Hacker News Reader

Comment by discombobulate | Hacker News Reader

Digital currencies like M-Pesa & Paypal?...

Oh, no he seems to be buying crypto assets; which have value because they're decentralised. Silly me. I was confused by the author being confused.

Edit: if you're downvoting me for this comment then you don't know what you're talking about. Happy to debate!

Edit2: seriously, there's a distinction to be made. One is a censorship resist asset (which is why the trade-off of greater resources is made) & the other isn't.

Edit3: explain to me why that isn't true & I'll change my position!

View on HN

> if you're downvoting me for this comment then you don't know what you're talking about. Happy to debate!

Well, it's just that it's fairly obvious what is meant by the headline given the events of the past couple of years and your comment doesn't add anything.

The words are wrong. The definitions are incorrect. If you don't know the difference then it does add something. That's called ignorance on your part. I've explained the difference.

Edit: & it makes a difference b/c one implies government control & the other control by the individual. Individual freedom. Privacy. Saftey from persecution. Allowing freedom of speech -- without the risk of being defunded by the government.

Edit2: Thank you for your comment.

No, Bitcoin is still a digital currency, even if it's also a crypto-currency.

Also, Paypal is not a currency at all, it's just a bank and payments provider.

> No, Bitcoin is still a digital currency, even if it's also a crypto-currency.

I believe that's correct. Is the fund investing in non-crypto assets? 'Digital' implies the category 'digital' rather than 'crypto'. It's a subtle difference, but important for when government/gov agencies frame the tech.

My 'Edit2' of the root comment is incorrect.

> Also, Paypal is not a currency at all, it's just a bank and payments provider.

I believe PayPal is seen as having an electronic currency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_currency#Centralized_s...

Edit: I'll amend further. The headline is definitionally correct. It's not as precise as I would like since it doesn't convey exactly what the fund is investing in. I think being precise in this matter is important b/c the word use is used to frame the tech as yet-another-digital-thing vs a censorship resistance technology (allowing privacy in an age of increased surveillance & free speech where centralised companies have become the censors). The word 'crypto' has a certain connotation -- which is why I think the SEC won't use it. Or other gov agencies refer to it as 'so-called' crypto currency.

It's also why Coinbase says 'digital currency', I think. There are ppl who try & force the matter when they're being interviewed. Well, I'm forcing the matter back.

---

Edit2 (reply to icebraining):

icebraining, I'm being throttled. Here's my reply,

> A random line in Wikipedia does not make for good evidence about how something is seen.

At least I supplied evidence, vs your naked claim.

> Bloomberg is writing for a general business audience, using a more generic term is normal

Good journalists use 'crypto'. Here's an example from Forbes (general business audience?),

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2017/08/10/coinbase-b...

> doesn't imply anything.

I think it does. I've explained above in an edit. You seem to be making a lot of statements without backing anything up with reason.

'Digital' implies the category 'digital' rather than 'crypto'.

It only implies that for people knowledgeable enough to clear know what "cryptocurrencies" are. Bloomberg is writing for a general business audience, using a more generic term is normal, and doesn't imply anything.

I believe PayPal is seen as having an electronic currency:

A random line in Wikipedia does not make for good evidence about how something is seen. Especially as the line says they "will sell" their currency, which is not something Paypal does currently.

Paypal is a bank, they hold money in existing currencies, they don't emit their own.

Seems like a good opportunity to explain why "that is true". I'm curious what you're thinking.

Each asset can be looked at in terms of use cases. Bitcoin is the first crypto asset. The currency use case. Etherium is a generalised platform -- computing. Others have been created or are in the works.

For any given use case I believe the solution could be done more efficiently with traditional tech. What traditional tech doesn't do is provide resistance to censorship. Governments can take them down. Currencies, social networks, whatever. The raison d'être of crypto is to provide this resilience. That's what the extra resources go to. Crypto is valuable because it's a more resilience-whatever. E.g., Bitcoin is a more resilient money (Monero is better b/c it's private). Assets which can be taken have less value. Platforms which require permission have less innovation. That's the quick answer.

