17 ms·

They had support for Bitcoin a few years back, merchants could accept Bitcoin in addition to whatever currency they already supported. The feature was killed be

They had support for Bitcoin a few years back, merchants could accept Bitcoin in addition to whatever currency they already supported. The feature was killed because they didn't find Bitcoin useful for transactions (can read more about the why here https://stripe.com/blog/ending-bitcoin-support https://stripe.com/blog/ending-bitcoin-support).

the_arun 6y ago
Aren’t cryptocurrencies more like stock rather than a currency? Only difference may be is stocks cannot be exchanged 24 hrs a day?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dotancohen 6y ago
  Cryptocurrencies are not a derivative.
- centimeter 6y ago
  No. Stocks, roughly speaking, represent entitlements to corporate profits in the form of dividends. Bitcoin doesn’t represent any kind of entitlement. The closest analogy is gold - Bitcoin is a scarce commodity with good currency properties. It’s similar to gold in that it’s fungible, dense, etc. Its worse than gold in that it’s not shiny and something you can feel. It’s better than gold in that it’s orders of magnitude cheaper to store and transport security, and it’s vastly easier to ensure authenticity.
  - imsd 6y ago
    Another comparison: gold's annual rate of production is steadily increasing; bitcoin's is aggressively decreasing. I've just started writing about this. Here's an interesting chart: https://bitcoinflippening.gold/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/bitcoin_gold_annual_production_growth-2048x1083.png https://bitcoinflippening.gold/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/bi...
  - tim333 6y ago
    > orders of magnitude cheaper to store Unless your exchange gets hacked, you lose your keys or similar
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Well its not like no-one ever steals actual money/gold/whatever
      - tim333 6y ago
        >Chainalysis, a research firm that analyzes activity across different cryptocurrency markets, estimates that between 2.78 and 3.79 million, or between 17 and 23 percent of all bitcoins have been lost. It's more
- MereInterest 6y ago
  Yes, in that stock can fluctuate wildly in price, and can usually be exchanged for currency. No, in that stock represents ownership into a company, while cryptocurrency represents ... well ... nobody has been able to satisfactorily explain that one to me.
  - JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
    Cryptocurrency represents ownership or investment in the proof of work or proof of stake in the network used to validate the transactions in a decentralized and verifiable way.
  - cortic 6y ago
    > No, in that stock represents ownership into a company, while cryptocurrency represents Ownership into a cryptocurrency. Its not like you can borrow a PC from Bill cause you have shares in MS. The company and the cryptocurrency both perform a function that gives them value to people, the stock/coins reflect that value.
- tharne 6y ago
  They're most similar to a commodity, like gold, or lumber. There's a supply, a demand, and price. Unlike stocks, there's no underlying asset, you just own the crypto currency and that IS the asset.
  - eloff 6y ago
    Except those other commodities have intrinsic value, while cryptocurrency has no intrinsic value or legal practical applications after nearly a decade. At this point I don't see that changing. They're the tulips of our age, sold from speculator to speculator until the music stops and someone is left holding the bag.
    - erikpukinskis 6y ago
      Tulips have intrinsic value, so there’s something wrong with your metaphor. But you are right to realize Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. That makes it very similar to something like a dollar bill. That said, intrinsic value isn’t really what makes currency valuable. It’s a nice feature... if the bottom drops out of the market and your currency is cigarettes... at least you can smoke them! And trade them for some other currency at the price of smokes. But that’s a very special circumstance. Intrinsic value only matters under one very special circumstance: Total market collapse. Under normal circumstances, what matters is use value. And Bitcoin has some very unique use value. For example, it is a thing that can be exchanged for gold that can be stored in your head. That’s a very unique use. I think those kinds of uses, if you can add up their utility, are the best way to calculate Bitcoin’s long term value.
      - eloff 6y ago
        I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this one: "Tulip mania was a period in the Dutch Golden Age during which contract prices for some bulbs of the recently introduced and fashionable tulip reached extraordinarily high levels and then dramatically collapsed in February 1637. It is generally considered the first recorded speculative bubble in history." - Wikipedia Yes tulips have intrinsic value, but not the value speculators were paying for them during the Dutch tulip bubble leading up to 1637. Cryptocurrencies are very similar to that.
- imsd 6y ago
  Hmm, I think gold is a better comparison. I've been writing about this topic; specifically, gold vs bitcoin. You might find it interesting: https://bitcoinflippening.gold/ https://bitcoinflippening.gold/
  - paulgb 6y ago
    Has anyone written about how it would affect energy markets if Bitcoin reached the flippening price? If the price did hit $500k, as of the most recent halving it would be profitable to keep spinning up miners until aggregate mining costs reached $72 million. Even assuming 80% of marginal mining costs is energy, that's a lot of additional demand on energy markets. (To say nothing of the climate impact!)
    - thebean11 6y ago
      That's assuming that the mining hardware doesn't get more power efficient (obviously, that ALSO means miners are profitable at higher hashrates, so more total miners). I think there may be a future where energy is no longer the deciding factor in profitability vs the hardware itself and operational costs (land, employees etc). Which could mean less power consumption despite climbing hashrate.
      - Nursie 6y ago
        > That's assuming that the mining hardware doesn't get more power efficient The efficiency of the mining equipment doesn't really matter. It is always worth spending almost as much money on electricity as the cryptocurrency generated. If someone comes up with a more efficient miner, it is profitable for them to roll those out until the power equation levels out again. Mining equipment efficiency affects the total network hashrate, but not the overall power consumption.
        thebean11 6y ago
        That's assuming energy is the only bottleneck in rolling out more equipment. I think so far you're right though, and this has been the case.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Agree that there's more focus on speculation. There are some that focus on actual usability and fast, efficient transactions.

