> Receiving money without being exposed to the danger of fraud. Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant.
We have this well established thing called a credit score which is handled by the credit card agency and resolves trust issues for the merchant entirely. If a person suspects identity theft, they can put a hold on a card, preventing further use. Cards have expiration dates and periodically cycle out. I'm sorry but when people explain to me that using a token they are personally responsible for encrypting is "safer" somehow, I raise my eyebrows.
Because that is how we've decided to allocate the risk. There was a time when that allocation was different (and that users could be more liable for fraudulent use of their cards), but, at least in the U.S, we decided we didn't like that and legislated it away.
>We have this well established thing called a credit score which is handled by the credit card agency and resolves trust issues for the merchant entirely.
We have this well established phenomenon called 'data breaches' which has compromised nearly everyone's credit/personal data.
Your info is on the dark web. Lots of databases that can be cross correlated. Banks increasingly don't know who they're dealing with, fraud is increasing.
Consumers don't need to worry about this though: all fraudulent charges are removed from the customer's account and are somebody else's problem. The customer gets a new credit card sent to them, sometimes even overnight, for free.
I've had both credit and debit card fraud happen to my accounts: it is a pretty minor annoyance.
(A data breach of my Social Security Number would be a whole different story however!)
In the past couple years, my credit card number has been scanned at least 3 or 4 times from (likely) gas pump readers. Those scans resulted in transactions that I didn't have to pay for (but some merchant did).
> Transferring money internationally without additional costs.
nope
> Portfolio optimization
nope. i still await an explanation using MPT that shows why someone should hold non-zero cryptoassets. It's like saying I should hold euros because it stabilizes my portfolio. Euros are not a productive asset dude.
lotto tickets are uncorrelated with most of my assets but i don't hold them for the reasons you cited. the OP's argument about correlation is mostly bunk since the real debate is about expected upside which is the whole argument to begin with.
if bitcoin is a store of value like gold then don't hold it in your portfolio for the same reasons you don't hold gold (it just sits there). if it's a currency then don't hold it for the same reason you don't hold cash (it just sits there).
>> Transferring money internationally without additional costs.
>nope
It costs between $70 and $90 to send $1AUD from Australia to Iceland. Bitcoin transaction fees have _never_ been that high, and they're currently somewhere around $1AUD.
$50-$70 of that fee is taken out of the transaction instead of charged seperately, which means it may be impossible to pay a bill accurately via SWIFT.
I tried to pay for a tent via SWIFT from Iceland to the USA recently. Because the US bank used a customer support system that required you to log in via a wells fargo account that I didn't have, I was unable to ask whether they charged fees to receive swift transactions. I added $15 extra to the SWIFT payment as a hedge against any extra fees from wells fargo. I guess that was enough, because the merchant sent me the tent.
If you think that the SWIFT system is better than bitcoin you haven't used SWIFT much.
Actually, it's imposed by the institutions in the middle of the transaction as well.
Australian banks don't handle Icelandic krona, and Icelandic banks don't handle Australian dollars. As a result, they pick a third bank that handles both to be the middle man. If there's no one bank that handle both then it becomes a 4-player game. Every bank involved charges fees. I don't know how many banks get involved in AU->IS, but since the fee per bank seems to be about $15-$20AU as a standard, I'm guessing at least 4.
Sending money between countries is two things. Changing currencies and moving the cash. Bitcoin maybe saves you some money on the latter but you are going to need to do the former to do something useful no matter what and it doesn't save you anything there. Plus if you're an American suddenly this transaction has tax consequences.
Plus I don't know where you got that quote but most transfers are much cheaper than that a/i. That pairing must just be incredibly non-competitive since it's very low volume.
Why didn't you pay via a CC? Free foreign transaction fees is a common perk?
>Why didn't you pay via a CC? Free foreign transaction fees is a common perk?
Credit cards generally don't allow bank-to-bank transfers.
If you're referring to the tent, the credit card processor choked on my Icelandic address and rejected it address as "not the address of the cardholder". It's a relatively common problem.
Receiving, owning and spending money anonymously. Remember when extortionists had to be paid with a suitcase full of banknotes?
Most cryptocurrency isnt anonymous, and certainly Bitcoin isn’t. In fact it’s arguable that the public ledger nature makes it far less anonymous than almost anything else. What it is, is easier to launder, hence the extortionist wet dreams. Why is it a feature of a currency to have the most utility for thieves and other criminals?
Receiving money without being exposed to the danger of fraud.
Depends on the currency. There was a recent 51% attack, and the many many fraudulent ICO’s, exist scams, and exchange “robberies” to provide counterexamples. As a bonus, no insurance! Hooray...
Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant.
It really isn’t.
Transferring money internationally without additional costs.
Transaction fees exist for crypto actually.
Let’s also remember that all of this “utility” comes at the low low cost of an ungodly amount of wasted energy.
> Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant.
> It really isn’t.
Also on that: receiving money via CC is not always straightfoward, you'd be suprised how much effort (not to mention money) merchants have to spend auditing and verifying that what they're supposed to get (what they sold) are actually being credited to their bank account.
> Receiving money without being exposed to the danger of fraud. Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant.
I'm pretty sure cryptocurrencies just move the risks around, rather than eliminating them. Currently, the vendor is on the hook for stolen credit cards. With cryptocurrencies, the currency owner is on the hook. You could accomplish the same shift in the burden of risks with a legislative change if you wanted: it's just that credit card owners don't want that.
> Being able to move the trust around is still valuable.
Right. And the current system handles that just fine. It would be trivial to make a credit card system where charges were irreversible. There hasn't been enough demand for that (possibly because it's not actually useful in a non-ideal world).
No, it would not be trivial. You are still subject to the whims of the financial system.
The financial system can still censor and reverse your transactions if it wants to.
If the government comes knocking, then your transactions will be frozen, even if you have broken ZERO laws.
All they have to do is vaguely threaten a credit card company behind the scenes, and the credit card company will freeze your transactions, even if the vague threat was illegal, and what you are doing is legal. And you will have zero recourse.
Just go look at what happened to WikiLeaks back in 2010. WikiLeaks broke zero laws, and yet the financial system successfully censored donations to them, by blocking all credit card transactions.
The use case of crypto is to send difficult to reverse, censorship resistant, near instant (yes, 10 minutes is small when compared to credit card settlement, which takes days), electronic transactions.
