Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwesley | Hacker News Reader

All the recent politically oriented attacks on Bitcoin are completely devoid of logical analysis and steeped in establishment dogma. They use name calling tactics like "play money" and "beenie babies fad" and scare tactics like "bubble" and "cesspool of criminal activity".

What none of these arguments ever address is the massive gains in economic efficiency that Bitcoin can clearly provide. It cuts out parasitic elements of the financial system that have grown like a giant parasite over the entire society.

The author claims that Bitcoin is steeped in nerd paternalism, but what about the epic paternalism of banks and regulators? Paternalism is their entire argument against Bitcoin, which basically amounts to "if people gain economic freedom, they will hurt themselves".

View on HN

>They use name calling tactics... It cuts out parasitic elements of the financial system that have grown like a giant parasite over the entire society.

I like your style, calling out the other side for using biased and loaded vocabulary and then you turn around and do exactly the same.

As the original article states, what some people view as a parasite on the system some people view as necessarily regulation and consumer protection. Just look at one of the other Coinbase stories currently on the front page [1]. Due to a mistake by Coinbase a customer was potentially looking at a loss in the five figures USD. The point of regulation is to make sure things like that don't happen and to have a course of action to correct them if they do happen. It isn't about "if people gain economic freedom, they will hurt themselves". It is about "if people gain too much economic freedom, they will hurt others".

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6929705

Banking is the most heavily regulated industry there is. Regulators have offices inside banks, yet it didn't prevent 2008, HSBC and every other billion-dollar scandal.

Protections systems failing isn't a reason to completely get rid of them, it is a reason to reform them.

Using an analogy that has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, think of your front door lock and your home. Would you get ride of all locks because someone robbed your house? Or would you invest in some other type of lock and security that might not have the same vulnerabilities?

Regulations made by the state? Why wouldn't corporations pay lobbyists to make regulations shield them from competition and hurt consumers?

Even the media is complicit in this. NPR had a short story on Bitcoin this morning and made a point to say transactions were untraceable. One of the KEY points of Bitcoin is the public ledger. I'm amazed that as a journalist, you can get that so badly wrong.

Having said that, I think there are serious hurdles to overcome with Bitcoin, and the hype cycle and speculators are doing very little for the credibility of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin doesn't need credibility. It just needs to work. Hype and speculators are a natural product of the energy gathering around the massive technical innovation and corresponding social movement that is Bitcoin.

Bitcoin does need credibility in the real world.

Consider wire transfers. Those undeniably work, but their reputation has been tarnished to the point that most people who do business online will run the other direction if the other party so much as mentions the concept (see: craigslist).

> Bitcoin doesn't need credibility. It just needs to work.

What currencies need to work, more than anything else, is for people to believe they will work -- i.e., credibility.

That's what, ultimately, discussions of supposedly "intrinsic" value (which are somewhat dubious taken literally, value is, arguably, inherently extrinsic) of commodity currency and the reliability of the particular governments backing fiat currencies are about -- credibility. Because, ultimately, a currency like anything else is worth exactly what people are convinced that its worth.

Fair enough, I see your point and completely agree that all currencies are based on belief. I guess that why I am all over the internet all day long trying to convince bitcoin is worth a shot.

It's kind of naive to say that currencies are entirely based on belief, and I think you had it more right with your initial statement.

The only big distinction between the US Dollar and Bitcoin, from a practical perspective, is that Bitcoin doesn't have any armies willing to defend its status as legal tender. Even if everybody stopped 'believing' in the dollar, its buying power might tank, but it's still legally required to be accepted as payment for all debts, public and private. That legality is implemented through force of law, not good natured belief.

Bitcoin does need credibility. Not in the abstract 'if everyone believes it is worth something then it is worth something' way, but in the sense that for Bitcoin to survive, it needs to be usable at a wide variety of merchants. Merchants aren't going to adopt some clown-car currency where a dozen or so flawed rumors come piling out whenever you mention the word Bitcoin to somebody.

I don't think they are intentionally trying to mislead people to favour Bitcoin.

Show me the legal sectors powered by the bitconomy. Show me the heavy industry, the agriculture, the medicine, the consumer.

Show me the percent of BTC transactions used for actual business that a middle-class or poor person would conduct.

As it stands, the impression is just of a huge virtual casino, where you are at the table with either crazies or sharks from investing firms.

Or someone else will hurt them.

I could get into my house faster at night if I didn't go through the trouble of locking and unlocking, too. Every security measure has overhead. "Massive gains in economic efficiency"? What's the tradeoff for this? If it's reduced security, then most people will say, "No thank you".

People should have the freedom to make those security choices for themselves. People who are scared by the security issues of Bitcoin can avoid it, or only use it when the efficiency benefits are advantageous to them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com