the_arun 6y ago

Aren’t cryptocurrencies more like stock rather than a currency? Only difference may be is stocks cannot be exchanged 24 hrs a day?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dotancohen 6y ago
Cryptocurrencies are not a derivative.
centimeter 6y ago
No. Stocks, roughly speaking, represent entitlements to corporate profits in the form of dividends. Bitcoin doesn’t represent any kind of entitlement. The closest analogy is gold - Bitcoin is a scarce commodity with good currency properties. It’s similar to gold in that it’s fungible, dense, etc. Its worse than gold in that it’s not shiny and something you can feel. It’s better than gold in that it’s orders of magnitude cheaper to store and transport security, and it’s vastly easier to ensure authenticity.
- imsd 6y ago
  Another comparison: gold's annual rate of production is steadily increasing; bitcoin's is aggressively decreasing. I've just started writing about this. Here's an interesting chart: https://bitcoinflippening.gold/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/bitcoin_gold_annual_production_growth-2048x1083.png https://bitcoinflippening.gold/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/bi...
- tim333 6y ago
  > orders of magnitude cheaper to store Unless your exchange gets hacked, you lose your keys or similar
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Well its not like no-one ever steals actual money/gold/whatever
    - tim333 6y ago
      >Chainalysis, a research firm that analyzes activity across different cryptocurrency markets, estimates that between 2.78 and 3.79 million, or between 17 and 23 percent of all bitcoins have been lost. It's more
MereInterest 6y ago
Yes, in that stock can fluctuate wildly in price, and can usually be exchanged for currency. No, in that stock represents ownership into a company, while cryptocurrency represents ... well ... nobody has been able to satisfactorily explain that one to me.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  Cryptocurrency represents ownership or investment in the proof of work or proof of stake in the network used to validate the transactions in a decentralized and verifiable way.
- cortic 6y ago
  > No, in that stock represents ownership into a company, while cryptocurrency represents Ownership into a cryptocurrency. Its not like you can borrow a PC from Bill cause you have shares in MS. The company and the cryptocurrency both perform a function that gives them value to people, the stock/coins reflect that value.
tharne 6y ago
They're most similar to a commodity, like gold, or lumber. There's a supply, a demand, and price. Unlike stocks, there's no underlying asset, you just own the crypto currency and that IS the asset.
- eloff 6y ago
  Except those other commodities have intrinsic value, while cryptocurrency has no intrinsic value or legal practical applications after nearly a decade. At this point I don't see that changing. They're the tulips of our age, sold from speculator to speculator until the music stops and someone is left holding the bag.
  - erikpukinskis 6y ago
    Tulips have intrinsic value, so there’s something wrong with your metaphor. But you are right to realize Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. That makes it very similar to something like a dollar bill. That said, intrinsic value isn’t really what makes currency valuable. It’s a nice feature... if the bottom drops out of the market and your currency is cigarettes... at least you can smoke them! And trade them for some other currency at the price of smokes. But that’s a very special circumstance. Intrinsic value only matters under one very special circumstance: Total market collapse. Under normal circumstances, what matters is use value. And Bitcoin has some very unique use value. For example, it is a thing that can be exchanged for gold that can be stored in your head. That’s a very unique use. I think those kinds of uses, if you can add up their utility, are the best way to calculate Bitcoin’s long term value.
    - eloff 6y ago
      I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this one: "Tulip mania was a period in the Dutch Golden Age during which contract prices for some bulbs of the recently introduced and fashionable tulip reached extraordinarily high levels and then dramatically collapsed in February 1637. It is generally considered the first recorded speculative bubble in history." - Wikipedia Yes tulips have intrinsic value, but not the value speculators were paying for them during the Dutch tulip bubble leading up to 1637. Cryptocurrencies are very similar to that.
imsd 6y ago
Hmm, I think gold is a better comparison. I've been writing about this topic; specifically, gold vs bitcoin. You might find it interesting: https://bitcoinflippening.gold/ https://bitcoinflippening.gold/
- paulgb 6y ago
  Has anyone written about how it would affect energy markets if Bitcoin reached the flippening price? If the price did hit $500k, as of the most recent halving it would be profitable to keep spinning up miners until aggregate mining costs reached $72 million. Even assuming 80% of marginal mining costs is energy, that's a lot of additional demand on energy markets. (To say nothing of the climate impact!)
  - thebean11 6y ago
    That's assuming that the mining hardware doesn't get more power efficient (obviously, that ALSO means miners are profitable at higher hashrates, so more total miners). I think there may be a future where energy is no longer the deciding factor in profitability vs the hardware itself and operational costs (land, employees etc). Which could mean less power consumption despite climbing hashrate.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      > That's assuming that the mining hardware doesn't get more power efficient The efficiency of the mining equipment doesn't really matter. It is always worth spending almost as much money on electricity as the cryptocurrency generated. If someone comes up with a more efficient miner, it is profitable for them to roll those out until the power equation levels out again. Mining equipment efficiency affects the total network hashrate, but not the overall power consumption.
      - thebean11 6y ago
        That's assuming energy is the only bottleneck in rolling out more equipment. I think so far you're right though, and this has been the case.
aww_dang 6y ago
Agree that there's more focus on speculation. There are some that focus on actual usability and fast, efficient transactions.