7 ms·

Seems kind of like a waste either way. Crypto was sort of neat years ago, but it hasn't amounted to anything useful

Hellion 4y ago
It’s amounted to a lot, actually. One of the stated goals of Bitcoin was to reduce government control. And it has, magnificently: in the drug trade. Seriously, online drug marketplaces have become massive and highly lucrative. Estimates vary anywhere between $700 million to over $1 billion each year. Cryptocurrencies have also become useful asset stores for the wealthy living in authoritarian countries. So much so, that an estimated floor of $3-4 bil of cryptocurrency assets during the peak was just that. I used to joke: if someone says they’re into crypto currencies, they’re either a tool or have good ketamine. Years later, that rule still shakes out.
- easrng 4y ago
  But you don't use bitcoin to buy drugs, you'd want to use monero.
  - paulpauper 4y ago
    hmm but you still have to cash out and convert btc to monero or monero to btc . It's not as simple as use monero.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    Do people really use either? My impression is that most people use credit cards.
    - easrng 4y ago
      idk the people i know who buy drugs either use monero (online) or cash (in person)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ipnon 4y ago
  We're still in the "Internet is a way for university professors to send BBS messages" phase of crypto adoption. Ethereum didn't go live until 2015, 7 years ago. ARPANET went live in 1975. The WWW spec wasn't submitted until 1989, 14 years later! That's my theory, please no bully!
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    With all due respect, part of why the Internet took so long to roll out is because we had to find ways to deploy a global network of physical hardware and interconnections. We literally laid wires under the ocean. Crypto is just software. There's no need to deploy infrastructure. Bitcoin is old enough to be in high school. Soon it'll be old enough to be in college. At some point we have to accept that it's not fit for purpose, do we not? It can't just be BBS-ing forever. Compare other things that came out in 2007/8. The iPhone and Android, for instance. In spite of actually needing to build and deploy both hardware and software, everyone on earth has one. Billions and billions deployed. I challenge you to find a way to falsify your thesis.
    - e9 4y ago
      I agree with you, as you said the only uses are drugs and hiding money from governments. But it's also kind of like saying creative writing (novels, poetry, etc) doesn't have a use beyond entertaining and stimulating mind. Code and concepts in crypto are much like that too, to stimulate and entertain the mind.
    - x-complexity 4y ago
      > Crypto is just software. There's no need to deploy infrastructure. Bitcoin is old enough to be in high school. Soon it'll be old enough to be in college. At some point we have to accept that it's not fit for purpose, do we not? It can't just be BBS-ing forever. This argument relies on the assumption that Bitcoin's age is a proper marker for the entire industry, whereas most of its development only finally kicked off during the ICO mania. It also relies on the assumption that Bitcoin's decisions reflect the entire industry's decisions, which by proof of contradiction (via anti-BCH-BTCers), does not exist: Many parts of the system are off doing their own part of the whole. > Compare other things that came out in 2007/8. The iPhone and Android, for instance. In spite of actually needing to build and deploy both hardware and software, everyone on earth has one. Billions and billions deployed. Apple is a centralized company that can dictate what its products will look like & can standardize their product evolutions to take future developments into account via executive/managerial leadership. Even if all of the decisions were made by the designers/devs, no one from outside the company can have a say about the hardware parts of the product, with only a relatively small part of the software side being accessible to 3rd party developers: Said developers