Hacker News Reader

Comment by nikcub | Hacker News Reader

> boasting much faster and cheaper transactions and real anonymity

Cost me over $4 to send Monero transactions last month. Cost me about $3 to send a Bitcoin transaction this morning. The average and median transaction fees between the two networks have been pretty close for a while

I like Monero but it has some way to go - it needs a light client, multisig completed, and hasn't really had to confront any scaling issues yet (already at 30GB+ blockchain with 4-5k transactions per day).

At the same time the other cryptos are progressing rapidly on the one huge advantage Monero has - Ethereum has added zk-SNARKs and there are all sorts of proposals and developments on Bitcoin now that malleability has been addressed and the new opcodes added

edit: also re: Bitcoin News - most of what I read is about the ongoing Segwit2x saga, but it's a bit difficult to avoid the price when it is on such a tear

View on HN

I see hundreds of my friends sending money free with Venmo each month. I know nobody having any slightest interest in Bitcoin or the likes. Once in a while, somebody would ask me if it makes sense for them to invest some cash into Bitcoin as they've heard about some crazy growth, but when I explain to them some, they all decide it's too risky, and those who are the anarchist type stick to gold.

Given that it's risky, you could (should) have told them to just invest a tiny amount, like 1% of their savings. That's what I told some folks, and now their investment is up 10× so their 1% investment turned into 10% and their are really happy about it.

There's a moral side of each investment, too, and this one here is not a positive one.

Whoa, did you just escalate to saying that owning bitcoin is immoral? What is immoral about owning bitcoin?

I strongly believe so. Given its only utility as a low-class investment too and illicit trade payment method, how can it be moral? The substantial environmental toll and funding Chinese enterprises is not a positive thing either. I'd be happy if you prove me wrong.

1. Owning bitcoin doesn't encourage illicit trade. Cash is used for illicit trade, but it's not immoral to own cash.

2. Owning bitcoin incurs only the environmental toll for the initial transfer into your wallet. If the $0.50 of electricity used to validate your initial transfer bothers you, buy some carbon emissions to offset that. But you probably waste much more electricity leaving Halo on pause for 10 minutes while you grab a snack.

3. If you think Chinese enterprises are immoral (which I would love to hear your reasoning on if true), then don't buy bitcoin from a Chinese enterprise. They don't have a monopoly on the currency.

Also, what do you mean by "low-class investment"? Do you mean high risk? The definition of investment is: "a thing that is worth buying because it may be profitable or useful in the future."

Given the track record of Bitcoin, I would say that so far it has proven to be a very good investment for any who have bought it so far. It's hard to argue with history.

Or maybe you are claiming to have knowledge about why the years-long trend of bitcoin growth will cease soon? Has something fundamentally changed about it recently?

transactions with fiat is fine, good luck storing all of your wealth in fiat (specially with worldwide QE, fiat is more pumped than anything can be) : http://www.fiatfate.com/

The solution to this is, and always has been, to buy equities. Put your wealth to work generating an income stream.

A guy living in a basement in China, Ukraine, or Russia is not sophisticated enough to make such investments. Bitcoin is the amateur investment dream, but, unfortunately, there is unscrupulous money behind it, too. When there's a supply of avid supporters living in denial and who invest any penny in it at any price, there's an opportunity to make money out of somebody else's stupidity.

People in those countries have access to equities markets. It's a little more awkward to trade in Russia, but there absolutely are online brokerages that service the country. China actively encourages private citizens to invest in stock funds.

My 401(k) and the fund I spent less than 10 minutes selecting gives me roughly 15% annual growth. Just last month alone it was about 5%. Greed hurts and kills. I'm happy with this return, and I'd instead invest my time in building something tangible than sitting on a stash of Bitcoin and waiting for the day to sell to come, which would never be. It's just very degrading from a psychological point of view - not selling bitcoins does nobody good, including the owner whose psyche is getting severely affected. On forums, I see people living in misery just to invest every penny in cryptos in hopes of a better life, which possibly would never materialize. With stocks and selecting the right companies to you invest in, and having a modest growth that doesn't activate greed that emphatically, the positive outcome for the world as a whole is evident.