And this worked great for WikiLeaks, as their crypto transactions were not censored, but their credit card transactions WERE.
> Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant.
In this aspect cryptocurrencies are surprisingly dangerous for the customer because there is no easy way to revert a transaction done by mistake or fraud (lets say someone cracked your wallet).
With credit cards in the worst case you just screw the merchant and I guess this is what marketplaces will end up doing instead of setting up their own escrow systems in order to protect both sides because handling disputes is hard work.
>The point is that crypto can't get rid of the issue of trust. At some level, there has to be some level of trust in order to perform a transaction.
This is generally true however there are some exceptions. You can trustlessly trade Bitcoins for solutions to particular problems e.g. the preimage of a particular hash. This can be extended to a much larger class of problems with Zero Knowledge Contingent Payment (ZKCP).
If people want the option where you trust the customer, that's what credit cards are for.
And if people make the opposite choice, that is ALSO ok, and is what crypto is for.
It is still very valuable to be able to move that trust somewhere else.
To give a concrete example, what if the merchant is inherently more trust worth in a specific market? Then, it is BETTER to put that trust on the merchant.
> Portfolio optimization. Crypto currencies are probably not perfectly correlated to other assets. So it stabilizes the portfolio to add some crypto.
Considering cryptocurrencies have only come to prominence during a bull market and unusual macroeconomic conditions I don't think you can conclude this. I would bet they're strongly correlated with the stock market. And because of lack of liquidity are likely to crash harder than other, more liquid assets.
I would not make that bet at all. Why would there be any correlation between crypto and the stock market? Also, crypto is arguably more liquid than stocks. They trade 24/7, there's decentralized exchanges, ATMs for BTC, etc...can't take my company stock to an ATM machine. And cashing out stock often takes weeks.
Hey downvoters: OP made an unsubstantiated claim about correlation of stock markets and crypto markets. There is no reason to believe this to be true. Statements about 24/7 access to crypto markets is a fact. Statements about stock exchanges being limited to business hours are facts. What gives?
> Receiving, owning and spending money anonymously. Remember when extortionists had to be paid with a suitcase full of banknotes?
As stated in other comments, Bitcoin is hardly anonymous anymore. There's a much greater ability to trace wallet addresses back to individuals or groups than there used to be.
> Receiving money without being exposed to the danger of fraud. Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant.
Fraud was (and likely still is) rampant in the digital currency community when Bitcoin hit its peak. Plenty of it was going on in direct relation to the system and we've also seen the 51% attacks plus price manipulation.
Also, at least with credit there's legal recourse. It's at least something compared to nothing with digital currencies.
> Transferring money internationally without additional costs.
At Bitcoin's peak there was a significant cost to doing any transfers. This is now admittedly lower but to the average person I don't think this is a strong enough argument alone.
> Portfolio optimization. Crypto currencies are probably not perfectly correlated to other assets. So it stabilizes the portfolio to add some crypto.
This is where I start to think you're joking. The volatility of digital currencies doesn't stabilize any portfolio. At best it contributes to a diversified portfolio. At worst, you're correct, it doesn't really correlate to any asset. It is tied to nothing tangible.
You can argue that something is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it but that's such a terrible argument when the few businesses who tried accepting it are moving away from that, volatility again being one of the major issues. At a certain point there's nothing to be gained other than 'street cred' for having more of these coins attributed to an address that you claim to own.
Blockchain technology will stick around, digital currencies, at least those supposedly worth thousands, will not. I'm sure by now readers can tell I'm very against this. The people riding the digital currency hype train sound no different to me than those involved in pyramid and/or ponzi schemes.
The fact that Bitcoin is consuming so much electricity and takes so much computing power to confirm a transaction should be enough of an argument against it.
Also, what do you propose when quantum becomes mainstream? Every wallet in existing currencies will be cracked in mere seconds and investors will lose all of the coin they will have amassed. I'm sure someone will try to create a quantum digital currency but by then the opportunists that make up most of this market will hopefully realize how overhyped this was.
...because bitcoin is actually decentralised. All of the other fake coins have some aspect of control built into them, e.g. that 'airdrop' where everyone gets some new allocation of fake-coin, the people doing the air-drop hope that some people use the new fake-coin and that the price goes up and they can then sell their special founders hoard of fake coins for real money (or real bitcoin).
The 'airdrop' idea is a scam to get around the problem of the ICO - just magic these new fakecoins into existence and avoid any regulatory problems.
Point being that bitcoin is unique among the crypto-coins in that it is actually not centralized in any way, all the others pretend to be that but there is some fat controller hoping to profit from the uptake of the things.
That said, although bitcoin is legit compared to all the rest, there is a problem when it is no longer economic to mine. If the mining won't pay for the electricity bills then there is nobody around to take those exorbitant transaction fees. Of course these problems can be solved with more centralisation and control - lightning networks and the like.
Agreed, this article does make sweeping arguments about the costs of operating these currencies, but their implementations vary wildly, some cryptos are able to do thousands of TPS (and even BTC, with lightning, can achieve this). Some are POS and use minimal electricity.
Bitcoin for us mere mortals who are not drugdealers seems unlikely. It simply doesn't solve a problem that people have. I can pay for my groceries waving a plastic card around and it costs me nothing.
Traditional payment systems are safer, cheaper and more efficient than crypto.
If the Bitcoin community gets lightning network off the ground (it's very close), it solves the problem of micropayments. This is a problem many people likely have that they are not aware of. Ability to pay a fraction of a cent for each article you read online could eliminate the need for both annoying paywalls & ads.
Traditional payment systems are actually quite expensive, you just don't see it since the merchant pays. Typically 2.5% + $.10 for most credit cards. That cost is still baked into prices & goods.
Safer is definitely true though, it's just too hard for the average person to properly secure cryptocurrencies.
Well I wasn't talking about CC, those are daylight robbery. €0,056 flat transaction fee is the target that I challenge crypto to beat. Thats what my employer pays to banks.
Well, no - the problem of micropayments is that users consistently hate them. Users only put up with micropayments when there's literally no other option.
Vendors keep bringing up the idea of micropayments entirely on the basis of "it would be cool for us if they worked." This is not enough - because the problem is social, not technical.
