Hacker News Reader

I suspect that you're going to get slaughtered by downvotes but I largely agree with you. It doesn't really matter that there's non-sketchy coins out there, this unregulated wave of fake altcoins is going to spoil the whole barrel in Joe Public's eyes. To them, crypto == bitcoin == every other coin. If the prevailing comments move from 'cryptocurrency is going up up UP' to 'there's heaps of dodgy scams out there, the barrier to entry is really high', it'll chill the whole lot.

The point at which something goes mainstream is the point at which it's often most fragile because first impressions at a large scale last. Early adopters and enthusiasts will invest enough time to sift through the cruft to find the relevant truth, but some random mass-adopter will rapidly form an opinion based on headlines. If the prevailing thought of cryptos is that they're unsafe right as they begin to hit routine mainstream news, it'll be a heavy burden to unsaddle.

It is well known in crypto world that you should not cash out and hold crypto until it all takes over the world /s

> Long story short: some people will make a mint. A lot of people will lose their shirts.

Zero. Sum. Game.

Is it?

That doesn't sound correct. Bitcoin didn't exist a decade ago. The amount of wealth it added can be measured directly.

But perhaps I'm not thinking of it in the right way.

Assuming Bitcoin is totally worthless in the long run (which I strongly believe it is), the right way to think of it is that people who own it have lost however much they paid for it. When you think of it that way, all the sums add up to zero.

Suppose Bitcoin ends up worth a dollar. Since there will be 22 million BTC, it seems true to say that it added at least as much wealth to the world as a failed (acqui-hired) startup. Therefore it wasn't zero sum, correct?

It's not like we're doing anything else with our time, so we may as well have a thought experiment.

the fiat currency required to fullfill the 22 million coins being cashed out would be removed from other areas of society

Why is that different from a startup being acquired for $22M? In both cases, people now have $22M to spend that they otherwise wouldn't have had.

Startups are bought because the buying company plans to use them in a profitable enterprise. What would you do with post-crash Bitcoins that you paid a dollar for?

I suppose if you wanted to be really economic about it, you might say that the wealth created is equal to the sums of the wealth foregone in everyone else’s opportunity costs. But, really, that is stilly. Nobody does that kind of accounting.

I think what the OP meant was that when the whole fiction comes crashing down (editorializing here) that the people who get rich will be those that get out first. Those who can’t get out will be owed because there simply doesn’t seem to be enough real dollars backing up the exchanges. For real wealth to be gained you want liquidity and you want to have healthy demand for the underlying product. What people want here is not actual bitcoins (or other cryptos). They want appreciation in value. However, while the prices are inflating a lot, it seems that enough people are trying exit positions to USD that the exchanges are having trouble getting enough cash to facilitate transactions.

If that all ends, the fixed sum of dollars in the exchanges will be the zero sum. Those that get out first will get it, and those that don’t will be SOL.

Nothing is created when someone exchanges blockchain tokens for money or the reverse.

I don't think that it is a zero sum game is relevant. The problem is that people are getting scammed out of their life savings. These are illegal scams, and nobody is regulating them before it's too late.

I'm not so sure about that. The bitcoin system is not closed. People have been using it to transact real world goods and services, which means that there is value flowing into and out of bitcoin, such that a profit off of a sale in bitcoin does not necessarily imply an identical loss for someone else.

real world currency expands and contracts, either naturally or via regulation. As more value is created in the world (say by turning sand into iphones), more money is created.

bitcoin etc. can't. It is a major flaw.

That is exactly what I am describing when I say that value flows into and out of bitcoin. There is nothing stopping bitcoin from "expanding and contracting" [I think you mean inflating and deflating]. At the very least something like money laundering has such an effect on bitcoin - because pre-laundered money does not have a 1:1 value ratio with clean money. Of course I'm sure there are more legitimate examples, although I wonder what percentage of BTC volume is laundering...

Bitcoin acts like an asset not a currency. The term cryptocurrency is a bit ridiculous. It should be called digital-gold, because it behaves like that.

Actually, negative sum, since the exchanges pocket some cash.

Just include that in the sum. Back to zero.

Honestly, this seems like a fair criticism. It would be worth rebutting, rather than downvoting.

My only rebuttal is that bitcoin and ethereum have appreciably better market positions than the rest of the coins out there. Bitcoin has acceptance of major exchanges, futures markets, etc.

The average ICO, though...

The biggest underpinning of all the 'coins are its trustability of its mathematics. None of the coins yet, to my knowledge, have any formal proof of the system. Because of that, we still see bugs after bugs with all 'coins.

With Ethereum, the DAO is a perfect example of that, and their shoddy "fake it till we make it" style that we see so much in tech these days. That splintered the community into ETH and ETC. And yet, later on there was another overflow error that ended up 'destroying' ETH on another attack.

Sure, as mythical play money, it's an awesome idea to toy around with. But we're not talking toying around here. We're talking people mortgaging houses and properties. We're talking of people liquidating their 401K's and putting it into $coin that was recommended. In essence, the destitution and fraud from the Great Depression was the primary reason why the SEC was created initially. And we're seeing this all over again, but worldwide on the 'net. And there's no legislative body that can legally remedy this everywhere. It's going to get very ugly.

OK so without trying to push cardano too hard, one of the major design points of cardano was to design a cryptocurrency from the ground up by building a security model, writing formal proofs for the system, and implementing said proofs in isabelle as formal verification of the underlying software for the network.

I would recommend looking into it if you are curious or would like to try to verify anything I said. They are doing a lot of cool stuff and I think the project is really interesting but I've been trying to keep my posts from getting too wordy so I'll cut myself off here.

Don’t worry the link will be reported and erased from the front page really quickly anyway.

It’s the same story for every critical thread about Altcoins. But at least this time we kinda have a confirmation that this is some kind of manipulation because the linked article have absolutely no reasons to be reported. It’s an original work with great tech insights.

In all fairness it is 'Hacker News' and not 'Tulip News' or 'Snakeoil Today', so more than one high ranking altcoin story is not going to happen here.

Regarding the coin in question, nothing to see:

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero-gold/

The usual decline into failure in record time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbqecKr-2c0

>Look at the coinbase horror stories - it's now well established if your money is stuck there, you must get the help from having a high post here on HN if you want a reasonable response.

There is a dozen of those stories for the 13 million registered users on coinbase, most people can buy & cash out without any problem

I've withdrawn money easily, all my friends too

It's the internet negative reviews biais