifting people if they just added layer upon layer of complexity in order to disguise the ultimate uselessness of the underlying technology. That is where all of your Ponzis, rugpulls, NFTs and everything else comes into the picture.

dcow 3y ago
Meh, I'm no bull but I also don't think "cryptos are mostly useless" is accurate. I believe there are solid use cases for distributed global ledger and digital replacement for cash. Is Bitcoin the winning/best manifestation? I doubt it, we likely need something much more energy efficient (like Chia is trying to be). But I don't think the idea is bust. It just isn't as overwhelmingly applicable as people dreamed it might be. We're trying out use cases, vetting the good ones and sometimes painfully learning the which ones were stupid or bad ideas. And once all the speculation settles, I do think true currency is still a viable one. Logistics and markets are another, etc.
- thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
  I don't think anyone here is arguing that digital cash or a global ledger is bad they are arguing that the specific structures and incentives of crypto are bad. Bring on the digital cash IMO but bearer instruments underpinning any large scale finance is a recipe for disaster.
- acjohnson55 3y ago
  I think that it's still unproven that a distributed global ledger is actually a fundamentally useful thing, outside of speculation. We're 15 years out from the invention of Bitcoin, and if all of blockchain technology snapped out of existence today, there are very few people, other than speculators, who would be impacted. It has comprehensively failed to be adopted into any value chains.
  - Breza 3y ago
    I agree. For comparison, here's how the Web was going as the WWW white paper approached its fifteenth birthday. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2005/03/06/part-2-the-role-of-the-internet-in-2004/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2005/03/06/part-2-the-r...
  - dcow 3y ago
    Which is why I'm extremely long on crypto and patient. It takes more than 15 years to fundamentally change the type of things crypto might really be useful for. And as a currency it's already shown traction, just not ubiquitous adoption. The currency use case requires people to stop creating volatility by hyper speculating with it, so I welcomed the crypto winter. I remember when people bought pizza with bitcoin. It wasn't that long ago, as you point out.
whimsicalism 3y ago
> I think it's more a case that anyone who was involved in crypto early, and who has actually taken the time to understand the technology, has realised about a decade ago that crypto currencies are mostly useless. I don't know what it is about crypto that makes HN commentators want to make the most ridiculous, put-downy statements without evidence to back it up. Crypto is not mostly useless, it is just that people don't like the uses. crypto is absolutely massive for avoiding capital controls in countries with inflation, etc.
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Yes, evading capital controls is illegal, part of the informal economy in large parts of the world, and very helpful to many people. I also think there are useful legal uses, but yes - where crypto has the best comparative advantage is when people are trying to circumvent harmful laws. Not every country is a (relatively) well-run procedural democracy. Crypto helps people route around that.
    - throw9away6 3y ago
      Also in low trust transactions. Often you have low trust buyers that need to pay via irreversible transactions and crypto is cheaper and more secure
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Crypto is not mostly useless, it is just that people don't like the uses Crypto has legitimate use as a rebel medium. It’s also plagued with criminality. Its promoters had a decade to clean up its act and refuse to self regulate. That’s soured the public’s mood towards the whole enterprise. If crypto’s benefits are niche, its development should be niche. And if its sole beneficiaries are people in failing foreign countries, it might make sense to put the whole thing under the aegis of State versus continuing to create chaos from the private sector.
gen220 3y ago
I think people are latching on to the magnitude of your claim rather than the direction and therein missing the point. FWIW, as somebody who meets your criteria, myself and my network of people from that time offer much credence to your claim. Even back in 2016/17, many people involved were openly bemoaning how 80+% of ICOs were unregistered security offerings to vaporware. You can almost pinpoint the inflection point at which Coinbase decided their goal was short-term profit maximization vs developing a healthy ecosystem. The company in the last 5 years is completely unrecognizable in contrast to when there were only 3 coins you could buy from them (USDT, BTC, ETH).
- Breza 3y ago
  Coinbase tried to be the good guy in crypto. They lost money. Then they tried to be the good guy with a sideline in shitcoins. They lost money. No matter how this case winds up, Coinbase is in a terrible financial position. If you were a Wall Street bank, would you give them financing right now?