Tell that to citizens of Greece when the banks took 20% of everyone's life savings a few years ago.
Tell that to the 3B people in the world who live on less than $2/day and banks will not deal with them.
You make claims that traditional payment systems are more efficient.... but did not include an energy calculation to maintain those banks, armoured cars, and infrastructure as compared to bitcoin energy consumption.
People living on $2 a day generally don't have reliable access to computers, electricity, internet or the technical literacy necessary to navigate the cryptocurrency minefield.
The fact is that 20% of the world's poorest has a smartphone and is in many cases more valuable than running water or sanitation.
Within 10-20 years we will have 50km range wifi, with solar powered batteries and ultra low cost computing power and many more of the poor will be brought into the connected economica world via smartphones, long range power and internet tech and micro transactions with ultra low fees powered by tech like bitcoin (cash).
The last startup I worked at 3 years ago sold Android smartphones for $5 USD.
Unbelievable that I get called out of touch when the author is a couple years behind the curve. Nice vision and imagination, man.
This reply is itself a good example of the flamewar style: low substance, hot topic, irritable rhetoric. I understand the temptation to post this way, but on HN we're trying to eke out a small space not dominated by it.
The idea here is thoughtful conversation. You're welcome to participate in that, but not to turn it into something different, which is what flamebait and flamewars do.
Crossing into personal attack like this breaks the HN guidelines and demonstrably leads to worse, as demonstrated below. Please don't do this here. Maybe you don't owe better to someone else who you consider wrong, but you do owe better to the community.
«As stated in other comments, Bitcoin is hardly anonymous anymore»
Cryptocurrencies ≠ Bitcoin. There are quite a few cryptocurrencies that provide full anonymity (eg. Zcash with its zk-SNARKs.) Besides, Bitcoin is sufficiently anonymous for most.
«Fraud was (and likely still is) rampant in the digital currency community when Bitcoin hit its peak»
Still, for the recipient of an online payment, receiving cryptocurrencies (specifically Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc: the big ones that can't easily be 51%-attacked) are the less risky option that exists for them.
«Also, at least with credit there's legal recourse. It's at least something compared to nothing with digital currencies.»
False. There is legal recourse for cryptocurrencies. Governments have and will continue to legally prosecute cases of crypto theft. It might be harder to recover the money, but there definitely is legal recourse.
«At Bitcoin's peak there was a significant cost to doing any transfers. This is now admittedly lower but to the average person I don't think this is a strong enough argument alone.»
Global remittance fees cost an average of 7.13% (https://remittanceprices.worldbank.org/en) which is terribly high. The crypto tx fee is typically much smaller. This is still a strong argument in their favor.
«takes so much computing power to confirm a transaction»
Transactions don't consume energy. The transaction rate could increase without necessarily increasing the energy consumption. This is a big misconception floating around cryptocurrencies.
«Also, what do you propose when quantum becomes mainstream? Every wallet in existing currencies will be cracked in mere seconds»
And legacy banking will break too (VPNs, IPsec, encryption at rest, TLS shopping sessions, and so on.)
The anonymity is extremely over sold with most cryptocurrencies. If the goal is to pay and be paid with them, then the second you pay or get paid you’re trusting the other party to not disclose the user/wallet relationship. The second they do, every thing you’ve ever done with that wallet is visible. I’d expect the current selling of user data to 3rd parties to continue, regardless of payment methodologies.
Even if you strictly “invest” with cryptocurrencies you’re moving money in via fiat, so whomever you do that through also ties you to an address (or omnibus pool while you’re on an exchange).
That's one way of looking at it. I think there is a place for both - the banking system and bitcoin. bitcoin is a very interesting financial instrument that allows trustless transfers of money, while the banking system allows credit as an instrument to do things like finance homes, cars, etc.
Credit is a really tough problem for bitcoin to solve, since banks can create currency.
Well, I haven't seen any banking (borrowing and lending) systems built on top of a cryptocurrency yet,
But that is probably largely because there isn't a good enough reputation system or other way to encourage the payment of debts that is compatible with the cryptocurrency ecosystem yet, I think.
Or, alternatively, they exist and are used, but I haven't noticed them yet.
Extremely slow and expensive data stores that are reliant on a large number of gullible people to waste their computational resources in order to provide it to you.
More like permanent data stores. "Stone printers" I call them. Life lives as long as the data has value, and what a better way to represent the value of a blockchain but the value of the data that's stored in it rather than speculation.
> it is hard to identify a specific economic problem which they currently solve
It is hard to identify such a problem till you believe you can withdraw your money from a bank anytime. Visiting a bank and getting an answer "please come tomorrow" for several weeks changes a person's view on cryptocurrencies and problems they could solve, imo.
Let's imagine a scenario where you're not able to withdraw from a bank due to insolvency. If you're in the US your deposits (principal + interest) are insured up to $250,000 by the federal government. [0] If the federal government is insolvent your cryptocurrency will be useless because you won't have reliable Internet access and thus you won't have access to the resources needed to make or verify transactions on your block-chain of choice.
If anything, people will revert to cash or tangible assets if the federal government fails. No way crypto or technology in general is going to fill that gap.
Now tell me, what institution is going to make a holder of cryptocurrency 'whole' again if something goes wrong with their wallet or the block-chain itself?
This is a quite rare use case, talking worldwide scale.
> If the federal government is insolvent your cryptocurrency will be useless because you won't have reliable Internet access
There is an option you missed - when a bank is insolvent and the government doesn't care.
> people will revert to cash or tangible assets if the federal government fails
Why not get abroad and spend there dark ages, caching out your X-coins?
> what institution is going to make a holder of cryptocurrency 'whole' again if something goes wrong with their wallet or the block-chain itself?
Valid point. But sometimes these risks are smaller comparing to unavoidable perspective of being robbed by government which is trying to escape default.
>Now tell me, what institution is going to make a holder of cryptocurrency 'whole' again if something goes wrong with their wallet or the block-chain itself?
There will be crypto lending banks and multi-sig custodial services to fill that use case.
The code and math is open source and has been available for a decade.
Unbelievable how HN has tech dinosaurs that can't be bothered to check all the open source implementations available for the particular problem/use csse they are seeking to solve. That is so 2009.
Imagine trying to pay for something with crypto and having the seller deride it as fake money that they refuse to accept. That is illegal with officially minted currency.
