Hacker News Reader

> The problem with that article is not that it makes 0 valid points, it's that it makes some terrible correlations as an attempt to prove cryptos won't be huge.

Actually, the article doesn't set out "to prove cryptos won't be huge," and ends on a crypto-positive note:

> Bitcoin has shown us the promise of blockchain technologies despite its design shortcomings.

> The future of the technology will probably evolve towards a model that more resembles real world needs, rather than the needs of “cyberpunks”.

To diverge from the article a bit and respond to your final point, I don't know that the mantra of individual empowerment in the Bitcoin world amounts to anything other than solipsism. Bitcoin, as far as I can tell, ignores structural biases preventing people from accessing the cryptocurrency. We can see evidence of this in the "Bitcoin in Africa" startups, which on the surface seem benign and even benevolent, but are hiding an uninterrogated colonialism: their chief assumption, it seems to me, is that the developed world will always control more of Bitcoin's limited resources, and the value of spreading a small portion of those resources to the developing world comes from lock-in. It's a classic unfair trade agreement, and it doesn't take much thought to see how problematic this situation can become.

eBay can bend you over with fees because they control the market; Bitcoin's limited resources are susceptible to the same kind of market control. That's the discussion I wish more people were having.

I like your ideas about the colonial aspects of Bitcoin in the developing world. That is an angle I haven't heard anyone else mention before. It pairs nicely with another critique I don't often see, that Bitcoin is undemocratic; there are economic assumptions baked in that, if it were a government-backed money, people could discuss, vote on, and ultimately change. With bitcoin, there is no way that the people whose lives could be affected by those assumptions can have a say in them--the design and operation of bitcoin doesn't answer to the people in a democratic way.

That Bitcoin is undemocratic is a good thing. Look around in the world at what democracy has done to currency. Not a single democratic currency has withstood the test of time. It's time for a different approach.

I am unable to agree with the statement, "It is time for an undemocratic approach to money".

I want an undemocratic currency and I don't want to forbid you from using a democratic currency if you prefer it. I doubt those that like you, who are unable to agree with the statement above, will willingly extend the same courtesy to those like me, who disagree with that statement.

I wonder which group might be in possession of the right idea, the group saying "you don't have to use it if you don't like it" or the group that is already forcing the new currency to be under the same democratic rules of the old, "democratic" currency.

Statism, ideas so good we have to force them on people.

Bitcoin is not susceptible to market control like eBay. eBay is a single entity so it is easy to coordinate self-serving decision. Bitcoin is multiple agents that have to co-operate. That prevents any one agent from making unilateral decisions.

Another huge difference is that anybody can become a new agent in Bitcoin. You just buy the hardware. You cannot influence or join eBay in the same way.

There's nothing wrong with the developed world providing a service to the developing world. It's a symbiotic relationship, as both are better off from the arrangement. Mining farms in the developed world giving Somalians in the developing world a secure currency that can't be expropriated, and lets them receive international remittance at a fraction of the fees they paid before, is a good thing.

With respect to fairness, what's important is the characteristics of the framework within which the resource is used, that enable rent-seeking. With Bitcoin, each individual is their own bank. They control their own private key, meaning access to money is not intermediated by rent-seeking third parties with their lock-ins and closed networks.

Mining is ultra-competitive, because there are no barriers to market entry to the open mining network, ensuring transaction fees are driven down to the maximum extent possible. The algorithmic money supply ensures that no powerful organization and its host of satellite institutions can inflate the currency on a perpetual basis, to slowly the tax the people over generations.

Any way you look at it, Bitcoin is a force for distributing power and control, by eliminating the roles of rent-seekers.

> What does a scammer selling unlicensed shares in porn production have anything to do with the success or failure of cryptocurrency?

Because it demonstrates dramatically that one of the main purported advantages of bitcoin (its "trustless" nature) is comically false. As you say, bitcoin is just a payment method, and contrary to what its advocates claim, it does absolutely nothing to prevent shady scams or eliminate the need for good regulations and strong enforcement.

No. You're conflating the trust-less nature of bitcoin with the idea that individuals who possess Bitcoin are trustful.

The very nature of Bitcoin lies on the assertion that no individual is trustful, and that a trustful network can arise in which no individual node is trusted.

The blockchain allows us to verify that a particular operation has occurred. For example, the blockchain will verify that a particular address owns 1 BTC, or that 1 BTC has transferred from one address to another. It provides reliable, verifiable unit of account without relying on any one actor to be trustful.

The blockchain absolutely does NOT verify that a person won't lie to you to get your money, or that they won't blow it all in casino once you send it to them. That would be an unbelievable miracle, as it would require knowledge of the future.

No rational person has ever claimed the blockchain will prevent scamming. Quite the opposite in fact.

Maybe you should clue in the rest of the bitcoin community, e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1f2ubh/why_bitcoins...

> 3) No fraud or charge-back (from a seller/business PoV).

> 13a) Potentially, because of the profit from no fraud and the deflationary nature of Bitcoin. Vendors will realise they can lower their prices for Btc purchases. And when inflation ends, due to no fraud, they will still be able to have lower prices than competitors.

The OP, BitcoinJobe, goes on in the comments of your link to clarify the statement is that there are not fraudulent chargebacks in Bitcoin. He's right. There aren't. You can't make a bitcoin purchase, receive the item, and then get your money back through a charge back. He's right on both points.

Fraudulent chargebacks are a legitimate concern for sellers, and I assure you that loss is reflected in the selling price you and I pay. 13a asserts that if a vendor is able to eliminate the chargeback problem through bitcoin use, then the savings can possibly be passed on to consumers.

What's insane about any of that? You're not comprehending what you're arguing against.

Maybe you should read more carefully.

> No fraud OR charge-back

Strongly implies those to be two different things. You write "Fraudulent chargebacks", talking about a single thing, a specific kind (fraudulent) of chargeback. You also neglect to mention that bitcoin eliminates fraudulent chargebacks by just not having chargebacks at all. Which is a bit like celebrating North Korea eliminating voter fraud.

This kind of thing is everywhere in the bitcoin community: Make absurd, grandiose claims ("be your own bank!", "bitcoin is the future of money", "totally decentralized!" [except for the giant central ledger of all transactions]). And then whenever you get called out on it, you'll retreat to some more limited, defensible argument, and claim that's what you were really talking about all along.

There's a name for this kind of rhetoric, it's a "motte-and-bailey" argument: http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

>You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it.

This is a problem a trust-less system wouldn't solve, inherently. The real problem is ebay lacks competition.

>It's not about illegal use cases. It's about empowerment of the individual over seemingly insurmountable institutions.

Again competition. You want people to have the power to compete, and have options.

>The author is having the wrong discussion.

Yes you are. None of the problems you listed are solve by decentralized trustless systems. Their consumer service problems. Which any company, or system can have.

:.:.:

Ultimately you commit the same sins you argue the blog post commits.

You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it.

Isn't that why established players will mostly prefer not to use decentralized currency? Won't the network effect always relegate things like Bitcoin to the fringes?

Market leaders don't have as much incentive to adopt Bitcoin, but competitors do

Look at Amazon and Overstock. Amazon doesn't need to implement Bitcoin to be successful, but Overstock was able gain some market share by accepting it