Hacker News Reader

It's not that speculative on the long term IMO.

In the 80s and 90s, we found a way of connecting many computers together and here we are.

Now we found a way to create programmable: trust, value, scarcity and incentives. If that's not going to change the society over the next 20-30 years, I don't know what will.

Only land ownership could remain in the space of interest of governments then (being immovable).

>Now we found a way to create programmable: trust, value, scarcity and incentives.

I've seen variations of this argument repeated often. It sounds sexy but then when you probe it's hard to nail down something big enough we can't currently do that becomes possible. Financial markets are already very sophisticated and if anything retail investors are still not using the great products out there as much as they should (index funds are huge and yet most people still prepare very poorly for retirement). Maybe it's just a case of we still not knowing the actual killer app of crypto currencies and contracts and this is just like connected networks in the 70s. Or maybe this is like the segway and smart people are convinced it will revolutionize things but in the end it's just handwaving.

> index funds are huge and yet most people still prepare very poorly for retirement

Retail financial products are only just now entering the internet era. At least in UK, before 2017 we did not have Vanguard, Monzo, Revolut. Nutmeg was less known. Older banks and investment accounts are still relatively hard to use via the internet (e.g. requiring ancient identity verification methods) and understand for unexperienced.

Cryptocurrencies have a chance to bring much faster improvements to this space. I think the biggest question right now is whether crypto can become self-regulated in practice and avoid being regulated by traditional centralised means. If we can protect average Joe from scams and help him navigate the finance space cheaper and simpler, we don't need old government for this.

It's pretty much inevitable IMO, given enough time, because removing intermediaries reduces cost and friction of the flow of value. In the future, the average Joe might:

- create his personal wealth account with a portfolio, after evaluating his character and beliefs (similar to how robo-advisers work) - instead of keeping any wealth in cash money, a small chunk of his portfolio will be spent for each transaction he makes (while being converted on the fly to a chunk of seller's portfolio, with value expressed in a stable-coin)

I think the goal should be to stop using any form of cash as a store of value, which is just a part of pre-internet history now. With cryptocurrencies available now for anyone to invest, make mistakes and learn, we have a pretty good start.

>I think the goal should be to stop using any form of cash as a store of value

No one should use any currency as a store of value, use actual productive assets. And your argument that we should make financial products enter the Internet era is completely true. I just don't see where the cryptocurrencies help.

Have you looked? There are better savings accounts with proof of stake systems. There are programmable components with ETH, EOS, Lisk, various others. There are bank/savings accounts that can be signed up for with a web browser (smartcash). The list is endless.

It's mostly about speed of innovation. Cryptocurrencies will just make creating and experimenting with financial products easier (being unregulated).

I think the major appeal is in what can't be done.

Did you know, for instance, that in the past ~8 years we nearly quadrupled the US monetary base? [1] What are your opinion on the economic decisions that led to this? The Fed themselves seem to believe it has failed to achieve what they set out to do which was to increase inflation, and to indirectly increase the real GDP. Here are a couple of interesting articles. [2][3] What of increasingly speculative ideas like negative interest rates? How do you feel about the government's decision to more or less ignore the mounting debt of the US? If the US dollar lost strength, perhaps as we move beyond the petro dollar, do you think it will maintain it's value as world reserve currency? Do you believe that banks, the Fed, and the government have your best interest in mind when making their decisions? [4]

These questions are rhetorical because your response doesn't matter. Nobody's does. Except 7 people in a room (currently 4). They make their decisions, you live with the consequences. Decentralized currencies change this enabling people to place their 'value' into something that nobody can manipulate, beyond normal market forces. The current absurd rise of Bitcoin is indeed somewhat scary and looks like it should be due for a major price correction at the minimum. If there was a central body in charge of Bitcoin then now might be the next time they decide that the next few hundred blocks will yield 10,000 bitcoins instead of 12.5 - just to try to lower the price and 'stabilize' the currency a bit. But this will not happen. The currency will continue unabated, controlled by market forces alone. This could be a good thing, it could be a bad thing. But you can make a decision without having to worry about the implications of what 4 people in a room decide. Interestingly this [inflation of supply] could be done theoretically in a fork, but then again it would be up to the market to decide the value and merit of such things instead of our 4 people.

In my opinion taking trust and centralization out of anything is a good idea. And this is something that decentralized currencies offer. Currencies whose value tends to increase over time have a sordid past. On the other hand I think that rather begs the question of whether we've 'solved' economics, or are just building up for an even lovelier epitaph before we even hit the centennial of 1929.