> but when I explain to them some, they all decide it's too risky,

This isn't much of a surprise after looking at some of your prior comments regarding Bitcoin. A few gems:

> Yeah, imagine using Netscape in 2017 and not Chrome - that's pretty much how I look at Bitcoin.

> Thanks, but no thanks! I'd keep as far away from this stinking pile as possible!

> Mere mortals do not have Bitcoin and are not interested in it - at all.

> everything you can say about Bitcoin, you can say about land as well - it's scarce, but unlike Bitcoin, it has a real utility.

> the conspiracy theory that CIA/NSA created Bitcoin to catch crooks now makes more sense than ever.

> I don't believe in Bitcoin, which is majorly driven by low-class Chinese speculators and exchanges!

patio11 is that you in there?

I don't tell them these opinions - I explain to them what Bitcoin is and how it works and what's needed to keep it operational. Nobody likes China's involvement - especially the anarchist types. Bitcoin is full of pseudo-anarchists and people living in denial because Bitcoin is their last hope of having a decent living.

Venmo is great for small payments, and makes way more sense than bitcoin for that use case.

Bitcoin's use-case is not microtransactions or payments among friends. It is providing secure and trustworthy payments when no trusted third party exists, independent of governments, companies, etc.

I am amazed how many people use Venmo. I'm one of the first adopters, I've never actually used it except to donate the penny I was given when I opened my account, but I see such a diverse crowd using it today daily - it's beyond my most optimistic expectations for it or a similar service! So, PayPal did a great decision to acquire them as Venmo doesn't have the notoriety of PayPal proper!

What kind of anarchists do you know? They stick to gold??? LOL

Seriously, this says more about you and the crowd you keep than about bitcoin or crypto currencies.

A) XMR Tx set to low priority will usually ship in next block (within 2 mins) with 5 ring size at fee of 30cent. Not sure what you were doing.

B) ZKSnarks will never deprecate XMR, they bring the caveats of trusted being required, inability to audit coin supply and inherently DO NOT provide fungibility.

It’s no wonder xmr price is in the doldrums. Even the smart guys on HN are misinformed about it.

Fwiw, ring signatures are also getting implemented on Ethereum. (But I do think Monero makes a good case for their "mandatory privacy" stance.)

Yup. Eth is good, ring on eth will not provide transactional privacy though.

>Cost me over $4 to send Monero transactions last month

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why couldn't you just decrease the fees you used? Monero has an adaptive blocksize, and transactions won't really get dropped if you used very low fees (unless you are very unlucky)

The mining dynamics are very different than Bitcoin in a way that it adjusts the blocksize to keep TX costs low. This isn't scalable but looks like they are working on it. (Search for 'hyc' on reddit and monero forums). I still haven't completely understood all of it, but here's[1] an explanation.

[1]:https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/4567

> Cost me over $4 to send Monero transactions last month. Cost me about $3 to send a Bitcoin transaction this morning. The average and median transaction fees between the two networks have been pretty close for a while

I might be wrong, but isnt the fee based on how much of the currency that you're sending?

Like, how much were you sending for each currency? If the amounts werent similar, the fees might not be accurate for similar amounts

The fees have nothing to do with how much money you’re sending, you could send $1 or $1,000,000 and it would cost the same thing. The fees are based on how large the transaction is (in terms of kilobytes, that is, not amount). Some transactions have more inputs/outputs than others (and thus take up more space in terms of kilobytes than others) but that’s not a function of the amount being sent.

Monero is Proof of Work, so it's not much better than Bitcoin.

Proof of Stake is far superior and Delegated Proof of Stake is another step up from that.

Delegated proof of stake is more resistant to forks since it's easier for delegates to reach consensus on decisions.

Did you do a segwit transaction? My fees were in the pennies range...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com