4 ms·

What a deeply troubling and cynical comment. As far as I know, nowhere in the Bitcoin white paper or the original code base. Does it say anything about what yo

What a deeply troubling and cynical comment. As far as I know, nowhere in the Bitcoin white paper or the original code base. Does it say anything about what you seem to think it's use cases are. Bitcoin has one main use, digital cash, that can be sent instantly and for free or a very low fee. Edit: I would agree though, that anything other than that is probably a scam.

natpalmer1776 7mo ago
Men of principles often mistake the experience and observations of others for cynicism when it does not align with said principles. This applies to a great deal, not just bitcoin.
- toomuchtodo 7mo ago
  Relevant citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality "We must take the world as it is and not as we would like it to be." - Maurice Allais
- slopinthebag 7mo ago
  So the USD as well?
- hilliardfarmer 7mo ago
  Thank you, had to ready this 3 times but wow, well said!!!
lambda 7mo ago
What? "Instantly and for a very low fee"? Fees have historically gone up above $100 per transaction. They've since added hacks on top of the original Bitcoin protocol to get the price back down again, but the original design was not good for low fees. And transactions can take 30 minutes or more to settle, that's hardly instant. If you accept a transaction instantly, it's relatively easy for someone to scam you by double spending. So, no, Bitcoin doesn't make a great digital cash. Maybe a better wire transfer. But the biggest benefit of it is to be unblockable and unrefundable, which makes it great for scames and illegal activity, plus the speculative nature of the pricing, which is great for gambling on.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 7mo ago
  Pointing at the BTC transaction fee and saying it is super expensive is like pointing at a problematic car model and saying all cars are bad. There are any number of other popular coins out there that have the same or better liquidity as BTC that charge tiny fractions of the fees. And also settle in seconds. You're saying Bitcoin like BTC, but the parent commenter was probably referring to the giant ecosystem of coins, that happens to include BTC, but also many other much faster and cheaper options, that are used to globally remit payments every day. What it's replacing, by the way, Western Union, Wise and the like, is also pretty unblockable and unrefundable.
  - lambda 7mo ago
    What? I was replying to someone who explicitly referenced the Bitcoin whitepaper, they were clearly talking about BTC. And the protocol from the whitepaper was actually pretty bad, from a cost and transaction time point of view. It's gotten a bit better with some hacks layered on top of it. And yeah, the thing is, payment systems that work approximately as well as BTC exist without being cryptocurrency and using up so much electricity on mining. The main difference is that they don't operate in some areas where BTC still can (like evading sanctions, like this), and the speculative nature of BTC (which is actually a net negative on using it as a cash).
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 7mo ago
      What’s your point? That BTC was the first and it has these flaws? Ok, fine, but that also doesn’t discount the point being made here which is that shitcoins DO have an actual use case that people are using them for in the real world. It might be the only actual valid (legal) use case, which is kind of what some other responders implied, but it doesn’t mean that there is no value. If payment systems that aren’t shitcoin based are working just as well, then why are these coins absolutely destroying the incumbent players like Western Union in the remittance space? If the existing solutions are good enough you wouldn’t expect incumbents to be taking such a beating here right? The systems are equivalent enough? WU does for instance 100B ish a year currently, which is around 12% of the global market. A fat share of that global remittance market is… checks notes… crypto based remittances. I’m all for trashing the next shitcoin. Don’t mistake me for some crypto apologist. I personally