Ask HN: What uses will crypto currency continue to see? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: What uses will crypto currency continue to see?

3 pointsziont7 comments

I think it's pretty clear that there has been zero major adoption that we define here as significant.

However, now my opinion is leaning towards that certain markets will continue to thrive and that anonymity focused crypto currencies will certainly be in use.

For instance, drugs, gambling, anything of that nature anonymous cryptocurrency I believe will survive.

What do you think about this argument? I don't think we will see public ICO but I see some sort of dark venture capitalism.

ex. you are a drug manufacturer but need seed capital

As long as there are people trading something for a medium which allows cash liquidation, even if it's unstable and open to attacks as well as centralization via miners.

Am I correct? I used to believe crypto currencies were largely garbage but I do see it's continued usage, it's just that its nowhere as near going to anywhere like we've seen up to 2018 but I believe markets which benefit greatly from a non-fiat based online wallet and ledger.

- illegal activities can benefit from anonymous and cashless transactions, but those assets still need to be converted to cash and/or laundered at some point

- exchanges, trading platforms and payment platforms benefit from faster and cheaper protocols that are at least as secure as the existing ones. These protocols don't have to be related to cryptocurrencies in any way. If anyone offers a solution that beats banks'/visa's/forex's/paypal's/... current protocol, that protocol will eventually be adopted - most likely adopted by the companies that are already market leaders so very little will change from the user's perspective

- any relatively stable asset can be viewed as a store of value - no cryptocurrency meets this requirement at the moment

- economies cannot run on a deflationary currency - a government controlled inflationary currency will always be the main means of exchange

- decentralization exists in a fraction of the existing crypto projects and, when it exists, it's of little to no benefit

So I expect to see some illegal activity, some interesting work in research/protocols/software development, no mass disruption of any industry and, of course, the continued speculation that mass disruption is just around the corner.

I think of it as a tool (framework) and not a solution which will or will not replace something.

Many banks have still old systems in place and for example, an internal cryptocurrency could replace their current system for transactions. It's cheaper and safer than most of the current systems. A friend works at a big Swiss bank and they still transfer text files over SFTP with transactions. They have over 1000 people working in IT and I think they could easily lay off a couple hundred people if new, simpler and safer tools are working. That could also thrive adoption.

I also like the idea of a bitcoin being a store of value, makes more sense than physical gold. And yes, anonymous money is always something there will be a need for.

Not trying to be snarky, but what value does an internal cryptocurrency add over a good database? Or put another way, why do you think they haven't moved from SFTP to a database and why do you think a cryptocurrency would meet those demands better?

They are required by law to be up and running again in 24 or 48 hours (don't remember exactly) if anything happens, otherwise, they lose their license. So they have a mirrored data center in a different place. It could be cheaper to just run a full node in every office they have (100+).

They already have a database, the SFTP part is for partners they work with, other financial institutes. They haven't moved yet because it's an old system and it's expensive to write a new one. Obviously, it's also expensive to write a new one on the blockchain.

All I'm saying is it could be considered in the future because you can create a secure, maybe cheaper solution with it. I think that is something that "could" drive adoption because if companies can save money they are more likely to use it.

Possibly sending money border to border for international workers. I have a friend in Thailand who sends money back to her family in Philippines every month and she gets hammered by fees. One day a stablecoin type crypto may be available with a < 1% fee.

Also banking the unbanked. There are a couple billion people without access to traditional banking. Most these people now have mobile phones, where instead of signing up at a bank, they could download an app where these people can store their value traditionally for the first time.

> Also banking the unbanked. There are a couple billion people without access to traditional banking. Most these people now have mobile phones, where instead of signing up at a bank, they could download an app where these people can store their value traditionally for the first time.

If you live a society where access to a bank is rare or difficult, chances are that you also live in a society where mobile phones are not as common, education levels are lower, understanding of what a cryptocurrency is and how to use it is lacking. Getting to use a cryptocurrency for people in the developed world can be difficult, in less developed countries even more so. And if somehow you managed to get yourself set up and understand how to use your wallet, it's still empty. And if it wasn't, there wouldn't be enough businesses around that accept the currency. And if there were, the value of what you hold would fluctuate constantly, making actual use close to impossible. It's just a big "no" on every level.

Cryptocurrencies are a toy for people in rich societies, not a banking solution for the developing ones.

Mobile networks are a lot easier to setup than banks. You don’t need to trust a mobile phone. It wont run away with your money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com