I'll give you $5k for a bitcoin, and I could find you 100 people within 100 miles of you who would do the same thing today. It has value because people give it value.
That's not true either as a universal statement (as laws vary from country to country regarding accepting officially minted currency) or in the US specifically (stores are free to not accept cash, for instance).
Just try and send a transaction that a bank doesn't expect, like an international transfer, or a Western Union transaction and see what happens to your account. And this is in a modern, wealthy country. You're spot on, this gives you a new perspective on the benefits of crypto.
> Yet, looking beyond the hype, it is hard to identify a specific economic problem which they currently solve.
People seem to forget that cryptocurrencies emerged from a culture of cryptoanarchy, not from economists or governments.
Anarchists generally don't want to help the government solve problems, they view the government as the very problem to solve. (I'm speaking very broadly here.)
Whatever “culture” supposedly created it, that’s not the real use case. The same people who will rant about “fiat” will in the next breath, talk about various measures to centralize crypto through PoW. It’s about making money by any and all means including outright fraud, not ideology.
Most damning to me is that the case against cryptocurrency takes two sentences to clearly outline, while the case for them is yet to even emerge.
Transactions are slow and costly, prone to congestion, and cannot scale with demand. The decentralised consensus behind the technology is also fragile and consumes vast amounts of energy.
I find that most extreme ideologies simply boil down to people not wanting someone to have any control over them.
They don't care for certain aspects of the social contract and want to be able to flaunt it at will with no repercussions. Or they don't want to pay taxes or some other thing. Whatever, they feel that society at large is what's holding them back, not simply a lack of ability or drive.
At least with religious fundamentalists or whatever flavor of totalitarianism you're comfortable with, it's clear what their answer to the problem of force is: be the force.
Anarchists have no answer to that. They want to "be free to do whatever" but when confronted with the question of what happens when I want their shit, they invariably create government. Oh, I can't take their shit because there will be rules. In the community they live, you can't live there if you take other people's shit.
Yeah. That's just government. That's politics. That's the social contract. We all agree not to do shit in order for us to live relatively peaceful, chill lives.
Government, in the broad sense, is not the problem. The problem is that governments are still run by people. And we're kind of fucked up. And we often make mistakes.
I wonder whether some substantial portion of cryptoanarchism isn't really meant to be anarchism in the fullest sense, but more anarchism-but-only-within-a-particular-domain?
Like, less "make the government not exist", and more "make it so goverments are unable to control things like communication, and some sorts of commerce"?
I don't know that self-described cryptoanarchists almost always have much opposition to the requirement of a drivers license in order to drive on the public roads.
I suspect that a non-negligible portion does really object to that requirement, but I'm not confident that the majority of them do.
> I wonder whether some substantial portion of cryptoanarchism isn't really meant to be anarchism in the fullest sense, but more anarchism-but-only-within-a-particular-domain?
It varies from person to person. I happen to like the message in A Cipherpunk's Manifesto, but I also happen to dislike blockchain mania.
Well as a Tunisian with no access to PayPal, Bitcoin was the only way I could pay for goods and services online there. Nothing can undo the effect that had on my life.
Cryptocurrencies are interesting to me right now in that they have not suffered any plausible advanced attacks capable of zeroing them. What is stopping a state actor from using their backdoors in internet infrastructure to destroy the Bitcoin network topology for a long enough period of time to destroy the network? Is secp256k1 backdoored? My bet is that state actors are saving their guaranteed Bitcoin destruct buttons for the perfect moment.
I'm really surprised you including India in the list. India is as democratic as the USA. The laws were put in place in India at least around Crypto to save people from being scammed.
Fair enough. I don't know that much about India. I do know they tend to limit financial freedoms - capital controls, gold imports, now Bitcoin. Maybe it's for the better, but it's less free than the Western world on this front nonetheless.
democratic? It's not because there's a lot of people mean that is really democratic...It's a marketing tricks. When Caste system will be gone maybe you can say you live in democratie but not now.
The Bitcoin network topology is the internet itself. Technically blocks can be announced over one-to-many broadcast situations like satellite and radio which eases doomsday scenarios.
To which the honey badger says, "Bring it on". Bitcoin is a public network that has been attacked relentlessly by the best hackers in the world for the past 10 years. It is currently protecting/storing around $115 billion dollars in wealth, which can be seen as a bounty to anyone who succeeds in bringing it down. So far it hasn't happened, and even in the face of hypothetical challenges there's no reason why the protocol cannot patch a fix and move on.
This might not be particularly relevant to the article, but I'm still genuinely shocked that the HN crowd is so anti-cryptocurreny. Most of the arguments against it are akin to someone in 1995 saying the internet isn't viable because it's insecure, there's no real business use-case for it, no major corporations are investing in it, it's super slow, no one is ever going to use it for real-world business transactions, it's only used by geeks, etc... If you said that in 1995 you were terribly wrong and you'll be wrong about this as well. Criticisms of alta-vista may have had some relevance but criticizing the underlying ideas and technology is short-sighted.
My theory is that HN people feel they "missed the bus" which causes cognitive dissonance because "we're techies and edgy startups af".
Combine the feeling of missing out on 10,000% financial gains and you have a case for thr worst kind of disgust and cognitive dissonance.
The truth is that most of the people in this space who "know crypto/blockchain" are clueless and missing the point.
If you refer to cryptocurrency or blockchain as a concept instead of just saying POW or bitcoin (cash), then you missed the point from the beginning and you are blind to what is coming next.
Many on HN have seen the promise of crypto since 2010-2011.
We mined some, we bought some, we dealt with technological issues, we were ecstatic for a while.
Yet the big crypto promise is to be fulfilled and we are now on 3rd or 4th big hype/decline cycle.
We see the big negatives of various cryptocurrencies(energy usage, affecting various hardware markets, supporting fraud on massive scale, insecurity for normal folks, etc. etc.) but do not see any big positive developments.
Sure, if you are able to be paid in crypto in some country with a lousy banking system that's great but you are in a tiny minority then.
All those tales of normal non-tech people using crypto for every day tasks are closer to fairy tales.
The worst is the tendency for various cryptosolutions to tend back to centralized PRIVATE control. Tether is the worst offender in this regard. The cognitive dissonance is fantastic here.
