←back to thread

I wasted years of my life in crypto

(twitter.com)
681 points Anon84 | 2 comments | 07 Dec 25 12:57 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
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 #
1. Dilettante_ ◴[08 Dec 25 11:30 UTC] No.46191085{3}[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 #
2. 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.