Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

I think the split you draw between people looking at Bitcoin-the-real-thing and people adoring the machinery is an excellent one.

If you look at the original paper, it's pretty clear that Bitcoin was meant to be peer-to-peer electronic cash: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

In practice, it has failed at this aim. I don't think that was necessarily so; plenty of things start out rough and become more useful over time. But the mechanics-adorers I've talked with seemed willfully blind to all the practical issues. We can't fix problems we refuse to see, so Bitcoin has preserved its machinery at the expense of fulfilling its vision.

View on HN

In practice, Airbnb has failed at its aim of providing airbed style accommodations for conference goers.

Airbnb is a service, where bitcoin is a commodity. I don't mean to imply you are wrong. I simply mean that there may be an even more interesting parallel out there where a commodity is no longer being used in its originally intended way which may support bitcoin's evolution of purpose.

Airbnb is a service. Bitcoin is a commodity in the same way online poker chips are a commodity

How is bitcoin a commodity? I think you give it too much credit to elevate it to that status.

It's structure and behaviour much more resembles a commodity than it does any other asset class; it is basically digital gold. The CFTC agrees and considers itself the responsible regulator.

With the important distinction that it's not an economically useful commodity. Sure, the CFTC regulated it, because their remit is one of the broadest. So you could call it a commodity by default. But it's not like you could make jewelry or breakfast cereal from Bitcoins in the same way you could use commodities like gold or wheat. So it's arguably more like a gambling instrument than any real commodity.

Really, though, I think the closest financial match is a private currency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency

These are illegal in most places because they historically have caused a lot of problems without much in the way of redeeming value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States#1...

Gold has a value beyond what it is worth (and which aids to its value): you can use it as a jewellery.

Digital currencies can be used via computers and networks while physical currencies such as banknotes and gold requires sneakernet.

Is bitcoin becoming a store of value really as obviously better for it than AirBnb becoming a more general accommodation provider? If not, it's not really a fair comparison.

Besides, AirBnb didnt even fail in providing accommodation for conference goers with included breakfast. It still works perfectly in its original intended use.

Airbnb is a business. It's "aim" is to grow and make money.

Bitcoin was a political experiment before it was a technological one. You don't pivot political beliefs the way you pivot a business. The technological experiment is still ongoing, but the political experiment has failed its goals.

They have succeeded wildly in providing accommodation for conference-goers. The last conference I went to many people were staying in AirBnBs and even coordinating to share them.

They succeeded by expanding the mechanism to support actual discovered user needs. Which is what Bitcoin signally failed to do.

How would you change the machinery?

Personally, I wouldn't. Most people don't want digital cash for the same reasons they don't use real cash: your risk of theft is higher, it's not as convenient to use, transactions can't be reversed, and you lose a lot of buyer protections.

I use technology to solve problems for people. The few niches Bitcoin has found (e.g., speculation, money laundering, ransoms, light drug crime) are not really what I would call solving problems for people.

Your personal opinion on cash is irrelevant to the subject. Cash has property you say you don't want. Some people might and do want them. Just have a look at what the relationship between Germans and cash.

Bitcoin has property similar to cash to many extend. It was not technically possible before its invention and as such as it is a real intrinsect value (dont ask me to quantify it)

It wasn't my personal opinion. In the US, the use of cash is below half of personal transactions and has been declining for years; most countries are similar. I personally am more like the Germans here, but I recognize that I'm an outlier.

Regardless, your point doesn't make a lot of sense, because many Germans surveyed on this say they use cash because it gives them better control over spending and more clarity as to where their money goes. Bitcoin is in no way superior to a debit card in that regard.

The value of new possibility isn't really intrinsic; you measure it through seeing if people actually use it. With Bitcoin they mostly don't, which suggests that it is at best more useful to a small slice of people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com