This poster is correct, albeit not for his reasons. I speculate in digital currencies (or rather their exchange rates) and there is a fine difference.

Digital currency is an all encompassing term for any money that solely exists electronically. Example: Money deposited into a bank account is digital currency. Investing into digital currency can mean a lot of different things. A few include, taking positions on exchange rates (such as the conversion of USD to EUR), taking a position on lending yields, or even simply a position on inflation. An economically-proficient reader might opine that these are all the same things, but there is a very fine line that distinguishes them all. Sort of like the line between digital currencies and crypto-currencies.

Crypto-currencies are a subset of digital currencies. One who "invests" in crypto invests into digital currency, but one who invests into digital currency does not always invest into crypto.

There is a distinction, even if we all instinctively knew what the authors were trying to get across.

The digital currency set is larger than I thought (I believe it includes the items I've stated (see Wikipedia link re PayPay)).

If you call censorship resistance a 'fine line', I agree.

I explained why I made the distinction. You should probably learn to read a more carefully before making statements about all knowing this & that. Or fine lines.

What do you think the point of crypto is? Make me look silly, bro.

Edit: You see the information I've talked about? I created that. So if you've got more, I'd be impressed.

Edit2: If you've got any thoughts on the blockchain as a data-commons for AI, I'm all ears.

Edit3: Any thoughts on the future of the decentralised web? Tangles for the IoT? How evolution relates to hard forks? Anything like that? Or just some dictionary definitions?

My compatriot, I'm gonna be hoenst and say I have only a modicum of a clue what you've been trying to convey in this thread chain, and I've only been replying on what I've assumed you're trying to get across. No disrespect, I just think there's a language barrier going on here.

>I explained why I made the distinction. You should probably learn to read a more carefully before making statements about all knowing this & that. Or fine lines.

This is true. I have a habit of skimming and assuming if something's unclear.

>What do you think the point of crypto is? Make me look silly, bro.

Damn. If I came off as combative, wasn't my intention. Crypto's got a lot of uses. Fighting censorship through decentralization is one of its most notable features. Speculation and decentralized asset manipulator is another.

>You see the information I've talked about? I created that. So if you've got more, I'd be impressed.

I don't understand.

>If you've got any thoughts on the blockchain as a data-commons for AI, I'm all ears.

I don't understand.

>Any thoughts on the future of the decentralised web? Tangles for the IoT? How evolution relates to hard forks? Anything like that? Or just some dictionary definitions?

Exploitation of networks will be easier to carryout and forensics will be easier to fudge on a decentralized network. Having everyone run through the same nodes and the ability to mask my traffic as a benign pass-thru will greatly enable cyber-crime, even more-so than our current clearnet. Censorship will lose its foothold on oppressing, but it will now enable the other type of independent criminal.

On tangles: I think, if I'm correct in assuming how directed acryllic graphs operate, this will be a boon for anti-censorship, but its still has the same pitfalls. I can catch a ride and spoof myself as a benign fellow network user. I don't know much about this, but I've put one of the whitepapers on my to-do list.

Maybe the 'crypto' vs 'digital' is too subtle for most ppl to understand (as in, what drives the use of the language. Why players are motivated to use the words they do). Maybe I didn't explain it well.

It's like the use of the term 'bcash' to discredit Bitcoin Cash.

If you -- not being stupid -- don't get it, it's probably not worth my time explaining it again.

Edit: it's past 1 here. Need to sleep. Sorry for the short reply. You should check out Monero. A look at what the privacy has to offer.

>Maybe the 'crypto' vs 'digital' is too subtle for most ppl to understand (as in, what drives the use of the language. Why players are motivated to use the words they do). Maybe I didn't explain it well.

I assume most don't care. The dichotomy is unimportant to them.

>If you -- not being stupid -- don't get it, it's probably not worth my time explaining it again.

I get it.

>it's past 1 here. Need to sleep. Sorry for the short reply. .

Sleep tight.

>You should check out Monero. A look at what the privacy has to offer

Already a user. Got in before people realized how much of a game changer this is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com