I have no doubts that there will be another hype cycle attracting new followers with blinders.
For a brief moment in 2013 crypto(Bitcoin especially) actually seemed useful as a currency.
To conclude, maybe in 2023 someone will come up with a killer app for crypto but crypto kitties is not the answer.
"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."
> hard to identify a specific economic problem which they currently solve
Problem: a handful of private companies could exert monetary censorship.
World changing organizations like Wikileaks are possible because of cryptocurrencies, when Visa/Mastercard/etc began blocking donations. Cryptocurrencies enable anyone to take online payments. [1]
> Transactions are slow and costly, prone to congestion, and cannot scale with demand
Lightning Network has found a very promising solution to these issues. Off-chain transactions can be completed in under a second, without the scalability concerns of on-chain transactions. I highly recommend checking this out if you're unfamiliar [2]
I hate to be the one, but the reason I can't embrace crypto? The wealth distribution is even worse than fiat currency. It's horrible.
it's no long about the 1% it's more about the .0001%.
How many women have crypto?
How many colored folks have crypto?
How many people in all of Africa have crypto?
I've had conversations where some don't believe this is a problem. I'm not convinced. You can come up with a new XYZ crypto and the issue is that the distribution never gets to be fair. The haves end up always having much more than the havenots.
I don't understand why this is a problem specifically with bitcoin. Is this not a problem with any other currency? I mean I appreciate the sentiment but how does it even matter in which currency the rich are rich and the poor are poor?
But remember, with fiat, the government just prints money [1] whenever it likes and gives it directly to its banker friends. With bitcoin that’s impossible (well unless 51% of the minors agree)
You're simply trading one government for another more nebulous and less accountable one; the schism over block-size is a perfect example of this and that's peanuts compared to the types of issues that are to come.
There is absolutely zero guarantee that the mining cartels won't print more bitcoin; the final decision on whether or not to do so rests with them and it is in their direct financial interest to do so even if it may not be in their political interest. Even then, it is very possible that the impact of high fees might make the idea of printing more bitcoins politically palatable.
Either way, the bottom line is that it is a political issue, just like the current system.
Miners don't have the ability to 'print' more Bitcoin. They can release blocks with whatever transactions they like in but they will simply be rejected by the network.
The fact that there is 10,000 public bitcoin nodes (and probably x10 private ones) keeps the system honest.
You're right that the miners don't have unilateral authority to print more bitcoin, but ultimately they are the muscle behind the process. This is akin to saying "the military can't just print more money to pay for military spending". This is true, and it's unlikely that the military would turn their guns on the institutions in order to achieve this goal because it would threaten the stability of the entire system in which they thrive (like with the miners and bitcoin)... yet... somehow things always work out in such a way where they get their money. It never gets to the point where they have to turn their guns on anyone because their silent authority confers enough influence that the politicians making the decisions (i.e. developer cabals in the case of bitcoin) manage to find solutions that keep them fat and happy while delivering enough voluble rhetoric to ensure that the general population doesn't revolt.
I still can't believe the term colored people has made a comeback in both academic and colloquial circles. Are chinese people considered people of color? Seems like they are doing well at mining.
Re: women in crypto, I’m not sure what the solution could be. Both men and women had the same opportunity to buy Bitcoin when it was incredibly cheap. Unlike the gender divide in STEM jobs, there’s no hiring managers / gatekeepers with bias against women turning down potential BTC buyers. Women just didn’t buy crypto early on.
I’ve seen folks go so far as to accuse Bitcoin of being sexist. I just don’t understand how that’s a fair thing to say given that anyone with an internet connection and an appetite for risk could have bought BTC anytime since 2009
Nice try with race baiting and bringing identity politics into this.
Next thing you know, you will be advocating stealing people's bitcoin and property at gunpoint to redistribute to <insert current in-vogue identity class here>
It's what the Russians did and it's how the Communists divide the people: turning people against each other to make them more dependent on politicians and the loving gentle glove of the state (which had an iron fist inside)
Black is not officially a color. Are you taking in count only Asian and Indian (Real Amercian and not Native) because other "white" american don't exist at all.
Pretty much the most active users of cryptocurrencies so far are different kinds of investors who use it to avoid taxes and exposure of their assets to government and such?
111 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] threadReceiving money without being exposed to the danger of fraud. Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant.
Transferring money internationally without additional costs.
Portfolio optimization. Crypto currencies are probably not perfectly correlated to other assets. So it stabilizes the portfolio to add some crypto.
All kinds of contractual setups. Example: "This accounts money can only be spend if 2 of the following 3 account holders agree: ..." .
We have this well established thing called a credit score which is handled by the credit card agency and resolves trust issues for the merchant entirely. If a person suspects identity theft, they can put a hold on a card, preventing further use. Cards have expiration dates and periodically cycle out. I'm sorry but when people explain to me that using a token they are personally responsible for encrypting is "safer" somehow, I raise my eyebrows.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=credit%20card%20fraud&sort=byP...
We have this well established phenomenon called 'data breaches' which has compromised nearly everyone's credit/personal data.
Your info is on the dark web. Lots of databases that can be cross correlated. Banks increasingly don't know who they're dealing with, fraud is increasing.
I've had both credit and debit card fraud happen to my accounts: it is a pretty minor annoyance.
(A data breach of my Social Security Number would be a whole different story however!)
nope
> Portfolio optimization
nope. i still await an explanation using MPT that shows why someone should hold non-zero cryptoassets. It's like saying I should hold euros because it stabilizes my portfolio. Euros are not a productive asset dude.
if bitcoin is a store of value like gold then don't hold it in your portfolio for the same reasons you don't hold gold (it just sits there). if it's a currency then don't hold it for the same reason you don't hold cash (it just sits there).
It costs between $70 and $90 to send $1AUD from Australia to Iceland. Bitcoin transaction fees have _never_ been that high, and they're currently somewhere around $1AUD.
$50-$70 of that fee is taken out of the transaction instead of charged seperately, which means it may be impossible to pay a bill accurately via SWIFT.
I tried to pay for a tent via SWIFT from Iceland to the USA recently. Because the US bank used a customer support system that required you to log in via a wells fargo account that I didn't have, I was unable to ask whether they charged fees to receive swift transactions. I added $15 extra to the SWIFT payment as a hedge against any extra fees from wells fargo. I guess that was enough, because the merchant sent me the tent.