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BASE/

[2] - https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/J...

[3] - https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/t...

[4] - https://today.yougov.com/news/2017/05/11/trust-banks-not-uni...

I personally suspect it's a really bad idea to replace monetary policy with a fixed deflationary currency. But independently of that people should not be holding currencies as assets for more than very short term needs and emergency funds so if the comparison is Cryptocurrency vs Dollar then cryptocurrencies have a very long way to go before they're even half as good as fiat currencies for day to day transactions (nobody accepts them, they fluctuate too much, etc). If the comparison is Cryptocurrency vs Assets then I'd rather use as a store of value actual scarce and useful assets like companies and land than things that are useless by design like gold and bitcoin. If central bankers are untrustworthy is not really relevant for any of the two discussions.

Hundreds of years ago, you could transfer money across the world just like you can now. It would just take having the right connections and a lot of time. Does that mean our global banking system is unnecessary?

Bitcoin et al unlock a potential economic powerhouse the likes of which can be comparable to the internet. Just because you can do mostly everything that blockchain tech provides without one, doesn't mean it isn't incredibly valuable.

>Just because you can do mostly everything that blockchain tech provides without one, doesn't mean it isn't incredibly valuable.

If you can already do everything that it provides that's pretty much the definition of not having any extra value. This is just extending the hand waving. What transactions will you be able to do with cryptocurrencies you can't already do with the modern financial system?

Exactly that, you can do secure financial transaction without the modern financial system. I would say that's incredibly valuable, and the vast majority of people who don't have equal access to the modern financial system would probably agree.

I live in Europe, this is thus irrelevant for me? Why are all these Americans buying into these currencies then?

The ones no-one imagined before. Just like few people saw social networks coming, it's currently hard to predict what can be done when huge number of people is connected in networks of value. But a few examples can be: borderless financial system; programmable instruments, derivatives by just about anyone; stable-coin (a stable reference currency)

National currencies are not really in risk.

Suppose that bitcoin or similar are used as currency in practice (that it's very far of happening, by the way). Even if you are able to do all your operations in a cryptocurrency, you will need to pay taxes. Governments only accept their own currency, so, you need to get it to pay taxes, so, demand of national currency is going to exist always.

>> "economic vessels like national bonds and other treasuries that nations rely on to borrow money?"

This is only an institutional arrangement. Nations with their currency don't really need markets to get money. For instance, in the case of USA, the FED can produce so much money as they think is appropriate (1).

I think that cryptocurrency fans suffer from that old illusion that economy can be separated from politics.

(1).- Video of Greenspan explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCZHAQnfGU

But wouldn’t that have a profound impact on the value of a currency? If all demand for it dissappeared except taxes what would happen to it’s value relative to other currencies? What would happen to trade?

Maybe demand wouldn't be impacted. Taxes affect every spending in the economy.

If you need to pay your taxes where that currency will come from? You are going to need to win it somehow.

Instead of exchange currencies in order to be able to pay taxes, why not accepting payment in the government currency in the first place?

> Instead of exchange currencies in order to be able to pay taxes, why not accepting payment in the government currency in the first place?

You don't need to exchange all your currency to pay taxes, and in the hypothetical scenario we're discussing you would want the rest to remain in cryptocurrencies because that is what you need to pay all your other expenses. Beyond the network effect, exchanging only the amount you need for taxes would improve security and limit your exposure to currency manipulation.

The people of Zimbabwe and Venezuela appear to disagree with your sentiment that national currencies aren't risky.

Your notion that crypto fans can't separate economy from politics doesn't seem right. Re-read the Bitcoin genesis block. Bitcoin began because of bullshit by bankers and barristers. Politics is the reason for Bitcoins existence.

The people of Zimbabwe and Venezuela suffered a fall in productive and/or export capacity (agricultural and oil respectively).

Never mind the currency, crypto or not, you can expect inflation when real resources are reduced and you have to grow the monetary base to keep the economy working. See (1) for more details.

I didn't say anything about risk.

I didn't say that crypto fans can't separate economy from politics, quite the opposite, I said that, it seems to me, crypto fans think, erroneously, that economics can be separated from politics.

(1). http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3773

> It would also all but entirely nullify a major chunk of government power and control.

At the danger of being somewhat off-topic: The tv show Mr Robot explores a scenario comparable to that in a very interesting and well-made way.