5 ms·

The problem with that article is not that it makes 0 valid points, it's that it makes some terrible correlations as an attempt to prove cryptos won't be huge.

by lsadam0 12y ago

The problem with that article is not that it makes 0 valid points, it's that it makes some terrible correlations as an attempt to prove cryptos won't be huge. What does a scammer selling unlicensed shares in porn production have anything to do with the success or failure of cryptocurrency? Bitcoin was simply the method of payment, nothing more. That example is immediately followed with the eBay + TicketMaster examples and the importance of centralized reputation/trust. The leap is then made to "...drug dealers establish reputation through their PGP key or BitCoin address". Ok, an objectively factual statement. The author proceeds to go off the rails with the assertion that only criminals value decentralized trust. Please. You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it. It's not about illegal use cases. It's about empowerment of the individual over seemingly insurmountable institutions. The author is having the wrong discussion.

valarauca1 12y ago
>You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it. This is a problem a trust-less system wouldn't solve, inherently. The real problem is ebay lacks competition. >It's not about illegal use cases. It's about empowerment of the individual over seemingly insurmountable institutions. Again competition. You want people to have the power to compete, and have options. >The author is having the wrong discussion. Yes you are. None of the problems you listed are solve by decentralized trustless systems. Their consumer service problems. Which any company, or system can have. :.:.: Ultimately you commit the same sins you argue the blog post commits.
post- 12y ago
> The problem with that article is not that it makes 0 valid points, it's that it makes some terrible correlations as an attempt to prove cryptos won't be huge. Actually, the article doesn't set out "to prove cryptos won't be huge," and ends on a crypto-positive note: > Bitcoin has shown us the promise of blockchain technologies despite its design shortcomings. > The future of the technology will probably evolve towards a model that more resembles real world needs, rather than the needs of “cyberpunks”. To diverge from the article a bit and respond to your final point, I don't know that the mantra of individual empowerment in the Bitcoin world amounts to anything other than solipsism. Bitcoin, as far as I can tell, ignores structural biases preventing people from accessing the cryptocurrency. We can see evidence of this in the "Bitcoin in Africa" startups, which on the surface seem benign and even benevolent, but are hiding an uninterrogated colonialism: their chief assumption, it seems to me, is that the developed world will always control more of Bitcoin's limited resources, and the value of spreading a small portion of those resources to the developing world comes from lock-in. It's a classic unfair trade agreement, and it doesn't take much thought to see how problematic this situation can become. eBay can bend you over with fees because they control the market; Bitcoin's limited resources are susceptible to the same kind of market control. That's the discussion I wish more people were having.
- Frondo 12y ago
  I like your ideas about the colonial aspects of Bitcoin in the developing world. That is an angle I haven't heard anyone else mention before. It pairs nicely with another critique I don't often see, that Bitcoin is undemocratic; there are economic assumptions baked in that, if it were a government-backed money, people could discuss, vote on, and ultimately change. With bitcoin, there is no way that the people whose lives could be affected by those assumptions can have a say in them--the design and operation of bitcoin doesn't answer to the people in a democratic way.
  - innguest 12y ago
    That Bitcoin is undemocratic is a good thing. Look around in the world at what democracy has done to currency. Not a single democratic currency has withstood the test of time. It's time for a different approach.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      I am unable to agree with the statement, "It is time for an undemocratic approach to money".
      - innguest 12y ago
        I want an undemocratic currency and I don't want to forbid you from using a democratic currency if you prefer it. I doubt those that like you, who are unable to agree with the statement above, will willingly extend the same courtesy to those like me, who disagree with that statement. I wonder which group might be in possession of the right idea, the group saying "you don't have to use it if you don't like it" or the group that is already forcing the new currency to be under the same democratic rules of the old, "democratic" currency. Statism, ideas so good we have to force them on people.
- ynd 12y ago
  Bitcoin is not susceptible to market control like eBay. eBay is a single entity so it is easy to coordinate self-serving decision. Bitcoin is multiple agents that have to co-operate. That prevents any one agent from making unilateral decisions. Another huge difference is that anybody can become a new agent in Bitcoin. You just buy the hardware. You cannot influence or join eBay in the same way.
stcredzero 12y ago
You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it. Isn't that why established players will mostly prefer not to use decentralized currency? Won't the network effect always relegate things like Bitcoin to the fringes?
- dmihal 12y ago
  Market leaders don't have as much incentive to adopt Bitcoin, but competitors do Look at Amazon and Overstock. Amazon doesn't need to implement Bitcoin to be successful, but Overstock was able gain some market share by accepting it
ForHackernews 12y ago
> What does a scammer selling unlicensed shares in porn production have anything to do with the success or failure of cryptocurrency? Because it demonstrates dramatically that one of the main purported advantages of bitcoin (its "trustless" nature) is comically false. As you say, bitcoin is just a payment method, and contrary to what its advocates claim, it does absolutely nothing to prevent shady scams or eliminate the need for good regulations and strong enforcement.
- lsadam0 12y ago
  No. You're conflating the trust-less nature of bitcoin with the idea that individuals who possess Bitcoin are trustful. The very nature of Bitcoin lies on the assertion that no individual is trustful, and that a trustful network can arise in which no individual node is trusted. The blockchain allows us to verify that a particular operation has occurred. For example, the blockchain will verify that a particular address owns 1 BTC, or that 1 BTC has transferred from one address to another. It provides reliable, verifiable unit of account without relying on any one actor to be trustful. The blockchain absolutely does NOT verify that a person won't lie to you to get your money, or that they won't blow it all in casino once you send it to them. That would be an unbelievable miracle, as it would require knowledge of the future. No rational person has ever claimed the blockchain will prevent scamming. Quite the opposite in fact.
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    Maybe you should clue in the rest of the bitcoin community, e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1f2ubh/why_bitcoins/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1f2ubh/why_bitcoins... > 3) No fraud or charge-back (from a seller/business PoV). > 13a) Potentially, because of the profit from no fraud and the deflationary nature of Bitcoin. Vendors will realise they can lower their prices for Btc purchases. And when inflation ends, due to no fraud, they will still be able to have lower prices than competitors.
    - lsadam0 12y ago
      The OP, BitcoinJobe, goes on in the comments of your link to clarify the statement is that there are not fraudulent chargebacks in Bitcoin. He's right. There aren't. You can't make a bitcoin purchase, receive the item, and then get your money back through a charge back. He's right on both points. Fraudulent chargebacks are a legitimate concern for sellers, and I assure you that loss is reflected in the selling price you and I pay. 13a asserts that if a vendor is able to eliminate the chargeback problem through bitcoin use, then the savings can possibly be passed on to consumers. What's insane about any of that? You're not comprehending what you're arguing against.