If you think that the SWIFT system is better than bitcoin you haven't used SWIFT much.
Australian banks don't handle Icelandic krona, and Icelandic banks don't handle Australian dollars. As a result, they pick a third bank that handles both to be the middle man. If there's no one bank that handle both then it becomes a 4-player game. Every bank involved charges fees. I don't know how many banks get involved in AU->IS, but since the fee per bank seems to be about $15-$20AU as a standard, I'm guessing at least 4.
Plus I don't know where you got that quote but most transfers are much cheaper than that a/i. That pairing must just be incredibly non-competitive since it's very low volume.
Why didn't you pay via a CC? Free foreign transaction fees is a common perk?
Credit cards generally don't allow bank-to-bank transfers.
If you're referring to the tent, the credit card processor choked on my Icelandic address and rejected it address as "not the address of the cardholder". It's a relatively common problem.
Most cryptocurrency isnt anonymous, and certainly Bitcoin isn’t. In fact it’s arguable that the public ledger nature makes it far less anonymous than almost anything else. What it is, is easier to launder, hence the extortionist wet dreams. Why is it a feature of a currency to have the most utility for thieves and other criminals?
Receiving money without being exposed to the danger of fraud.
Depends on the currency. There was a recent 51% attack, and the many many fraudulent ICO’s, exist scams, and exchange “robberies” to provide counterexamples. As a bonus, no insurance! Hooray...
Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant.
It really isn’t.
Transferring money internationally without additional costs.
Transaction fees exist for crypto actually.
Let’s also remember that all of this “utility” comes at the low low cost of an ungodly amount of wasted energy.
> It really isn’t.
Nerdwallet article outlining the fraud risk:
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-cards/merchants-victi...
> It really isn’t.
Also on that: receiving money via CC is not always straightfoward, you'd be suprised how much effort (not to mention money) merchants have to spend auditing and verifying that what they're supposed to get (what they sold) are actually being credited to their bank account.
I'm pretty sure cryptocurrencies just move the risks around, rather than eliminating them. Currently, the vendor is on the hook for stolen credit cards. With cryptocurrencies, the currency owner is on the hook. You could accomplish the same shift in the burden of risks with a legislative change if you wanted: it's just that credit card owners don't want that.
IE, if the merchant is more trustworthy, then we want that trust to be with the merchant, and on with the customer.
When the merchant is less trustworthy, well that's what credit cards are for.
Right. And the current system handles that just fine. It would be trivial to make a credit card system where charges were irreversible. There hasn't been enough demand for that (possibly because it's not actually useful in a non-ideal world).
The financial system can still censor and reverse your transactions if it wants to.
If the government comes knocking, then your transactions will be frozen, even if you have broken ZERO laws.
All they have to do is vaguely threaten a credit card company behind the scenes, and the credit card company will freeze your transactions, even if the vague threat was illegal, and what you are doing is legal. And you will have zero recourse.
Just go look at what happened to WikiLeaks back in 2010. WikiLeaks broke zero laws, and yet the financial system successfully censored donations to them, by blocking all credit card transactions.
The use case of crypto is to send difficult to reverse, censorship resistant, near instant (yes, 10 minutes is small when compared to credit card settlement, which takes days), electronic transactions.
And this worked great for WikiLeaks, as their crypto transactions were not censored, but their credit card transactions WERE.
In this aspect cryptocurrencies are surprisingly dangerous for the customer because there is no easy way to revert a transaction done by mistake or fraud (lets say someone cracked your wallet).
With credit cards in the worst case you just screw the merchant and I guess this is what marketplaces will end up doing instead of setting up their own escrow systems in order to protect both sides because handling disputes is hard work.
Credit cards/checks: Merchant trusts user, user doesn't trust merchant
Wire-transfers/Cashiers Checks/Cash/Bitcoin: User trusts merchant, merchant doesn't trust user
But that just puts the risk back with the other party. We're just back to the credit card scenario like you mentioned.
The point is that crypto can't get rid of the issue of trust. At some level, there has to be some level of trust in order to perform a transaction.
No matter what we do, all we're doing is pushing the trust somewhere else.
This is generally true however there are some exceptions. You can trustlessly trade Bitcoins for solutions to particular problems e.g. the preimage of a particular hash. This can be extended to a much larger class of problems with Zero Knowledge Contingent Payment (ZKCP).
If people want the option where you trust the customer, that's what credit cards are for.
And if people make the opposite choice, that is ALSO ok, and is what crypto is for.
It is still very valuable to be able to move that trust somewhere else.
To give a concrete example, what if the merchant is inherently more trust worth in a specific market? Then, it is BETTER to put that trust on the merchant.
Considering cryptocurrencies have only come to prominence during a bull market and unusual macroeconomic conditions I don't think you can conclude this. I would bet they're strongly correlated with the stock market. And because of lack of liquidity are likely to crash harder than other, more liquid assets.
> Receiving, owning and spending money anonymously. Remember when extortionists had to be paid with a suitcase full of banknotes?
As stated in other comments, Bitcoin is hardly anonymous anymore. There's a much greater ability to trace wallet addresses back to individuals or groups than there used to be.
> Receiving money without being exposed to the danger of fraud. Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant.
Fraud was (and likely still is) rampant in the digital currency community when Bitcoin hit its peak. Plenty of it was going on in direct relation to the system and we've also seen the 51% attacks plus price manipulation.
Also, at least with credit there's legal recourse. It's at least something compared to nothing with digital currencies.
> Transferring money internationally without additional costs.
At Bitcoin's peak there was a significant cost to doing any transfers. This is now admittedly lower but to the average person I don't think this is a strong enough argument alone.
> Portfolio optimization. Crypto currencies are probably not perfectly correlated to other assets. So it stabilizes the portfolio to add some crypto.
This is where I start to think you're joking. The volatility of digital currencies doesn't stabilize any portfolio. At best it contributes to a diversified portfolio. At worst, you're correct, it doesn't really correlate to any asset. It is tied to nothing tangible.
You can argue that something is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it but that's such a terrible argument when the few businesses who tried accepting it are moving away from that, volatility again being one of the major issues. At a certain point there's nothing to be gained other than 'street cred' for having more of these coins attributed to an address that you claim to own.