can't access the core internals of iOS without working for Apple. In contrast, BTC started out with relatively little leadership: While Satoshi was part of Bitcoin's early development, his control over the network was still contingent on other participants within the same network agreeing to the changes -- Disagreements are where the Bitcoin block size wars & subsequent forks emerged. At any time, a developer can modify the core parts of the codebase without restrictions, with the main limiting factor being getting other people to use that modified code instead. IMO, are more apt comparison would be to compare it with other protocols like Bittorrent and IPFS, whose development nature is not fully controlled by a select group of people, and where everyone can modify the internals of the software to their desires. Similar to Bitcoin, however, adoption of the modified software is dependent on the modifier convincing others to use their code instead.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Using Bitcoin for illegal transactions is simply prosecution futures. Governments and LEOs have and continue to develop automatic de-anonymization tooling and let's face it 2-3tps, it doesn't have to be fast lol. You're basically just scribbling down all your crimes under a pseudonym and mailing it to the FBI, CIA and PRC with a note saying 'bet you can't guess who I am.' I bet you they can, guy. > Cryptocurrencies have also become useful asset stores for the wealthy living in authoritarian countries. Again certainly not BTC. Any one of those stories over the last few months of people using Bitcoin as a currency of last resort are so sad because they all got rekt. Had they bought USDC or a hypothetical future CBDC or e-cash, they would be so much better off. There's that story about the Ukrainian refugee who put his last $2000 worth into BTC when he fled the Russians. That's worth like $900 now.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Estimates vary anywhere between $700 million to over $1 billion each year That’s a rounding error to the half a trillion dollar global drug trade [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade
  - Hellion 4y ago
    So what? It’s still a billion dollars and it has been steadily growing every year.
    - hestefisk 4y ago
      Is this a Bn in drug volume traded or a Bn of revenue that the exchange takes as a % of the drug $ traded? If the latter your estimate prob make sense, although I don’t know what their margin is.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- paulpauper 4y ago
  I used to joke: if someone says they’re into crypto currencies, they’re either a tool or have good ketamine. Years later, that rule still shakes out. And now a third option: a late adopter who is looking at large losses. Cryptocurrencies have also become useful asset stores for the wealthy living in authoritarian countries. So much so, that an estimated floor of $3-4 bil of cryptocurrency assets during the peak was just that. Based on what? And this is still tiny relative to $2.5 trillion market size. Billionaires have no use for Bitcoin to hide wealth. Bitcoin does not bypass the financial system since you still have to convert fiat to btc or btc back to fiat.
RestlessMind 4y ago
I gathered a few legit examples of Crypto's use: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32406095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32406095
wyager 4y ago
> but it hasn't amounted to anything useful Could've fooled me. I'm a "power user" of the international financial system and bitcoin has saved my ass multiple times, from debit cards not working internationally to needing to move moderate quantities of money (tens of k$) faster than legacy banks could. Please keep in mind the distinction between "not useful" and "not useful to you personally".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
otabdeveloper4 4y ago
The point of "crypto" was to get nerds rich. (The kinds of nerds who had the knowledge and technology to run financial networks, but not the institutional pull to use them.) In that sense it worked splendidly as designed.