by lsadam0 12y ago

valarauca1 12y ago

>You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it. This is a problem a trust-less system wouldn't solve, inherently. The real problem is ebay lacks competition. >It's not about illegal use cases. It's about empowerment of the individual over seemingly insurmountable institutions. Again competition. You want people to have the power to compete, and have options. >The author is having the wrong discussion. Yes you are. None of the problems you listed are solve by decentralized trustless systems. Their consumer service problems. Which any company, or system can have. :.:.: Ultimately you commit the same sins you argue the blog post commits.

post- 12y ago

> The problem with that article is not that it makes 0 valid points, it's that it makes some terrible correlations as an attempt to prove cryptos won't be huge. Actually, the article doesn't set out "to prove cryptos won't be huge," and ends on a crypto-positive note: > Bitcoin has shown us the promise of blockchain technologies despite its design shortcomings. > The future of the technology will probably evolve towards a model that more resembles real world needs, rather than the needs of “cyberpunks”. To diverge from the article a bit and respond to your final point, I don't know that the mantra of individual empowerment in the Bitcoin world amounts to anything other than solipsism. Bitcoin, as far as I can tell, ignores structural biases preventing people from accessing the cryptocurrency. We can see evidence of this in the "Bitcoin in Africa" startups, which on the surface seem benign and even benevolent, but are hiding an uninterrogated colonialism: their chief assumption, it seems to me, is that the developed world will always control more of Bitcoin's limited resources, and the value of spreading a small portion of those resources to the developing world comes from lock-in. It's a classic unfair trade agreement, and it doesn't take much thought to see how problematic this situation can become. eBay can bend you over with fees because they control the market; Bitcoin's limited resources are susceptible to the same kind of market control. That's the discussion I wish more people were having.