Blockchain technology will stick around, digital currencies, at least those supposedly worth thousands, will not. I'm sure by now readers can tell I'm very against this. The people riding the digital currency hype train sound no different to me than those involved in pyramid and/or ponzi schemes.
The fact that Bitcoin is consuming so much electricity and takes so much computing power to confirm a transaction should be enough of an argument against it.
Also, what do you propose when quantum becomes mainstream? Every wallet in existing currencies will be cracked in mere seconds and investors will lose all of the coin they will have amassed. I'm sure someone will try to create a quantum digital currency but by then the opportunists that make up most of this market will hopefully realize how overhyped this was.
The 'airdrop' idea is a scam to get around the problem of the ICO - just magic these new fakecoins into existence and avoid any regulatory problems.
Point being that bitcoin is unique among the crypto-coins in that it is actually not centralized in any way, all the others pretend to be that but there is some fat controller hoping to profit from the uptake of the things.
That said, although bitcoin is legit compared to all the rest, there is a problem when it is no longer economic to mine. If the mining won't pay for the electricity bills then there is nobody around to take those exorbitant transaction fees. Of course these problems can be solved with more centralisation and control - lightning networks and the like.
Traditional payment systems are safer, cheaper and more efficient than crypto.
Traditional payment systems are actually quite expensive, you just don't see it since the merchant pays. Typically 2.5% + $.10 for most credit cards. That cost is still baked into prices & goods.
Safer is definitely true though, it's just too hard for the average person to properly secure cryptocurrencies.
Well, no - the problem of micropayments is that users consistently hate them. Users only put up with micropayments when there's literally no other option.
Vendors keep bringing up the idea of micropayments entirely on the basis of "it would be cool for us if they worked." This is not enough - because the problem is social, not technical.
Tell that to the 3B people in the world who live on less than $2/day and banks will not deal with them.
You make claims that traditional payment systems are more efficient.... but did not include an energy calculation to maintain those banks, armoured cars, and infrastructure as compared to bitcoin energy consumption.
People living on $2 a day generally don't have reliable access to computers, electricity, internet or the technical literacy necessary to navigate the cryptocurrency minefield.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/01/1...
The fact is that 20% of the world's poorest has a smartphone and is in many cases more valuable than running water or sanitation.
Within 10-20 years we will have 50km range wifi, with solar powered batteries and ultra low cost computing power and many more of the poor will be brought into the connected economica world via smartphones, long range power and internet tech and micro transactions with ultra low fees powered by tech like bitcoin (cash).
The last startup I worked at 3 years ago sold Android smartphones for $5 USD.
Unbelievable that I get called out of touch when the author is a couple years behind the curve. Nice vision and imagination, man.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My apologies for bringing up facts when parent brought a personal attack.
The idea here is thoughtful conversation. You're welcome to participate in that, but not to turn it into something different, which is what flamebait and flamewars do.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Cryptocurrencies ≠ Bitcoin. There are quite a few cryptocurrencies that provide full anonymity (eg. Zcash with its zk-SNARKs.) Besides, Bitcoin is sufficiently anonymous for most.
«Fraud was (and likely still is) rampant in the digital currency community when Bitcoin hit its peak»
Still, for the recipient of an online payment, receiving cryptocurrencies (specifically Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc: the big ones that can't easily be 51%-attacked) are the less risky option that exists for them.
«Also, at least with credit there's legal recourse. It's at least something compared to nothing with digital currencies.»
False. There is legal recourse for cryptocurrencies. Governments have and will continue to legally prosecute cases of crypto theft. It might be harder to recover the money, but there definitely is legal recourse.
«At Bitcoin's peak there was a significant cost to doing any transfers. This is now admittedly lower but to the average person I don't think this is a strong enough argument alone.»
Global remittance fees cost an average of 7.13% (https://remittanceprices.worldbank.org/en) which is terribly high. The crypto tx fee is typically much smaller. This is still a strong argument in their favor.
«takes so much computing power to confirm a transaction»
Transactions don't consume energy. The transaction rate could increase without necessarily increasing the energy consumption. This is a big misconception floating around cryptocurrencies.
«Also, what do you propose when quantum becomes mainstream? Every wallet in existing currencies will be cracked in mere seconds»
And legacy banking will break too (VPNs, IPsec, encryption at rest, TLS shopping sessions, and so on.)
Even if you strictly “invest” with cryptocurrencies you’re moving money in via fiat, so whomever you do that through also ties you to an address (or omnibus pool while you’re on an exchange).
Credit is a really tough problem for bitcoin to solve, since banks can create currency.
Not real problems in most countries.
>Debt slavery for all mankind?
How does crypto stop people from borrowing lots of money?
But that is probably largely because there isn't a good enough reputation system or other way to encourage the payment of debts that is compatible with the cryptocurrency ecosystem yet, I think.
Or, alternatively, they exist and are used, but I haven't noticed them yet.
If data is so fucking valuable.
It is hard to identify such a problem till you believe you can withdraw your money from a bank anytime. Visiting a bank and getting an answer "please come tomorrow" for several weeks changes a person's view on cryptocurrencies and problems they could solve, imo.
If anything, people will revert to cash or tangible assets if the federal government fails. No way crypto or technology in general is going to fill that gap.
Now tell me, what institution is going to make a holder of cryptocurrency 'whole' again if something goes wrong with their wallet or the block-chain itself?
[0] https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/faq.html
This is a quite rare use case, talking worldwide scale.
> If the federal government is insolvent your cryptocurrency will be useless because you won't have reliable Internet access
There is an option you missed - when a bank is insolvent and the government doesn't care.
> people will revert to cash or tangible assets if the federal government fails
Why not get abroad and spend there dark ages, caching out your X-coins?
> what institution is going to make a holder of cryptocurrency 'whole' again if something goes wrong with their wallet or the block-chain itself?
Valid point. But sometimes these risks are smaller comparing to unavoidable perspective of being robbed by government which is trying to escape default.
It's not rare:
"as of 31 January 2014, 113 countries have instituted some form of explicit deposit insurance up from 12 in 1974."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit_insurance
It is not a hypothetical situation. It is happening right now in Venezuela.
All you have to do is look how Venezuelans are using Bitcoin right NOW to understand it's value.
I don't think this is a good argument.
The Venezuelan dollar would have lost much more in value during that time period.