It’s amounted to a lot, actually. One of the stated goals of Bitcoin was to reduce government control. And it has, magnificently: in the drug trade. Seriously, online drug marketplaces have become massive and highly lucrative. Estimates vary anywhere between $700 million to over $1 billion each year. Cryptocurrencies have also become useful asset stores for the wealthy living in authoritarian countries. So much so, that an estimated floor of $3-4 bil of cryptocurrency assets during the peak was just that. I used to joke: if someone says they’re into crypto currencies, they’re either a tool or have good ketamine. Years later, that rule still shakes out.

easrng 4y ago
But you don't use bitcoin to buy drugs, you'd want to use monero.
- paulpauper 4y ago
  hmm but you still have to cash out and convert btc to monero or monero to btc . It's not as simple as use monero.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  Do people really use either? My impression is that most people use credit cards.
  - easrng 4y ago
    idk the people i know who buy drugs either use monero (online) or cash (in person)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ipnon 4y ago
We're still in the "Internet is a way for university professors to send BBS messages" phase of crypto adoption. Ethereum didn't go live until 2015, 7 years ago. ARPANET went live in 1975. The WWW spec wasn't submitted until 1989, 14 years later! That's my theory, please no bully!
- arcticbull 4y ago
  With all due respect, part of why the Internet took so long to roll out is because we had to find ways to deploy a global network of physical hardware and interconnections. We literally laid wires under the ocean. Crypto is just software. There's no need to deploy infrastructure. Bitcoin is old enough to be in high school. Soon it'll be old enough to be in college. At some point we have to accept that it's not fit for purpose, do we not? It can't just be BBS-ing forever. Compare other things that came out in 2007/8. The iPhone and Android, for instance. In spite of actually needing to build and deploy both hardware and software, everyone on earth has one. Billions and billions deployed. I challenge you to find a way to falsify your thesis.
  - e9 4y ago
    I agree with you, as you said the only uses are drugs and hiding money from governments. But it's also kind of like saying creative writing (novels, poetry, etc) doesn't have a use beyond entertaining and stimulating mind. Code and concepts in crypto are much like that too, to stimulate and entertain the mind.
  - x-complexity 4y ago
    > Crypto is just software. There's no need to deploy infrastructure. Bitcoin is old enough to be in high school. Soon it'll be old enough to be in college. At some point we have to accept that it's not fit for purpose, do we not? It can't just be BBS-ing forever. This argument relies on the assumption that Bitcoin's age is a proper marker for the entire industry, whereas most of its development only finally kicked off during the ICO mania. It also relies on the assumption that Bitcoin's decisions reflect the entire industry's decisions, which by proof of contradiction (via anti-BCH-BTCers), does not exist: Many parts of the system are off doing their own part of the whole. > Compare other things that came out in 2007/8. The iPhone and Android, for instance. In spite of actually needing to build and deploy both hardware and software, everyone on earth has one. Billions and billions deployed. Apple is a centralized company that can dictate what its products will look like & can standardize their product evolutions to take future developments into account via executive/managerial leadership. Even if all of the decisions were made by the designers/devs, no one from outside the company can have a say about the hardware parts of the product, with only a relatively small part of the software side being accessible to 3rd party developers: Said developers can't access the core internals of iOS without working for Apple. In contrast, BTC started out with relatively little leadership: While Satoshi was part of Bitcoin's early development, his control over the network was still contingent on other participants within the same network agreeing to the changes -- Disagreements are where the Bitcoin block size wars & subsequent forks emerged. At any time, a developer can modify the core parts of the codebase without restrictions, with the main limiting factor being getting other people to use that modified code instead. IMO, are more apt comparison would be to compare it with other protocols like Bittorrent and IPFS, whose development nature is not fully controlled by a select group of people, and where everyone can modify the internals of the software to their desires. Similar to Bitcoin, however, adoption of the modified software is dependent on the modifier convincing others to use their code instead.
arcticbull 4y ago
Using Bitcoin for illegal transactions is simply prosecution futures. Governments and LEOs have and continue to develop automatic de-anonymization tooling and let's face it 2-3tps, it doesn't have to be fast lol. You're basically just scribbling down all your crimes under a pseudonym and mailing it to the FBI, CIA and PRC with a note saying 'bet you can't guess who I am.' I bet you they can, guy. > Cryptocurrencies have also become useful asset stores for the wealthy living in authoritarian countries. Again certainly not BTC. Any one of those stories over the last few months of people using Bitcoin as a currency of last resort are so sad because they all got rekt. Had they bought USDC or a hypothetical future CBDC or e-cash, they would be so much better off. There's that story about the Ukrainian refugee who put his last $2000 worth into BTC when he fled the Russians. That's worth like $900 now.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Estimates vary anywhere between $700 million to over $1 billion each year That’s a rounding error to the half a trillion dollar global drug trade [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade
- Hellion 4y ago
  So what? It’s still a billion dollars and it has been steadily growing every year.
  - hestefisk 4y ago
    Is this a Bn in drug volume traded or a Bn of revenue that the exchange takes as a % of the drug $ traded? If the latter your estimate prob make sense, although I don’t know what their margin is.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
paulpauper 4y ago
I used to joke: if someone says they’re into crypto currencies, they’re either a tool or have good ketamine. Years later, that rule still shakes out. And now a third option: a late adopter who is looking at large losses. Cryptocurrencies have also become useful asset stores for the wealthy living in authoritarian countries. So much so, that an estimated floor of $3-4 bil of cryptocurrency assets during the peak was just that. Based on what? And this is still tiny relative to $2.5 trillion market size. Billionaires have no use for Bitcoin to hide wealth. Bitcoin does not bypass the financial system since you still have to convert fiat to btc or btc back to fiat.

RestlessMind 4y ago

I gathered a few legit examples of Crypto's use: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32406095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32406095

wyager 4y ago

> but it hasn't amounted to anything useful Could've fooled me. I'm a "power user" of the international financial system and bitcoin has saved my ass multiple times, from debit cards not working internationally to needing to move moderate quantities of money (tens of k$) faster than legacy banks could. Please keep in mind the distinction between "not useful" and "not useful to you personally".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

otabdeveloper4 4y ago

The point of "crypto" was to get nerds rich. (The kinds of nerds who had the knowledge and technology to run financial networks, but not the institutional pull to use them.) In that sense it worked splendidly as designed.