don’t own or use them outside of narrow use cases where they are a transient thing that gets liquidated into actual fiat as soon as possible. It’s a world ripe for fraud and abuse and the whole concept of shitcoins is probably not great for society. But to take some poorly thought out implementation that was, mind you, the first attempt at actually doing this in the real world, and try to extract it to some general conclusion that the technology is not useful 15 years later is just patently false. If the alternatives you mention are so great, why are they not winning on mindshare worldwide? Certainly seems like crypto is winning in the remittance space. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.TRF.PWKR.CD.DT https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.TRF.PWKR.CD.DT
wpietri 7mo ago
It seems entirely accurate to me, at least in a POSIWID sense. The original theory of Bitcoin was, as described in the paper, decentralized digital cash. But in practice it was never optimized for what normal people use cash for. As system like that would be something like M-PESA. Even at the time, cash was declining in usage. In the 18 years since, it has declined a lot more. And for good reason, because what most people want for most things isn't digital cash, but digital money. E.g., debit cards and Venmo. So pretty naturally Bitcoin has value only for a few niche use cases that are not well served by more effective systems. Various sorts of crime, mostly. Digital cash, sure, but the kind that's transferred in unmarked envelopes slid quietly across the table. The kind that is delivered in a briefcase. As a side note, it also failed in its goal of being decentralized. The mining power is very concentrated. Much more so than the banking industry, for example. And most users keep their Bitcoin on deposit in centralized services. So it's again basically banking but worse.
- carshodev 7mo ago
  Although it was originally intended to be cash it actually now is used as a "store of wealth" It allows people to build up wealth and be able to preserve it from government intervention and inflation. If you have stocks the ownerhsip and registration is controlled by a government and can be taken at any time from you. Look at china where if you have a large company and take a stand against the government all your equity will be wiped out and you will be either imprisoned or banished to another country. Cash in a government bank account is the same way, you can wake up one day and all your assets will be seized, your credit cards will stop working. Bitcoin works because you can technically have your wealth memorized. You can memorize a string of charcters that allow you to bring money with you no matter where you go. NO government or other human can steal it from you (except through torture) but you can also easily not memorize it and instead distribute the keys throughout the world in opposing countries meaning even if you are attacked by one country you still have some wealth kept in another. A store of wealth is what bitcion allows. True freedom from governments stealing your money because you have ideas which they do not agree with. This in my mind is the main usage of bitcoin. Other coins like stablecoins, or the btc lightning network have high value because they make transactions much cheaper as traditional banking systems are complex, error prone, and costly.
datatrashfire 7mo ago
the problem is as a means of cash it’s inferior to existing systems in pretty much every dimension. more expensive, slower, more risk, higher volatility. the cash story for crypto is not good.
- carshodev 7mo ago
  This is incorrect, bitcoin is slower and more expensive, but bitcoin should not be used as cash, coins like stablecoins which direclty track US dollars or altcoins with lower fees should be used, the lightning network also is useful for transactions. Bitcoin CAN be used as a store of wealth and the slowness actually makes it better as the slowness is part of the same process that makes it safer, harder to hack/takeover, and gives it value. You should not look at all crypto as one thing.
  - idop 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - smcin 7mo ago
      What's your specific criticism?

