Hacker News Reader

Comment by Laforet | Hacker News Reader

>The price rising is validation for services on the periphery.

Apart from brand recognition, which application is best conducted on the bitcoin ledger than every other alternative? Please don't say "Store of value".

>Established services that can add a lot of utility for bitcoin.

How would you go about doing it? Bitcoin was not designed to have side chains and tokens pegged all over it and there is a reason why the ICO fad universally chose ETH.

>There are market participants that will use it at a lower price, that will buy it at a lower price, and continue expanding the reach of it.

Again, which users? Bitcoin was able to recover before as there were significantly fewer competitors; now there is at least one for each use case.

View on HN

Bitcoin provides a way for 2 individuals, anywhere in the world, to exchange money without trusting any third party and without asking permission from any third party, and without their transaction being subject to censorship by any third party.

That's huge.

For most people, not really.

I can send money to anyone I want to, I have no expectation of censorship or interference. The fees are low to zero depending on the exact method, and I don't have to jump through hoops to try to interact with a crypto-currency broker. I have protections, insurance and various forms of reversibility to fall back on if something screws up.

For me it's not huge, or even really relevant.

> I can send money to anyone I want to, I have no expectation of censorship or interference.

Except for donations to WikiLeaks. Or if you want to buy weed in one of the many states where it's legal. Or if the recipient's Paypal account has been frozen.

> The fees are low to zero depending on the exact method

Chase bank charged me $25 to send a wire transfer recently. Credit cards and Paypal charge me 3% to 5% when I sell something online.

> and I don't have to jump through hoops

When I sent that wire, I was required to answer slew of questions from a Chase representative including "What is this transaction for?" and "Do you plan to transact with this company again?"

> I have protections, insurance and various forms of reversibility

Perhaps as a buyer, but as a merchant, chargebacks are a nightmare.

> For most people, not really.

Huh. Most people I know detest banks and don't like the idea of handing over complete control of their money to someone else.

There just haven't been any alternatives until now.

>> Except for donations to WikiLeaks. Or if you want to buy weed in one of the many states where it's legal. Or if the recipient's Paypal account has been frozen.

These are not pressing use-cases for me.

>> When I sent that wire

It appears your banking service is a bad one, I have had none of these problems, even transferring large amounts between countries.

>> Perhaps as a buyer, but as a merchant, chargebacks are a nightmare.

Yet without them, many buyers would have given up buying online by now, chargebacks and buyer protections allow the online marketplace to function.

I think what you might have there is (yet another) criticism of how backwards the US market is.

Where would you like me to start?

It was unclear whether you were criticism bitcoin as a criticism to all cryptocurrencies, or bitcoin by itself.

Fortunately it looks like it is just bitcoin by itself.

> which application is best conducted on the bitcoin ledger than every other alternative?

Bitcoin has to compete on its own. I'm all for other cryptocurrencies unseating it. In a world where 90% drops are not uncommon or controversial, and in a world where blockchains don't die, in a world where the code is open source, I don't think it is worth entertaining the bitcoin failed idea as it will always be a political mess that can have utility added any time.

> Bitcoin was not designed to have side chains and tokens pegged all over it and there is a reason why the ICO fad universally chose ETH.

This comment and your next comment go hand in hand. Bitcoin had ICOs on it several years before Ethereum was ready or existed. When its network got full it lost its innovative edge as it took over two years to upgrade. In the meantime more fully featured competitors have focused on specific use cases.

An upgraded bitcoin may have irreparably lost some of its network effect advantage, and thats okay. It will have robust scripting for the next wave of ICOs and other organizations, decreasing the point of most altcoins. The top 10 may have differentiating qualities and markets already. Play it by ear, it isn't controversial to notice.

>Fortunately it looks like it is just bitcoin by itself.

Yes, my comment is mainly about BTC, although its many flaws are hardly unique so the same criticism will inevitably apply elsewhere.

>When its network got full it lost its innovative edge as it took over two years to upgrade. In the meantime more fully featured competitors have focused on specific use cases.

I think we are actually in agreement here. Bitcoin was innovative and exciting for a while but has gradually become stale and boring without good leadership. And the competition is catching up fast.

>An upgraded bitcoin may have irreparably lost some of its network effect advantage, and thats okay. It will have robust scripting for the next wave of ICOs and other organizations, decreasing the point of most altcoins. The top 10 may have differentiating qualities and markets already. Play it by ear, it isn't controversial to notice.

Good point, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. For starters, malleability was identified as a problem as early as 2011 and it took six years to be fixed. Other proposed additions are either minor tweaks (Schnorr signature, MAST) or vaporware (Lightening network anyone?).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com