dcow 3y ago

Meh, I'm no bull but I also don't think "cryptos are mostly useless" is accurate. I believe there are solid use cases for distributed global ledger and digital replacement for cash. Is Bitcoin the winning/best manifestation? I doubt it, we likely need something much more energy efficient (like Chia is trying to be). But I don't think the idea is bust. It just isn't as overwhelmingly applicable as people dreamed it might be. We're trying out use cases, vetting the good ones and sometimes painfully learning the which ones were stupid or bad ideas. And once all the speculation settles, I do think true currency is still a viable one. Logistics and markets are another, etc.

thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
I don't think anyone here is arguing that digital cash or a global ledger is bad they are arguing that the specific structures and incentives of crypto are bad. Bring on the digital cash IMO but bearer instruments underpinning any large scale finance is a recipe for disaster.
acjohnson55 3y ago
I think that it's still unproven that a distributed global ledger is actually a fundamentally useful thing, outside of speculation. We're 15 years out from the invention of Bitcoin, and if all of blockchain technology snapped out of existence today, there are very few people, other than speculators, who would be impacted. It has comprehensively failed to be adopted into any value chains.
- Breza 3y ago
  I agree. For comparison, here's how the Web was going as the WWW white paper approached its fifteenth birthday. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2005/03/06/part-2-the-role-of-the-internet-in-2004/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2005/03/06/part-2-the-r...
- dcow 3y ago
  Which is why I'm extremely long on crypto and patient. It takes more than 15 years to fundamentally change the type of things crypto might really be useful for. And as a currency it's already shown traction, just not ubiquitous adoption. The currency use case requires people to stop creating volatility by hyper speculating with it, so I welcomed the crypto winter. I remember when people bought pizza with bitcoin. It wasn't that long ago, as you point out.

whimsicalism 3y ago

> I think it's more a case that anyone who was involved in crypto early, and who has actually taken the time to understand the technology, has realised about a decade ago that crypto currencies are mostly useless. I don't know what it is about crypto that makes HN commentators want to make the most ridiculous, put-downy statements without evidence to back it up. Crypto is not mostly useless, it is just that people don't like the uses. crypto is absolutely massive for avoiding capital controls in countries with inflation, etc.

ohgodplsno 3y ago
[flagged]
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Yes, evading capital controls is illegal, part of the informal economy in large parts of the world, and very helpful to many people. I also think there are useful legal uses, but yes - where crypto has the best comparative advantage is when people are trying to circumvent harmful laws. Not every country is a (relatively) well-run procedural democracy. Crypto helps people route around that.
  - throw9away6 3y ago
    Also in low trust transactions. Often you have low trust buyers that need to pay via irreversible transactions and crypto is cheaper and more secure
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Crypto is not mostly useless, it is just that people don't like the uses Crypto has legitimate use as a rebel medium. It’s also plagued with criminality. Its promoters had a decade to clean up its act and refuse to self regulate. That’s soured the public’s mood towards the whole enterprise. If crypto’s benefits are niche, its development should be niche. And if its sole beneficiaries are people in failing foreign countries, it might make sense to put the whole thing under the aegis of State versus continuing to create chaos from the private sector.

gen220 3y ago

I think people are latching on to the magnitude of your claim rather than the direction and therein missing the point. FWIW, as somebody who meets your criteria, myself and my network of people from that time offer much credence to your claim. Even back in 2016/17, many people involved were openly bemoaning how 80+% of ICOs were unregistered security offerings to vaporware. You can almost pinpoint the inflection point at which Coinbase decided their goal was short-term profit maximization vs developing a healthy ecosystem. The company in the last 5 years is completely unrecognizable in contrast to when there were only 3 coins you could buy from them (USDT, BTC, ETH).

Breza 3y ago
Coinbase tried to be the good guy in crypto. They lost money. Then they tried to be the good guy with a sideline in shitcoins. They lost money. No matter how this case winds up, Coinbase is in a terrible financial position. If you were a Wall Street bank, would you give them financing right now?