natpalmer1776 7mo ago

Men of principles often mistake the experience and observations of others for cynicism when it does not align with said principles. This applies to a great deal, not just bitcoin.

toomuchtodo 7mo ago
Relevant citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality "We must take the world as it is and not as we would like it to be." - Maurice Allais
slopinthebag 7mo ago
So the USD as well?
hilliardfarmer 7mo ago
Thank you, had to ready this 3 times but wow, well said!!!

lambda 7mo ago

What? "Instantly and for a very low fee"? Fees have historically gone up above $100 per transaction. They've since added hacks on top of the original Bitcoin protocol to get the price back down again, but the original design was not good for low fees. And transactions can take 30 minutes or more to settle, that's hardly instant. If you accept a transaction instantly, it's relatively easy for someone to scam you by double spending. So, no, Bitcoin doesn't make a great digital cash. Maybe a better wire transfer. But the biggest benefit of it is to be unblockable and unrefundable, which makes it great for scames and illegal activity, plus the speculative nature of the pricing, which is great for gambling on.

SOLAR_FIELDS 7mo ago
Pointing at the BTC transaction fee and saying it is super expensive is like pointing at a problematic car model and saying all cars are bad. There are any number of other popular coins out there that have the same or better liquidity as BTC that charge tiny fractions of the fees. And also settle in seconds. You're saying Bitcoin like BTC, but the parent commenter was probably referring to the giant ecosystem of coins, that happens to include BTC, but also many other much faster and cheaper options, that are used to globally remit payments every day. What it's replacing, by the way, Western Union, Wise and the like, is also pretty unblockable and unrefundable.
- lambda 7mo ago
  What? I was replying to someone who explicitly referenced the Bitcoin whitepaper, they were clearly talking about BTC. And the protocol from the whitepaper was actually pretty bad, from a cost and transaction time point of view. It's gotten a bit better with some hacks layered on top of it. And yeah, the thing is, payment systems that work approximately as well as BTC exist without being cryptocurrency and using up so much electricity on mining. The main difference is that they don't operate in some areas where BTC still can (like evading sanctions, like this), and the speculative nature of BTC (which is actually a net negative on using it as a cash).
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 7mo ago
    What’s your point? That BTC was the first and it has these flaws? Ok, fine, but that also doesn’t discount the point being made here which is that shitcoins DO have an actual use case that people are using them for in the real world. It might be the only actual valid (legal) use case, which is kind of what some other responders implied, but it doesn’t mean that there is no value. If payment systems that aren’t shitcoin based are working just as well, then why are these coins absolutely destroying the incumbent players like Western Union in the remittance space? If the existing solutions are good enough you wouldn’t expect incumbents to be taking such a beating here right? The systems are equivalent enough? WU does for instance 100B ish a year currently, which is around 12% of the global market. A fat share of that global remittance market is… checks notes… crypto based remittances. I’m all for trashing the next shitcoin. Don’t mistake me for some crypto apologist. I personally don’t own or use them outside of narrow use cases where they are a transient thing that gets liquidated into actual fiat as soon as possible. It’s a world ripe for fraud and abuse and the whole concept of shitcoins is probably not great for society. But to take some poorly thought out implementation that was, mind you, the first attempt at actually doing this in the real world, and try to extract it to some general conclusion that the technology is not useful 15 years later is just patently false. If the alternatives you mention are so great, why are they not winning on mindshare worldwide? Certainly seems like crypto is winning in the remittance space. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.TRF.PWKR.CD.DT https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.TRF.PWKR.CD.DT

wpietri 7mo ago

It seems entirely accurate to me, at least in a POSIWID sense. The original theory of Bitcoin was, as described in the paper, decentralized digital cash. But in practice it was never optimized for what normal people use cash for. As system like that would be something like M-PESA. Even at the time, cash was declining in usage. In the 18 years since, it has declined a lot more. And for good reason, because what most people want for most things isn't digital cash, but digital money. E.g., debit cards and Venmo. So pretty naturally Bitcoin has value only for a few niche use cases that are not well served by more effective systems. Various sorts of crime, mostly. Digital cash, sure, but the kind that's transferred in unmarked envelopes slid quietly across the table. The kind that is delivered in a briefcase. As a side note, it also failed in its goal of being decentralized. The mining power is very concentrated. Much more so than the banking industry, for example. And most users keep their Bitcoin on deposit in centralized services. So it's again basically banking but worse.

carshodev 7mo ago
Although it was originally intended to be cash it actually now is used as a "store of wealth" It allows people to build up wealth and be able to preserve it from government intervention and inflation. If you have stocks the ownerhsip and registration is controlled by a government and can be taken at any time from you. Look at china where if you have a large company and take a stand against the government all your equity will be wiped out and you will be either imprisoned or banished to another country. Cash in a government bank account is the same way, you can wake up one day and all your assets will be seized, your credit cards will stop working. Bitcoin works because you can technically have your wealth memorized. You can memorize a string of charcters that allow you to bring money with you no matter where you go. NO government or other human can steal it from you (except through torture) but you can also easily not memorize it and instead distribute the keys throughout the world in opposing countries meaning even if you are attacked by one country you still have some wealth kept in another. A store of wealth is what bitcion allows. True freedom from governments stealing your money because you have ideas which they do not agree with. This in my mind is the main usage of bitcoin. Other coins like stablecoins, or the btc lightning network have high value because they make transactions much cheaper as traditional banking systems are complex, error prone, and costly.

datatrashfire 7mo ago

the problem is as a means of cash it’s inferior to existing systems in pretty much every dimension. more expensive, slower, more risk, higher volatility. the cash story for crypto is not good.

carshodev 7mo ago
This is incorrect, bitcoin is slower and more expensive, but bitcoin should not be used as cash, coins like stablecoins which direclty track US dollars or altcoins with lower fees should be used, the lightning network also is useful for transactions. Bitcoin CAN be used as a store of wealth and the slowness actually makes it better as the slowness is part of the same process that makes it safer, harder to hack/takeover, and gives it value. You should not look at all crypto as one thing.
- idop 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - smcin 7mo ago
    What's your specific criticism?