Hacker News Reader

Comment by panzagl | Hacker News Reader

Is there a legitimate, distinct, unique use case for cryptocurrency to weigh against it's use as an enabler for extortion??

View on HN

It's in the post - the author was able to put the taken-down video back up on lbry.tv, which is a cryptocurrency-based decentralized media platform.

But he could have put it on Vimeo as well.

Perhaps he liked the monetization on libry more.

How does that even work? I think just the payment system on that media platform is crypto based. I've never heard of content-hosting on the block chain?

I assume something like IPFS pinning in exchange for crypto money

It's very useful for international money exchange. Really wished I knew about the technology when I was living overseas and needed to send money to my family. Took more than a week IIRC plus having to have 2 to 3 different banks take their cut for a simple wire transfer overseas via Western Union. Sent via blockchain they could have had it within a few minutes with a negligible fee.

There's a bunch of valid use cases for easily being able to send and receive money rather than relying on banks for everything when there are viable alternatives.

The ability to transact anonymously online shouldn't be understated.

Transact for what? What am I more likely to need bitcoin for than to pay off some script kiddie?

In theory, anything you'd like without fussing around with bank accounts. In practice, my local head shop has a bit coin ATM. That's about the only legitimate place I've seen that accepts bitcoin.

The biggest problem imo is that its unrooted, its value is purely speculative. At least the USD has the petrodollar system to keep it in check.

It's a strange thing to condemn an entire concept because you lack imagination.

ACH takes days to transfer between bank accounts in the same country. Maybe you want your money to get somewhere faster than that.

Maybe you need to take money with you when leaving the country and don't want the border agents to nail you with civil asset forfeiture.

Those are off the top of my head. If that's not sufficient, I'm really not sure why umbrellas exist - it's not raining on me at the moment.

Somehow I doubt account->bitcoin->different account is faster and cheaper than ACH or venmo.

Your second case is also either no issue, or you now have the issue of how to turn bits into cash in a foreign country, which doesn't seem easier.

I may lack imagination, but I am also not subject to the paranoid delusions that seem to surround this stuff.

I pay with bitcoin basically whenever I can.

I don't have a credit card. A site can either support Paypal (ugh), or support our nice secure local payment system (marginally likely), or they can support Bitcoin and then a Bitcoin payment provider has to support our nice secure local payment system, which is much more likely. Either way, once the money is in Bitcoin, I am the only one responsible for the security of my wallet, and if I lose that I'll at least know it's my fault.

Also, Bitcoin is not anonymous.

https://www.elliptic.co/our-thinking/bitcoin-transactions-mo...

(but Monero is)

Transmission of BTC between wallets is traceable -- if the wallet is tied to a person's real name.

Transmission of wallets between people is not traceable.

The parent said "cryptocurrency", not "Bitcoin".

A bulwark against fiat debasement and the government basically draining the people dry of any wealth.

>Is there a legitimate, distinct, unique use case for physical cash to weight against its use as an enabler for virtually all crimes?

Just because something enables crimes doesn't mean it needs to be stopped. Even though many don't use bitcoin, the ideas that bitcoin (and physical cash) represent outweigh their capabilities for committing crimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com