Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyphar | Hacker News Reader

Excluding the transaction fees problem you mentioned (which cryptocurrencies also have -- while it might not be 4% it's definitely not 0%), all of the uses you listed are really just one use-case -- uncensorable transactions. Don't get me wrong, that's a very good feature of cryptocurrencies (assuming that you have the ability to transform crypto back to real money on the other end), but you should be aware that your list of use-cases is only one element long.

I also want to point out that the use-case of "get your money out of the country" is not exactly perfect for Bitcoin because of how volatile it is (imagine if someone had to get their money out during December 2017).

View on HN

Good point.

I'd say anonymous payments is a little different from being uncensorable though. You'll stay anonymous even after the payment has gone through.

As for transaction fees, if we exclude Bitcoin which has really high fees, cryptocurrency fees are very small and almost negligible.[0]

Getting money out of the country is always relative. Even with Bitcoin's volatility it's much preferred to losing all your money. Either you cannot bring it with you through the border, or Venezuela's hyperinflation will eat it up in a flash.

[0]: https://whycryptocurrencies.com/cheaper_faster.html

>> As for transaction fees, if we exclude Bitcoin which has really high fees, cryptocurrency fees are very small and almost negligible.[0]

That's probably because their popularity among users is also negligible. Problem with cryptocurrencess is that they don't scale well, with increased transaction volumes the fees and processing times also tend to rise until network's hashing power catches up.

Not exactly. Fees are high in Bitcoin because they want it to be. Bitcoin Cash could for example handle at least 20x of transaction throughput, with the same low fees.

Of course scaling is difficult. But Bitcoin isn't a good example of that.

I'm struggling to understand if uncensorable transactions are a good thing (note: struggling not in a sense of "I actually think it is evil but let's hear your bullshit arguments so that I can easily debunk them", but in a sense of really being undecided). I am not a libertarian so I don't think that laws are just a useless form of violence. So how can uncensorable transactions be useful for a law-abiding citizen? One thing I can think of is when a transaction is in the gray area - you do it without asking anyone and then can argue that it is legitimate from a relative position of power, similar to asking for forgiveness instead of permission. Another thing is that existence of uncensorable money can push nation-states to adopt more equitable and just laws. But of course there are downsides in enabling crime and so on. So is uncensorable money a good thing in aggregate? I don't know.

The most obvious example I can think of is when WikiLeaks (or pick your own politically-unfriendly charitable cause) had their PayPal and bank accounts frozen -- people donated using Bitcoin because the transactions couldn't be blocked by private companies. There are also several other examples of completely legal but unfriendly-to-large-corporations transactions -- in the several US states where marijuana has been legalised it is still difficult to conduct non-cash transactions with the proceeds because most payment processors are under federal jurisdiction thus making it possible for your (completely legal) funds to be seized.

You are always at the mercy of your platform. But wikileaks could have continued accepting cash in the mail instead of being sidelined by a third party service. And at least with legal pot the tide is quickly shifting to make traditional banking easier; there was talk in LA about opening a municipal bank kinda for this purpose.

For most people, the utility of sticking your money into a volatile and slow system with no recourses is just never going to be there. A municipal credit union would be more useful and offer an out from private for-profit banking for most people.

Thank you for substantially raising the mean thoughtfulness of the comments in this thread.

Donations to WikiLeaks were blocked, even though they were never charged with any crime.

So, this is an example of where a fully law abiding citizen, had their transactions blocked, but the crypto payments weren't.

The legal Bitcoin payments weren't blocked, but the bank transactions were.

Yes, wikileaks is a good example.

> I am not a libertarian so I don’t think that laws are just a useless form of violence.

Libertarians aren’t anti-law, they are pro-constitution. Libertarians are against the drug war, pro-marijuana legalization, against civil asset forfeiture, and trying to end the endless wars waged in the Middle East.

You will not find a better friend than a libertarian if you ever find yourself arrested or sued for any reason. Judges inventing laws is the antithesis of the belief system - libertarians follow the law as written.

Yes, "libertarian" is probably not the right term - a quick skim of wikipedia shows that it is very broad with a varied attitude towards legitimacy of state power. What I specifically meant is that I don't see all restrictions on financial activity as a priori bad.

That said, why is the emphasis on constitution (BTW, do you mean any constitution or US constitution in particular)? Constitution is just a special kind of law after all and I can totally imagine libertarians claiming that it is inadequate, pushing to change it and make it more aligned with their principles.

I am specifically speaking about the USA as I am a libertarian from the USA, but the libertarian ideology is universal. It has a rich history of thinkers and writers if you want to explore more. Basically libertarians begin with the idea that the rights of the individual are the most important, and government should be restricted from infringing on individuals.

In the USA we have the Bill of Rights that protects each person from government overreach, such as the 1st amendment which protects freedom of speech, and the 5th amendment against testifying against yourself.

The government however often passes laws that violate these rights, and then the courts have to overturn laws that are unconstitutional because they violate our rights.

I am of the opinion that the government is a very dangerous entity with unlimited power and ability to harm citizens, so we should always be skeptical of all laws passed and work as much as possible to limit the power of government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com