Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You have proposed a false dilemma. It is entirely for the technology to be valid and useful with enormous potential AND for the current coin bubble to be a massive pyramid scheme on a scale never-before seen in history.

Tulips are still very pretty flowers. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania




Sure, but I can't lease servers anonymously with tulip bulbs. If for no other reason, because they're physical objects. Maybe with tulip futures, or whatever, but I digress.

I've followed discussions of anonymous electronic currency since the 90s. Nothing introduced before Bitcoin has survived. The main defect was centralization, which allowed government take-down. If I've missed one, please share.

And about the bubble thing, I don't much care. The Bitcoin price has seen times of huge volatility. The increase during 2017 from ~$1000 to almost $20000 was impressive. As was the collapse during first quarter 2018. But now the price seems relatively stable at $7000-$9000. And payments go through quickly enough.

And about anonymity. Yes, Bitcoin itself is not at all anonymous. Everything's in the public blockchain. But one can use mixing services, through Tor, and get different Bitcoin. Which aren't linked to the starting Bitcoin, or to any identity or IPv4 address that's linked to the user in meatspace. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's good enough for me.


> But now the price seems relatively stable at $7000-$9000. And payments go through quickly enough.

Great. Is this system that provides, so far, minimal to no advantage over other transaction systems worth expending the same electric power that a small developed country (Portugal) uses?


If you know another way to make anonymous payments, please share. I had a Liberty Reserve account, but they got busted. I have a Pecunix account, but it's not accepted anywhere. If I were wealthy, I could setup shell corporations and so on. But I'm not.

I do agree that a system that used less energy would be better. When it's available, and widely enough accepted, I'll switch.


If you think that Bitcoin transactions are anonymous then you are grossly mistaken. All transactions are part of PUBLIC ledger and are there to stay forever. The illusion of anonimity comes from thr fact that you don’t need an ID to create a Bitcoin wallet, but still it’s possible to trace your transactions back to you.


From my parent comment:

> And about anonymity. Yes, Bitcoin itself is not at all anonymous. Everything's in the public blockchain. But one can use mixing services, through Tor, and get different Bitcoin. Which aren't linked to the starting Bitcoin, or to any identity or IPv4 address that's linked to the user in meatspace. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's good enough for me.

So yes, usably anonymous.


You can also launder money after swapping it, doesn't make it anonymous either.


Engage the services of your local money launderer, they're doing the same thing.

Wait, you're saying they're criminals? I wonder why the bitcoin guys aren't.


The term "criminal" can mean so many things. It's like "terrorist". One person's criminal/terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

People hurting others (what's criminal to me) will use any system that's secure, hidden, anonymous, etc. Tor is a good example. But in a sense, they serve as canaries for other users.


Well, it may or may not be possible. The ledger may record a series of transactions like A → B → C → D → E, and you may know that A belongs to Joe and E to Mary, but it's not certain that you can know whether B, C and D are decoys created by one of them (and so they actually transacted directly) or if they're other people and the money simply circulated.

There are techniques to try to find that out, but they're not infallible.


This is a genuine question with no snark intended (sometimes we need to clarify stuff like this on the internet hah).

What's the overall energy expenditure for all fiat production,maintenance, asset storage (gold), mining of assets etc?

There are some interesting developments in the crypto sphere moving away from high energy proof or work to a holding system (Proof of stake).


I have no clue. But I don't doubt that systems as energy-intensive as Bitcoin would consume far more energy. Likely, orders of magnitude more.

I like to think of myself as caring about ecosystems. But after decades of work on decentralized electronic payment systems, Bitcoin is what we got.

I'm no expert, but I suspect that the Bitcoin protocol could be tweaked to make humongous mining operations unprofitable. But the chances of that are likely not so great.

I do hope that proof-of-stake systems will develop. Stake still means wealth, but at least it's not wealth that's funding energy-intensive proof-of-work.


Again with the tulip bulbs? Surely you've had the time to research this argument by now...


> Again with the tulip bulbs? Surely you've had the time to research this argument by now...

The real intricacies of tulip mania don't matter. Who cares if it was not exactly the bubble we thought it was? It was still a bubble, with serious consequences to those exposed to it. Yes, it didn't move at the speed of the markets move now because markets then were much more slower and it only affected a bunch of businessmen.

So what? We use the analogy because we know markets sometimes go crazy around stocks and other assets, with no apparent justification other than thinking the price will continue to grow and usually based on not much more than faith. Tulip mania has become a proxy for that behavior because the absurdity of a flower bulb skyrocketing in price, but if you don't like it, you can certainly point to many bubbles we know existed, had more widespread effects and were equally based on nothing. Some of them are not even a decade old.


Bubble or not: at $330bn, even if this all goes to $0 tomorrow, the world won't burn.

If this asset class would be trading at $10tn then the concerns would likely be valid.

Why not put a bit of money into the space and let things develop? If you're right, great, you haven't lost a lot. If you were wrong, you made a healthy return that is likely above any other investments you have access to.


At a incredibly high and volatile risk for what you're paying. Try and pull some of those Bitcoins out in a market rush, see if you're sale goes through in the next week. Even the high returns we've seen so far don't justify the fact that sometimes you're asset is worth nothing because you can't move it because some company "has a bug".


Why would I have to care for small(er) positions?

I consider this a high risk binary investment -- either it will work, or it won't. Unless you're investing $100k+ (which for most people wouldn't be a small part of their portfolio) you should easily be able to exit positions. This was clear even during the last correction.

From a risk level, (In my view) I'm looking at an angel investment but with better upside odds. The potential upside is disproportionate to the downside, and I'm happy to take on that risk.


Try and pull your savings out of a bank when there is a bank run.

I agree with the poster above, BTC and others may be in a bubble but the bubble is tiny compared to other asset classes and previous bubbles.


> Try and pull your savings out of a bank when there is a bank run.

Familiar with the FDIC?


Something that applies to the US only?


Most major countries have a similar scheme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit_insurance


Take the EU for example from that link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit_insurance#By_EU_countr...

Limited to 100k, that is extremely low for a lot of people looking for safe asset havens.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: