Most active commenters
  • user34283(6)
  • Dilettante_(4)

←back to thread

I wasted years of my life in crypto

(twitter.com)
681 points Anon84 | 12 comments | 07 Dec 25 12:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
spicyusername ◴[07 Dec 25 13:28 UTC] No.46181533[source]▶
I've never understood the initial arguments about Bitcoin, no matter how many times they've been explained to me.

The block chain is, and always was, an extremely inconvenient database. How anyone, especially many intelligent people, thought it was realistic to graft a currency on top of such a unwieldy piece of technology is beyond me. Maybe it goes to show how few people understand economics and anthropology and how dunning-krueger can happen to anyone.

Now the uninformed gambling on futuristic sounding hokum? THAT is easy to understand.

That being said, I'm sorry the author had to go through this experience, the road of life is often filled with unexpected twists and turns.

replies(48): >>46181550 #>>46181552 #>>46181565 #>>46181570 #>>46181587 #>>46181592 #>>46181595 #>>46181598 #>>46181626 #>>46181627 #>>46181644 #>>46181650 #>>46181665 #>>46181684 #>>46181692 #>>46181705 #>>46181710 #>>46181747 #>>46181851 #>>46182086 #>>46182181 #>>46183207 #>>46183326 #>>46184155 #>>46188845 #>>46188916 #>>46189281 #>>46189390 #>>46189635 #>>46189752 #>>46190184 #>>46190277 #>>46190352 #>>46190438 #>>46190551 #>>46190980 #>>46192357 #>>46192629 #>>46192718 #>>46192829 #>>46193037 #>>46193082 #>>46193531 #>>46193609 #>>46194845 #>>46194934 #>>46195115 #>>46203155 #
fsh ◴[07 Dec 25 13:55 UTC] No.46181710[source]▶
It's an ingenious solution to achieve a "trustless" currency that prevents double-spending without a central authority. Unfortunately, this solves the wrong problem. Spending money usually involves getting a good or service in return, which inherently requires "trust" (as does any human interaction). Your fancy blockchain is not going to help you if you order something with Bitcoin and no package arrives.
replies(8): >>46183912 #>>46188004 #>>46189527 #>>46189658 #>>46189805 #>>46190291 #>>46191411 #>>46194081 #
wisty ◴[08 Dec 25 08:31 UTC] No.46189805[source]▶
The issue isn't that it solves the wrong problem.

The issue is that crypto boosters (including a few already here) claim it solves a whole host of other problems without thinking things through, kind of like some communists. Then if you argue enough they'll point out that things can be fixed ... but bitcoin is now indistinguishable from any other currency, other than its payment system that will no longer be widely used.

Like, you can make it easy to use if there are banks. And those banks will be subject to regulations. Boom, now you have banks and regulations.

You can get a loan from those banks. Now there's fractional reserve banking, with something like a virtual gold standard.

If it ever gets big enough, the fed can write bitcoin denominated bonds, and it's now prerty much a fiat currency, not even virtual gold.

Yes you still have a shadow sector where you can use bitcoin to buy drugs or dodge the taxman. But all the other supposed benefits have gone.

replies(3): >>46189960 #>>46190359 #>>46190893 #
Dilettante_ ◴[08 Dec 25 10:57 UTC] No.46190893[source]▶
Your argument here appears to be "crypto is no better than fiat, because you can build the same systems on top of them."

What you put on top is not the core value proposition of cryptocurrencies? It's what's underneath that's different, that was always the point. Fiat currency is built on a foundation of gov't control, whether it's the physical currency or the money in your bank account. Cryptocurrencies, fundamentally, are under no such control. If you're stupid enough to go get a 5mil loan in bitcoin from a bank who is only holding 1.7mil, and the delivery of said bitcoin is a slip of paper saying "iou btc lol" that's not the currency failing you, it's you acting stupidly.

replies(2): >>46190961 #>>46191969 #
1. user34283 ◴[08 Dec 25 11:10 UTC] No.46190961[source]▶
The financial system being under government control is the only proposition consistent with reality.

We, the people, make the rules. Replacing our democratic processes with finance controlled by the one with the most computing power, control of the software, or having horded the most of the tokens, is in no way desirable or realistic.

Even if the proposition wasn't borderline idiotic in the first place, there is no clear explanation how such a system should reward early adopters and allow them to cash out at a profit many times exceeding inflation.

It's all a scam.

replies(3): >>46191085 #>>46192276 #>>46194243 #
2. Dilettante_ ◴[08 Dec 25 11:30 UTC] No.46191085[source]▶
I'm gonna first of all disagree with the notion that our entire democracy rests on control of the financial system, secondly point out that you seem to make some wild leaps about how decentralized currencies work, and thirdly ask how the hell you're getting the idea that early adopters would need to be "cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation"(Participation in the new system is the point of adopting it, how is this unclear).

Finally:

  We, the people, make the rules.
If you truly believe that, you are (and I realize this is not the level of discourse I should strive for on HN) beyond redemption.
replies(1): >>46191739 #
3. user34283 ◴[08 Dec 25 13:04 UTC] No.46191739[source]▶
I said the financial system must be controlled by our democratic system, not that democracy rests on control of the financial system.

No idea where I'm supposedly making "wild leaps" here. You on the other hand...

And guess where "the hell" I am getting the idea that early adopters would need to be cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation: reality. As cashing out at a large profit is exactly what has been happening for over a decade. It is the sole reason for virtually all participants joining the scheme in the first place.

4. dns_snek ◴[08 Dec 25 13:57 UTC] No.46192276[source]▶
> We, the people, make the rules.

Since when? We merely vote for politicians who promise to enact laws and regulations that are beneficial for us but they almost universally fail to do that, succumbing to self-interests and corruption.

If a government implements authoritarian measures that curb our freedom in an unpopular manner, "we the people" can't do anything about it. In a few years we may or may not vote them out, and the people who replace them may (or may not) do what we, the people, want.

replies(1): >>46192382 #
5. user34283 ◴[08 Dec 25 14:09 UTC] No.46192382[source]▶
That's a bleak view on the state of democracy.

Whatever your feelings on the topic may be, we will not be giving up government control of the financial system in favor of a blockchain and profits for crypto-bros.

replies(1): >>46192651 #
6. dns_snek ◴[08 Dec 25 14:32 UTC] No.46192651{3}[source]▶
Bleak but realistic, unfortunately. There needs to be a viable alternative as long as our elected representatives have the power to abuse the financial system as a means of authoritarian control, like freezing the bank accounts of protestors.

A truly democratic leadership with stringent limitations on how they can meddle with financial transactions would be preferable, but that's just a dream at this point.

replies(1): >>46193096 #
7. user34283 ◴[08 Dec 25 15:10 UTC] No.46193096{4}[source]▶
A viable alternative to the financial system is also just a dream.

If we take from the government the ability to freeze bank accounts of protestors, we can't just also remove the ability to freeze the accounts of criminals, enemies, or even terrorists.

It seems like a clear non-starter, yet many proponents of crypto seem to think it would be an obvious improvement.

replies(1): >>46193776 #
8. Dilettante_ ◴[08 Dec 25 15:55 UTC] No.46193776{5}[source]▶
>If we take from the government the ability to freeze bank accounts of protestors, we can't just also remove the ability to freeze the accounts of criminals

That's really the crux of the issue here: Having to choose one over the other, would you rather some criminals go free, or some innocents be imprisoned?

I suspect anyone's position to this depends heavily on which sides they've been on more on their lives: Victimized by criminals or unjustly punished.

replies(1): >>46194102 #
9. user34283 ◴[08 Dec 25 16:17 UTC] No.46194102{6}[source]▶
That might be the crux philosophically.

But realistically we're not seriously going to entertain stripping all controls from the financial system because we don't trust the government to do a reasonable job. Perhaps you'll agree that this is a very unlikely thing to happen.

Now my issue here is that many proponents of crypto, among other fallacies, use this exact scenario as a justification for why eg. Bitcoin will go to $1M, and why they should deserve to cash out at a 10x return in the future.

It's not going to happen, and even if it was, there's still no reason for early adopters to profit in what has so far been a zero sum wealth redistribution scheme with negligible value generated.

replies(1): >>46194504 #
10. FabHK ◴[08 Dec 25 16:27 UTC] No.46194243[source]▶
You might have formulated things a bit unclearly, but I fundamentally agree that money, like everything else, should be under democratic control of the people. Not controlled by some crypto bros that are happy to interfere with the protocol if it suits them (The DAO hack, two 20+ block rollbacks of Bitcoin), but not if massive crime happens on it.
replies(1): >>46194561 #
11. Dilettante_ ◴[08 Dec 25 16:46 UTC] No.46194504{7}[source]▶
We are actually completely in agreement that crypto-hustlers and such are entirely full of hooey and nobody deserves any payout whatsoever. I'm only arguing from a point of "government bad" idealism.

>realistically we're not seriously going to entertain stripping all controls from the financial system because we don't trust the government to do a reasonable job

I kind of am. What I'm seeing happen is the opposite: The government stripping more and more agency from the individual because it does not trust its citizens do do a reasonable job(of anything). Every sector freed from the Leviathan, every tiny bit of life that can proceed without being subject to gov't interference is a huge win for me. Again, this is essentially a position born from my seeing what happens when "safety over liberty" goes too far.

>negligible value generated

Depends on what you value. I happen to like drugs and gambling. On the other hand, giving someone who falls for a hustle the ability to get their money back is something that I personally do not value at all.

12. user34283 ◴[08 Dec 25 16:51 UTC] No.46194561[source]▶
I guess so, although crypto proponents will anyway tell you that you don't understand how crypto works as soon as you say anything negative about their scheme.

I believe what I said is a fairly accurate summary of Proof of work / Proof of stake mechanisms and Core developer's influence on the protocol.