Ask HN: When will cryptocurrencies be currency?
I'm really excited about the potential cryptocurrencies offer as an international medium of exchange, as smart decentralised currency, but everyone seems to only view it as something to "invest" in.
I have family members who barely even know how to operate their smartphones "investing" in Bitcoin, but even a casual conversation with them reveals that they have no idea what it really is. They don't even know that it can be used to actually buy things, and they don't know about it's other applications, like smart contracts.
And it's such a shitty 'investment' instrument too! This is all madness.
How can we change this? How can we get people to stop hoarding it and start actually USING it?
56 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadAt the end of day, a currency is based on trust. If I have a 20$ Cad bill, I know all businesses in Canada will accept it, the Bank of Canada is backing this currency, people can be paid in Canadian dollars, and etc. I also know that I can easily exchange my canadian dollars to Euros, US dollars and etc. Most cryptocurrencies don't have that same level of trust right now. If there is no trust, people won't actively use this currency.
In addition, Currencies are also used by a country/central bank to regulate its economy through monetary policy.
But I can see cryptocurrencies to be an addition to "normal" currencies, but I don't think they will ever replace them.
People chose government above mathematical correctness, my friend
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the...
Now bitcoin has built-in a hard limit. Which makes the currency, inherently inflationary. I have no evidence, but I believe that this was a strategic choice by Satoshi. Why would you buy a currency made out of cpu cycles, with no backing if not for it's future value? Without being a state (e.g. selling trust) or having huge amounts of gold to back up a new currency, the only reason someone would wanna buy it, is indeed, the future value that could hold. Hence, Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency can work as an asset but not as a currency given the current design.
Y. Varoufakis, spoke of a centralised digital currency in his solution for the Greek crisis. That could be a digital currency, that anyone can use. But was a fully controlled digital currency issued in the form of IOUs by the state.
NOTE: Talking about adoption of a decentralised currency a-la bitcoin, by a state or group of states to replace entities like the FED or the ECB shows a poor understanding of the most basic principles of the financial systems.
Similarly, bitcoin is deflationary because of the fixed supply.
Its completely irrelevant what the price of Bitcoin is for its usefulness as a medium of exchange.
This medium of exchange aspect is very important because it makes banks no longer special since its possible in time to make payments without a banking system. Thus the role of the state in regulating banks can disappear eventually - no deposit insurance, no bailouts and no too big to fail.
Credit can be provided by funds because the information asymmetry of banks no longer applies when you can port your banking records via API.
"This medium of exchange aspect is very important because it makes banks no longer special since its possible in time to make payments without a banking system."
Most people don't want to have the whole of their wealth reliant on a hash they could lose though. They want to be able to talk to "customer service" if they need to.
Are you saying that gold can be a currency but Bitcoin cannot?
> Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency can work as an asset but not as a currency given the current design.
Why can't it be both? If I expect my Bitcoin to appreciate 5% per year I might be willing to spend it to buy my weekly groceries.
No.
> Why can't it be both? If I expect my Bitcoin to appreciate 5% per year I might be willing to spend it to buy my weekly groceries.
You might be or might not be. I assure you, the majority will not be willing to buy groceries using a deflationary currency. They'll switch to an inflationary currency instead.
> No.
Hmm... so gold cannot be a currency?
I'll bite the bullet though:
> Hmm... so gold cannot be a currency?
Everything can be a currency. Ascorbic acid could be a currency in the future if the humankind moves to planets where Citreae are hard to find.
If I'm not mistaken, the topic was about the effectiveness of bitcoin as a currency.
You said earlier that "Currencies are enforced and controlled by central, powerful authorities". There is no central authority for gold yet it has been a currency for thousands of years. You seem to accept the special status of gold by implying that a cryptocurrency could be effective as a currency if it was backed by gold. So my question is what makes gold so special? Why can't the current design of cryptocurrencies be just like gold, only more convenient?
I see, the correct version would be: Fiat currencies [...].
> My point is that gold has similar properties to Bitcoin.
I agree with your point.
> Why can't the current design of cryptocurrencies be just like gold, only more convenient?
Cryptocurrencies are a lot like gold. But as you said, gold is around for centuries. Can you bet 10 million USD that bitcoin will be around next year?
Bitcoin works reasonably well as a medium of exchange, as long as transactions are confirmed relatively quickly.
Bitcoin prices are pretty much always tied to the price in US dollars or some other fiat currency. Online prices can be changed dynamically, so Bitcoin doesn't really need to be its own unit of account.
But it never really works as a store of value, due to its volatility. I have about $20 in Bitcoin today, but I have no idea what that will be worth in a week, so it's risky to keep any large amount of money in Bitcoin. The safest way to buy things in Bitcoin would be to buy it, and then immediately send it to whomever you're buying from.
So I think that Bitcoin will be much more usable when its price stabilizes, and there's much less friction with each purchase.
If Bitcoin could displace banks, what incentive do they have to displace themselves?
A currency is something taxes are denominated in. And those currencies are necessarily controlled by the authority issuing the tax or the power to tax loses it effectiveness. (see Greece for details)
Everything else is just a transferable asset - intangible or otherwise.
It's why gold isn't a currency. You can't settle taxes with it.
A currency is the modern equivalent of a tally stick. It's what an authority uses to command physical resources.
Companies like Coinbase and Stripe have already made it relatively straightforward to accept Bitcoin online. Think if companies like Square or other point of sale terminal vendors made it easy to accept Bitcoin to pay for my coffee!
They can be used to buy things already that's enough.
People in other answers are adding superfluous fluff about taxes and governments and such things, but none of that is relevant to whether something is currency.
Cryptocurrencies have many benefits over fiat currencies, as you mentioned, but they still share many of their flaws. I believe that blockchains and smart contract will have a huge impact, but I don't believe tokens will replace money.
What will replace money is a new kind of currency that's based on people's reputation. This is unavoidable, but will first require the death of privacy.
Cryptocurrencies have value because they're basically one big ponzi scheme where people invest because they are confident someone after them will buy it, but the odds of them having staying power are slim because, at the end of the day, there is nothing with actual worth backing them.
That's stock market.
https://medium.com/@FEhrsam/scaling-ethereum-to-billions-of-...