Frondo 12y ago
I like your ideas about the colonial aspects of Bitcoin in the developing world. That is an angle I haven't heard anyone else mention before. It pairs nicely with another critique I don't often see, that Bitcoin is undemocratic; there are economic assumptions baked in that, if it were a government-backed money, people could discuss, vote on, and ultimately change. With bitcoin, there is no way that the people whose lives could be affected by those assumptions can have a say in them--the design and operation of bitcoin doesn't answer to the people in a democratic way.
- innguest 12y ago
  That Bitcoin is undemocratic is a good thing. Look around in the world at what democracy has done to currency. Not a single democratic currency has withstood the test of time. It's time for a different approach.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    I am unable to agree with the statement, "It is time for an undemocratic approach to money".
    - innguest 12y ago
      I want an undemocratic currency and I don't want to forbid you from using a democratic currency if you prefer it. I doubt those that like you, who are unable to agree with the statement above, will willingly extend the same courtesy to those like me, who disagree with that statement. I wonder which group might be in possession of the right idea, the group saying "you don't have to use it if you don't like it" or the group that is already forcing the new currency to be under the same democratic rules of the old, "democratic" currency. Statism, ideas so good we have to force them on people.
ynd 12y ago
Bitcoin is not susceptible to market control like eBay. eBay is a single entity so it is easy to coordinate self-serving decision. Bitcoin is multiple agents that have to co-operate. That prevents any one agent from making unilateral decisions. Another huge difference is that anybody can become a new agent in Bitcoin. You just buy the hardware. You cannot influence or join eBay in the same way.

stcredzero 12y ago

You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it. Isn't that why established players will mostly prefer not to use decentralized currency? Won't the network effect always relegate things like Bitcoin to the fringes?

dmihal 12y ago
Market leaders don't have as much incentive to adopt Bitcoin, but competitors do Look at Amazon and Overstock. Amazon doesn't need to implement Bitcoin to be successful, but Overstock was able gain some market share by accepting it

ForHackernews 12y ago

> What does a scammer selling unlicensed shares in porn production have anything to do with the success or failure of cryptocurrency? Because it demonstrates dramatically that one of the main purported advantages of bitcoin (its "trustless" nature) is comically false. As you say, bitcoin is just a payment method, and contrary to what its advocates claim, it does absolutely nothing to prevent shady scams or eliminate the need for good regulations and strong enforcement.

lsadam0 12y ago
No. You're conflating the trust-less nature of bitcoin with the idea that individuals who possess Bitcoin are trustful. The very nature of Bitcoin lies on the assertion that no individual is trustful, and that a trustful network can arise in which no individual node is trusted. The blockchain allows us to verify that a particular operation has occurred. For example, the blockchain will verify that a particular address owns 1 BTC, or that 1 BTC has transferred from one address to another. It provides reliable, verifiable unit of account without relying on any one actor to be trustful. The blockchain absolutely does NOT verify that a person won't lie to you to get your money, or that they won't blow it all in casino once you send it to them. That would be an unbelievable miracle, as it would require knowledge of the future. No rational person has ever claimed the blockchain will prevent scamming. Quite the opposite in fact.
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  Maybe you should clue in the rest of the bitcoin community, e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1f2ubh/why_bitcoins/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1f2ubh/why_bitcoins... > 3) No fraud or charge-back (from a seller/business PoV). > 13a) Potentially, because of the profit from no fraud and the deflationary nature of Bitcoin. Vendors will realise they can lower their prices for Btc purchases. And when inflation ends, due to no fraud, they will still be able to have lower prices than competitors.
  - lsadam0 12y ago
    The OP, BitcoinJobe, goes on in the comments of your link to clarify the statement is that there are not fraudulent chargebacks in Bitcoin. He's right. There aren't. You can't make a bitcoin purchase, receive the item, and then get your money back through a charge back. He's right on both points. Fraudulent chargebacks are a legitimate concern for sellers, and I assure you that loss is reflected in the selling price you and I pay. 13a asserts that if a vendor is able to eliminate the chargeback problem through bitcoin use, then the savings can possibly be passed on to consumers. What's insane about any of that? You're not comprehending what you're arguing against.