Volatility doesn't matter when your nation's currency is way way worse.
A mere 30% loss in a single month is an amazing deal, compared to what they have to deal with.
There will be crypto lending banks and multi-sig custodial services to fill that use case.
The code and math is open source and has been available for a decade.
Unbelievable how HN has tech dinosaurs that can't be bothered to check all the open source implementations available for the particular problem/use csse they are seeking to solve. That is so 2009.
You are absolutely allowed to put up a sign are your store that says "we only accept bottle caps as payment".
Legal tender is only regarding DEBTS. It does not force you to accept pennies at your grocery store.
You can turn down USD for payment all you like.
You can make your own mind up on whether this would make them biased or not.
People seem to forget that cryptocurrencies emerged from a culture of cryptoanarchy, not from economists or governments.
Anarchists generally don't want to help the government solve problems, they view the government as the very problem to solve. (I'm speaking very broadly here.)
Most damning to me is that the case against cryptocurrency takes two sentences to clearly outline, while the case for them is yet to even emerge.
Transactions are slow and costly, prone to congestion, and cannot scale with demand. The decentralised consensus behind the technology is also fragile and consumes vast amounts of energy.
Nailed it.
They don't care for certain aspects of the social contract and want to be able to flaunt it at will with no repercussions. Or they don't want to pay taxes or some other thing. Whatever, they feel that society at large is what's holding them back, not simply a lack of ability or drive.
At least with religious fundamentalists or whatever flavor of totalitarianism you're comfortable with, it's clear what their answer to the problem of force is: be the force.
Anarchists have no answer to that. They want to "be free to do whatever" but when confronted with the question of what happens when I want their shit, they invariably create government. Oh, I can't take their shit because there will be rules. In the community they live, you can't live there if you take other people's shit.
Yeah. That's just government. That's politics. That's the social contract. We all agree not to do shit in order for us to live relatively peaceful, chill lives.
Government, in the broad sense, is not the problem. The problem is that governments are still run by people. And we're kind of fucked up. And we often make mistakes.
Like, less "make the government not exist", and more "make it so goverments are unable to control things like communication, and some sorts of commerce"?
I don't know that self-described cryptoanarchists almost always have much opposition to the requirement of a drivers license in order to drive on the public roads.
I suspect that a non-negligible portion does really object to that requirement, but I'm not confident that the majority of them do.
It varies from person to person. I happen to like the message in A Cipherpunk's Manifesto, but I also happen to dislike blockchain mania.
Laws. In the Western world, something is legal unless explicitly forbidden by laws.
Countries which don't care very much about freedom explicitly banned Bitcoin more or less (China, Russia, India, Indonesia, Venezuela, ...)
Combine the feeling of missing out on 10,000% financial gains and you have a case for thr worst kind of disgust and cognitive dissonance.
The truth is that most of the people in this space who "know crypto/blockchain" are clueless and missing the point.
If you refer to cryptocurrency or blockchain as a concept instead of just saying POW or bitcoin (cash), then you missed the point from the beginning and you are blind to what is coming next.
We mined some, we bought some, we dealt with technological issues, we were ecstatic for a while.
Yet the big crypto promise is to be fulfilled and we are now on 3rd or 4th big hype/decline cycle.
We see the big negatives of various cryptocurrencies(energy usage, affecting various hardware markets, supporting fraud on massive scale, insecurity for normal folks, etc. etc.) but do not see any big positive developments.
Sure, if you are able to be paid in crypto in some country with a lousy banking system that's great but you are in a tiny minority then.
All those tales of normal non-tech people using crypto for every day tasks are closer to fairy tales.
The worst is the tendency for various cryptosolutions to tend back to centralized PRIVATE control. Tether is the worst offender in this regard. The cognitive dissonance is fantastic here.
I have no doubts that there will be another hype cycle attracting new followers with blinders.
For a brief moment in 2013 crypto(Bitcoin especially) actually seemed useful as a currency.
To conclude, maybe in 2023 someone will come up with a killer app for crypto but crypto kitties is not the answer.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
Problem: a handful of private companies could exert monetary censorship.
World changing organizations like Wikileaks are possible because of cryptocurrencies, when Visa/Mastercard/etc began blocking donations. Cryptocurrencies enable anyone to take online payments. [1]
> Transactions are slow and costly, prone to congestion, and cannot scale with demand
Lightning Network has found a very promising solution to these issues. Off-chain transactions can be completed in under a second, without the scalability concerns of on-chain transactions. I highly recommend checking this out if you're unfamiliar [2]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/08/20/wikileaks...
[2] https://lightning.network
it's no long about the 1% it's more about the .0001%.
How many women have crypto? How many colored folks have crypto? How many people in all of Africa have crypto?
I've had conversations where some don't believe this is a problem. I'm not convinced. You can come up with a new XYZ crypto and the issue is that the distribution never gets to be fair. The haves end up always having much more than the havenots.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
There is absolutely zero guarantee that the mining cartels won't print more bitcoin; the final decision on whether or not to do so rests with them and it is in their direct financial interest to do so even if it may not be in their political interest. Even then, it is very possible that the impact of high fees might make the idea of printing more bitcoins politically palatable.
Either way, the bottom line is that it is a political issue, just like the current system.
The fact that there is 10,000 public bitcoin nodes (and probably x10 private ones) keeps the system honest.
Same thing will happen for the miners eventually.
CommunismCoin?
Nano was distributed via captcha and went long under the radar.
Hence also pretty nice distributed.
I still can't believe the term colored people has made a comeback in both academic and colloquial circles. Are chinese people considered people of color? Seems like they are doing well at mining.
I’ve seen folks go so far as to accuse Bitcoin of being sexist. I just don’t understand how that’s a fair thing to say given that anyone with an internet connection and an appetite for risk could have bought BTC anytime since 2009
Green eyes vs. blue?
Nice try with race baiting and bringing identity politics into this.
Next thing you know, you will be advocating stealing people's bitcoin and property at gunpoint to redistribute to <insert current in-vogue identity class here>
It's what the Russians did and it's how the Communists divide the people: turning people against each other to make them more dependent on politicians and the loving gentle glove of the state (which had an iron fist inside)
Pretty much the most active users of cryptocurrencies so far are different kinds of investors who use it to avoid taxes and exposure of their assets to government and such?