Hacker News Reader

Comment by emin-gun-sirer | Hacker News Reader

It's critical to not conflate Bitcoin with ChangeTip. The two are, in effect, separate currencies. One is decentralized and backed by the blockchain, the other is centralized and backed by a company.

A litmus test for centralized currencies is to ask the question "can they create wealth out of the thin air by manipulating a database entry?" The answer is affirmative for ChangeTip. To their credit, they maintain proof-of-reserves online, so while we do not know the amounts held by their users, we have an idea of how much they can pay out. I applaud the transparency they have shown.

I won't respond to the drive-by ad hominem.

View on HN

I agree with you about centralized versus decentralized solutions, but ChangeTIp clearly does NOT want to supplant bitcoin- they do their best to keep wallets small, and aren't trying to be a "bitcoin bank" / replacement ala Coinbase. Instead, they're driving adoption. What is there to complain about?

> I won't respond to the drive-by ad hominem.

For the record, I appreciate your technical critiques! But you seem to take a perverse delight in being the critic.

>For the record, I appreciate your technical critiques! But you seem to take a perverse delight in being the critic.

Ok, so you enjoy the technical content but disagree with the tone [1]? I can understand that. I genuinely feel sorry I don't have the time to build rapport. Many other bloggers regurgitate things we all agree on and make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside. I figure that enough people already do this that I only need to chime in when the group-think is headed south.

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_o...

> It's critical to not conflate Bitcoin with ChangeTip. The two are, in effect, separate currencies.

I might be missing something here but ChangeTip is not a currency.

It is, in the same way that MtGox's BTC was independent of Bitcoin towards the end. They keep their own ledger of balances.

> I applaud the transparency they have shown.

They have no choice. There's no regulation around this so companies are forced to be transparent and convince their users they're legit.

We're just not used to companies being transparent because contracts around regulated industry are enforced by the force of law (threats of fine, imprisonment or violence).

We could have many more companies being transparent if only we didn't give them a way to use the force of law to convince users they're covered (think Bank of America and FDIC for instance. I'd rather Bank of America had to prove to me their investments are sound etc)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com