Most active commenters
  • wqaatwt(3)
  • kragen(3)

←back to thread

191 points aorloff | 11 comments | | HN request time: 0.413s | source | bottom
Show context
Synaesthesia ◴[] No.44470362[source]
I was also around when bitcoin just started out. Many people wanted it to be a global revolution in finance.

But instead it turned into a game of "hodl" to get rich.

Scams were openly perpetrated in the forums.

I became completely disillusioned. What exactly does bitcoin offer the world today?

replies(19): >>44470410 #>>44470421 #>>44470487 #>>44470582 #>>44470672 #>>44470694 #>>44470697 #>>44470917 #>>44470950 #>>44471011 #>>44471101 #>>44471102 #>>44471196 #>>44471293 #>>44471684 #>>44471894 #>>44472300 #>>44472570 #>>44474292 #
hx8 ◴[] No.44470672[source]
> What exactly does bitcoin offer the world today?

Aside from perhaps gold, bitcoin is the most successful currency in the world not associated with a central bank and state.

It's the most liquid asset that is not issued by a central bank. At any point you can issue a transaction to anyone else in the world, without the possibility of a third party intervention. I've had issues pulling cash out of banks, or limited sizes available for money orders, or having debt/credit card transactions incorrectly flagged as fraudulent and blocked.

replies(8): >>44470682 #>>44470841 #>>44471010 #>>44471687 #>>44471981 #>>44472971 #>>44472988 #>>44475211 #
1. wqaatwt ◴[] No.44470682[source]
> successful currency

Calling it a currency is a huge stretch. It’s an extremely successful token/“asset” but it’s about as much as a currency as gold is these days if not less (based on what most people use it for).

replies(2): >>44471060 #>>44471315 #
2. Lerc ◴[] No.44471060[source]
I wouldn't call it successful as a currency given its state at the moment either.

I would say that much of the reason for that is because of the perception of the currency that is widely held. It's not much good because people think it's not much good. I bought a few things online years ago with Bitcoin and it worked pretty much the way it should, but most of those places that accepted it stopped . Mostly they stopped due to the public perception.

I do wonder if it has a chance to become useful once it is old enough to not be considered interesting, and the idea of holding something while it increases in value dies.

replies(1): >>44473044 #
3. kragen ◴[] No.44471315[source]
Last week I happened to visit a grocery store that accepts Bitcoin payments.
replies(1): >>44471692 #
4. MangoToupe ◴[] No.44471692[source]
Huh. Were you in El Salvador by any chance?
replies(1): >>44471873 #
5. kragen ◴[] No.44471873{3}[source]
Argentina. I didn't try it because I don't have Lightning set up.
replies(2): >>44471895 #>>44475521 #
6. MangoToupe ◴[] No.44471895{4}[source]
Argentina also makes sense. Solidarity.
7. wqaatwt ◴[] No.44473044[source]
Even if places accept bitcoin they almost universally price their goods in $/€/£/.. meaning that bitcoin is only a transfer mechanism. So it’s not really a “currency” in that situation either.

I mean if somebody accepts precious metals, jewels etc. as payment in lieu of actual money that doesn’t mean those things suddenly become a currency.

replies(1): >>44473763 #
8. hx8 ◴[] No.44473763{3}[source]
When I said "most successful" I didn't mean it was a complete success, just that this is the best we've done without a state. Currencies are hard, history is full of them failing. Maybe when an asset is liquid enough, it becomes like a currency.
replies(1): >>44475019 #
9. wqaatwt ◴[] No.44475019{4}[source]
Gold/silver worked reasonably well for thousands of years and unlike bitcoins they functioned as an actual currency.

Even if you can pay for stuff with bitcoin it’s not a currency until people actually start setting prices based on it.

> liquid enough

I’m sure I could find people who would accept Apple’s stock in lieu of actual money, that wouldn’t make it a currency

10. Lerc ◴[] No.44475521{4}[source]
That's the case where I think it will pick up. If the reason for its lack of use is perception based, then instances where its utility outweighs perception will gain ground.

There are numerous places and times around the world that you can look at the situation that occurred and see that Bitcoin would have been a boon had it been established at that time.

Future instances will exist like that, and perhaps that's a good enough role for it to exist on it's own. It can be the candle that provides light when the power goes out.

The irony of course that it doesn't work if the power goes out, but that's another degree of infrastructure damage entirely. It might even be sufficient to ensure the power doesn't go out during some crisis.

replies(1): >>44476226 #
11. kragen ◴[] No.44476226{5}[source]
Bitcoin in particular can remain operational in extremely degraded conditions.

Its relatively long average block interval (10 minutes) and strictly limited maximum block size limit the total bandwidth requirement for a full node to a few kilobits per second, and you can easily run that on a laptop that consumes a few watts, easily supplied from a relatively inconspicuous solar panel or handheld gasoline generator run at a 1% duty cycle. Blockstream supplies a satellite feed of the blockchain that requires no internet connection, just a groundstation that costs less than a laptop and uses slightly more power.

Outbound bandwidth requirements from the place where the power has gone out are many orders of magnitude smaller. A Bitcoin transaction is a few hundred bytes, so outbound bandwidth requirements for transmitting one transaction at a time are a few bits per second without adding significant delay, and because the transaction is valid indefinitely in the absence of double-spending, potentially down to a small fraction of a bit per second if further delays of hours or days can be tolerated.

Now, it's true that power needs to stay on somewhere for the miners to keep running, and the miners need to be able to transmit their mined blocks to the rest of the network fast enough to avoid many orphaned forks, which requires bursts of somewhat higher bandwidth. But keeping the power on somewhere is much more likely than keeping it on everywhere.

I don't understand LN2 well enough to do this kind of analysis on it, but I'd expect it to be less tolerant of such extreme infrastructure degradation.