Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A friendly reminder that crypto is negative-sum. If everyone who has taken money out returns it to everyone who has put money in, then there's a net loss.

Why? Because money was taken out to pay the electric companies for mining, to the tune of 10-20Bn so far.

Has that money generated real returns anywhere? Nope. Nothing was manufactured, created, or improved.

The sum is negative. All past and present holders of crypto, on net, are down 20bn -- and havent yet realised it.




I think there is some net utility cryptocurrency provides as a means of payment, but the cryptocurrency "community" has largely veered away from that narrative since bitcoin and others have butted heads with their transaction volume issues.


What is Ethereum, chopped liver?

Those that disagreed with the small block Bitcoin plutocrats moved to other projects, mainly Ethereum.


Russian


Russian what?


If I buy Monero using dollars and use the Monero to transact anonymously, what have I lost without realizing it?


What did you buy with that Monero?

Sure, if you can exchange coins for goods consistently, then the value of that basket of goods is the value of the coin.

ie., take a BTC and go to every store, across the economy, and exchange it for goods. Do that until you've spent all the BTC. Divide by the number of BTC, and that's a reasonable estimate of the value.

However, since you can't do that... and, indeed, doing anything even remotely similar would immedaitely crash the price... there's no basis on which to value crypto. There doesnt seem any rational basis on which anyone would trade 1 BTC (etc.) for anything.

The only reason BTC has a nominal price is that it can't actually be consistenly exchanged, by holders, for goods; and holders are strongly discouraged from doing so by its deflationary design.

Were such opporunities actually presented, tomorrow 1BTC would buy a car, next week a vodka, the week after a pack of gum


I don't think it's a fair comparison. monero (and almost every other modern cryptocurrency) has reasonable fees due to its dynamic blocksize.

Additionally, the tokenomics of monero are somewhat inflationary as of last month, they've activated a constant block reward.

The development of BTC as a payment system are very complicated. There was a long period from 2017 where you've had two competing mechanisms for low-fee payments: BCH (Bitcoin Cash, fork to increase blocksize), and BTC-LN (Bitcoin Lightning network, gossip network of multisig accounts). This really fragmented the userbase and slowed down BTC's adoption as a payment system.

I'm not saying comparisons to BTC are meaningless, I'm just saying that BTC is a bad example of a "typical cryptocurrency".


As much as I like XMR, you have to admit that you are still paying the (albeit very competitive and CPU-based) miners for verifying your transaction, in both the transaction fee and inflation due to tail emission.


Not to mention all the wasted efforts from all laborers and services employed by all of the companies chasing unproductive financial returns in this space.


Security has a price. As a side, the alt-coins that are purely proof of stake use little energy vs Bitcoin.


> Has that money generated real returns anywhere?

Snowden and Navalny were funded via BTC.


Feels like organized crime organizations could smuggle money to VIPs we want to fund for less than $20bn.


Are they both in a Russian prison?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: