Ask HN: What real world problem does cryptocurrency solve?

51 points by lowkeyokay ↗ HN
I can easily get on the hate train, and view cryptocurrency as a pointless waste of resources. What am I missing? To name a few problems they might solve:

International transfer of value Protection from monetary policies Money laundering (real for some)

142 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 199 ms ] thread
Problem of a coordination, google it
How on earth is cryptocurrency going to solve the Prisoner's Dilemma? I don't think the cops are gonna let you have access to anything that lets you fuck around with your crypto wallet while they've got you and your buddy in the interrogation room.
Why would your buddy have your keys or any way to help third parties empty your wallet?
I think, you missed the point and it's off topic what you say
That’s the stuff that comes up when I google “problem of a coordination”.
(comment deleted)
It can solve escrow, if you trust the blockchain will last long enough.
Have you ever been through a contentious divorce?

Specifically one where the other party is laying claim to assets you earned?

In these type situations, an asset that:

    1) no one knows you own

    2) even if people know you own them, can't be seized short of torturing you to regurgitate the password

    3) can be transferred to any person of your choosing and in any jurisdiction of your choosing in a matter of minutes.
seems pretty darn useful.
For all practical purposes crypto is just another asset class, that gets taxed on capital gains and is registered with centralised exchanges - so 1. Just doesn’t exist for pretty much all practical purposes
> so 1. Just doesn’t exist for pretty much all practical purposes

Says you.

You can buy crypto person to person. The transaction isn't registered on any exchange.

You can mine it. Nothing gets registered anywhere.

If you choose to buy cryptos on regulated exchanges (why would you ?), bear the consequences of your choices.

pretty much everyone who has got into crypto outside of early adopters has bought through an exchange. And a lot of it sits on exchanges or in centralised wallets. Unless you're a drug dealer or other criminal, or a miner, you do not have significant assets sitting in crypto that are hidden to any great effect
And for 2 they can just take other assets in lieu and/or stick you in jail for non-compliance.
> And for 2 they can just take other assets in lieu.

Assuming you have any other or the bulk of your net worth is not stored as crypto.

Well then you just get it taken when you use it to buy things and get thrown in jail for not complying with a court order.

I mean this is already a silly scenario where you’ve got married to someone you have an intensely adversarial relationship with and tried to hide all your assets by making them unusable.

> seems pretty darn useful

In societies so broken and unsolidaric that individuals have to fall back on such matters, maybe. Also very useful if you are a drug cartel, a shady bussines or similar — so people that totally won't do damage to the cohesion of society in historic experience.

> In societies so broken and unsolidaric that individuals have to fall back on such matters,

The current divorce laws in most western societies pretty much match my description, especially the US.

If in your world, those count as "broken and unsolidaric (sic)", then: sure dude.

And the typical solution to such injustices is to change the laws and not to create a dystopian anarcho-capitalist society in which drug cartels, scammers and fraudsters thrive.

So while I understand (and empathically feel) the circumstances leading to male divorcees in the US thinking this would be a good idea, I think there are easier solutions with much, much less side effects.

Or have people in the US given up on changing society via democratic means to such an degree they don't see a viable way to change such a simple thing like divorce laws?

So, it's useful for breaking the law?
There's gonna be plenty of knowledge about how much you own as soon as you sell some of it. God help you if you try to get that past the legal system.
I tired to find recent ruling where judge decided to reopen the case and awarded everything to single spouse, instead of split, after the other one has hidden winning lottery ticket during divorce. But you know what I found? There where multiple such cases.

Crypto would change nothing unless you are much better at laundering money than everybody else.

Early(ish) adopter here(circa 2013): initially it was a way for nerds who didn’t have street connections to buy drugs. Then it morphed into the biggest, most decentralized multi-level marketing speculative asset class in the history of the world.

The narrative behind crypto reminds me a lot of gold bugs who rave on and on and on about how defective the existing fiat monetary system is , in hopes to push up the fiat prices of their asset.

Every speculative asset needs to have a narrative tied to it to help newcomers rationalize buying in their fomo. (Look at GME, louisiana bonds etc etc etc). That doesn’t mean that it’s not a good tool to make a quick buck if your timing is right.

> Early(ish) adopter here(circa 2013): initially it was a way for nerds who didn’t have street connections to buy drugs.

You are making assumptions.

It might have been your motivation back then.

It most certainly wasn't the motivation for many people I know in the space.

I was introduced to bitcoin by someone who was also promoting this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nBPN-MKefA

and the interest I developed for it was both because the tech. was interesting and new and it resonated with my political sensibilities.

Strictly nothing to do with drugs.

I’ve actually outlined both réal-life use cases: 1- initially anonymous online payment (we all know how that went), and 2- fringe -let’s - change - this - corrupt - system types who also would like to get rich doing it (by definition if you want to change a political economy system it’s for you to come out on top on the other end).

What other real world use case has there been for crypto so far that’s actually 1-useful and 2-adoptable ?

Not to forget the hard core Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalist... I seemingly remember them being quite a big crowd involved. And ofc the get rich people, as early adopters being trillionaires when whole world adopts bitcoin. While bitcoin also being good for the poor in future...
As an AnCap, I don't think BTC itself will help the cause much (its profits might).

The government will just crack down on it eventually and the transparency of the blockchain will be used against you.

We need a political solution, not a technical one. In my ideal society I would still have private banks and I would have a currency 100% backed by real goods. There just wouldn't be a government bailing out banks when they screw up, vomiting up regulations and stealing your money every year.

That said, some of my friends went all in on BTC and got insanely rich, started buying islands in the Caribbean and places in Switzerland. Hopefully some of the crypto money will start a government-less society experiment somewhere, somehow, at some point.

crack on what? If they receive plenty of taxes for years from it, they are part of the problem not a solution as you would
(comment deleted)
A decentralized ledger that does not require government input.

No government can mint more crypto due to awful monetary policy.

Also, no, money laundering is not possible on most chains since all transactions are public.

> Also, no, money laundering is not possible on most chains since all transactions are public.

Citation needed — as far as I know there are cryptocurrencies where this is not the stated goal. Also public does not equal no money laundering, because the transactions are at least pseudonymized.

Dubious sales on the darknet were literally the real world problem that made cryptocurrencies what they are today.

That article doesn't really support your statement.

You can have anonymous BTC address. You can tumble it and you can exchange it at anonyy location.

It is the most anonymous digital currency after cash cards.

You can tumble it, but Bitcoin is not private by default. It might provide opt-in privacy if you go out of your way to use mixing services.

> It is the most anonymous digital currency after cash cards.

Monero is far, far more private. There is a reason why most reputable cryptocurrency exchanges don't accept it and it's because of its privacy features.

These make it impossible to trace your transaction history (and comply with regulations), which is quite trivial to do with Bitcoin.

who and when invented term "money laundering"? Ehat was initial meaning for this term ?
I thought tumblers were being actively used for laundering money.
A wise man told me that ANY change to the tax code to help the "average" guy always results in his paying increased taxes. The adoption of cryptocurrency to help the "average" guy is governed by the same principle.
The mining process for money used to be digging $Symbol out the ground: gold, silver, oil.

Towards the end of the last millennium we ditched that standard and let central banks juggle the pools from which money is derived.

I always liked how Bitcoin went back to the mining principle: a scarce resource that is hard to produce being used as an intermediary for the exchange of goods.

The ultimate reduction of this, for me, is to base mining purely off of time. Every citizen is given a certain number of tokens per day — the same for everyone — because in the end, time is all we have in the mortal world.

I don’t know how to square that off with cryptocurrency in its current form (the rich get richer — those with lots of electricity run the mines.) Maybe there’s a future for my proof of life coin?

It’s abstract, but the usefulness in the current cryptocurrency whirl is in making me even think this might be possible. If Bitcoin is Perl 4, then what instruments will be the equivalent of Go?

- The currency of my country is collapsing, I need to buy something which has a value unconnected to my country.

- My country imposes export controls on foreign currency. I want to move my money out of my country.

- I am unbanked and want to buy a good or service on the internet.

- I do not trust the counterparty that I am dealing with on the internet. Using cryptocurrency means that my maximum loss is the vavlu of the transaction (I don't have to give credit card or banking info)

- My government wants to seize my assets, I want to make it difficult.

- I want to send money back home to my family. Currently the only option is Western Union which is charging 20% commission. Cryptocurrency results in less than 1% commission.

- I've lost my phone and wallet, I can still get cash from a bitoin ATM using the crypto I'm storing in my brain.

PayPal for b2b transactions, Transferwise and similar services for cheaper remittance transfers. Crypto takes electronic payments and adds an ungodly layer of complexity to them.
If you are no in the first-world country then you can forget about PayPal, Transferwise etc. Crypto at least gives an option, otherwise you often don't have any.
I feel like paypal is, quite in the contrary, the best example of why you do might want crypto.

Background: my mother had her account and assets frozen for a crazy long time after changing her name. Turns out accounts are bound to your name only, and support is unhelpful at best, so when her business started turning profit and she wanted to change her private acc to business they locked up her funds and refused to process the needed papers, citing she is not the account holder (despite sending ample proof). it's been a nightmare getting someone on the phone who was willing to clear it up.

Individual experience, but paypal to me has ever since been a prime example of why you might not want to use a large private corp for money transfers

Unhelpful support is an understatement, PayPal is a criminal organisation for what it concerns me. I don't care what stupid law they're following, they effectively steal money.
> so when her business started turning profit and she wanted to change her private acc to business they locked up her funds

How would crypto have solved this ?

Can she do business accepting only bitcoin ?

How does crypto accounting work ?

Good questions.

A crypto payment processor allows setting up a payment gateway like Paypal, but accepting USDC instead. When accepting payment, the amount is deposited into the business owner's own wallet. The business owner can choose to accept payment in USDC. USDC is a ERC20 token, each backed by 1 USD or Treasury equivalent, operated by Circle, registered with FinCEN and dozens of other regulators, with monthly reports published by Grant Thornton. USDC token is available for use on the Polygon network, where a transfer costs between a tenth to one cent.

The main advantage over Paypal using the above process involving USDC on Polygon is, she can run her business via a wallet she controls without worrying about a clumsy corporate locking up her funds, and lower transaction fees.

The main disadvantage is - her customers must use USDC on the Polygon network - and adoption of crypto for ecommerce payments, let alone on a specific network like Polygon, is still early.

It sounds like to are still forced to trust a third party exchange, and you now cannot accept payment from customers unless they pay in a cryptocurrency (USDC). Is that right? How is this better than a third party intermediary who takes dollars and sends you dollars?
In the current market a third party intermediary who takes dollars and sends dollars, e.g. credit cards, the costs of accepting a payment range from 10 cents to 3% of the transaction value. This can be higher than the use of USDC on the polygon network. There may be a delay measured in days or hours between accepting a payment, and the payment reaching your bank account. This compares to a USDC transfer taking seconds. The bank holding the funds may arbitrarily block your merchant account for reasons such as: operating in an industry the bank dislikes, transacting with international customers during a conflict.

By holding the funds in the business' own wallet, if the payment provider suspends services, the funds are not seized by default - and not having liquidity immediately seized during the crucial moments where the business is suspended have important advantages for many businesses.

That sounds like it can be cheaper and faster in terms of actual money in your hands - but that benefit has nothing to do with cryptocurrency itself, any remake of the financial system could have those properties.

The payment provider and the bank are separate. It seems to me that you could substitute the word “bank account” for “wallet” in your second paragraph and it would still be true. Bank accounts have very well proven reliability at this point, plus the fact that currency in a bank account does not fluctuate in value like a stock. So again, it’s hard to see how that virtue is unique to cryptocurrency.

> any remake of the financial system could have those properties.

Yes, and cryptocurrency is one take on it, while adoption is still early, it has traction, more so than previous attempts.

Central banks are also working in this area with CBDC's, they can see the benefits of bypassing corporate financial intermediaries too.

We can use bank accounts to gain similar benefits, if it's remade or improved, though the retail banking industry is very resource intensive compared to running the Polygon network.

What other remake are you aware of, people can work with today?

My point is just that the “crypto” part of cryptocurrency seems disconnected from the advantages you names.
There are probably other ways to achieve the same, but the Polygon network is a very efficient means to do so. It's an implementation detail that gives a small edge to remaking and improving the financial system.

However, it could be, at the end of it, by spurring competition, we have Central Bank CBDC's bypassing the retail bank to build a relationship with all currency users instead of cryptocurrency specifically replacing the financial system. That's another way to go about it.

Cryptocurrency have demonstrated the fundamentals of technology are mature enough, the retail bank, financial institutions, and the billions of dollars they earn being an inefficient middle man recording shared facts, it's ripe for disruption from two ends - Towards complete centralisation at the central bank (blockchain or not), or towards decentralisation via cryptocurrency.

> I've lost my phone and wallet, I can still get cash from a bitoin ATM using the crypto I'm storing in my brain.

To be a bit mean but how do you find the Bitcoin ATM?

How did anyone find anything before smartphones?
Well there are enough normal ATMs in most of the world that just wandering to the nearest bank is quite simple. There are quite a lot of countries without a single Bitcoin ATM let alone them being widely locatable where you happen to be.
You can remember words, easily.
Reliable? Over a long time?

For something critical like all your money?

Good luck

Im quite good in remember

Wouldn't you type your wallet seed phrase onto a random BTC ATM on the street ?
Imagine no way of verifying that this ATM actually doesn't send your words to the owner and transfers BTC out of your wallet.
> - I do not trust the counterparty that I am dealing with on the internet. Using cryptocurrency means that my maximum loss is the vavlu of the transaction (I don't have to give credit card or banking info)

This is worse than if you use a credit (or debit in some places) card. With a credit card you have a legal protection and the card issuer has to refund you if the product or service isn’t delivered, it’s called a chargeback. Crypto has no consumer protections, traditional payments do.

Crypto is irreversible (in most cases) by design, that will always be worse for the consumer and “better” for the vendor. Essentially making it easier to defraud people trying to make purchases.

The only time this works is if the vendor is unable to take credit card payments because they are selling something illegally, but that’s not the example you used.

The worst case with credit cards is not lost money. It's identity theft. Give your credit card info to the wrong person and you'll end up dealing with tens of thousands of pounds of loans taken out in your name.
Identity theft from stolen card details is highly unlikely. Possession of credit card detail are never used as a proof of identity. They have your name and address from shipping information even with Crypto.
(comment deleted)
So to summarize, it is useful for variously exfiltrating money out of a country, laundering, and for people who are savvy enough to use crypto but not sensible enough to have a bank account.

The point about currency collapse is interesting to me, because (like almost all crypto apologist points) it assumes you already have a bunch of it/made a bunch of money on it before the bad thing happens. Everyone else gets to suck eggs, as the saying goes.

Of course if everyone in the hypothetical country had crypto, it would cause the crypto to collapse as well…

Currencies rarely collapse instantly. You've usually got months to years of warning. Lots of time for people to get their cash out.

If you were Lebanese I would argue that having a bank account was a silly thing to do. Foreign bank accounts were illegal/difficult and domestic bank accounts are now worthless. You could own crypto or some kind of real good, such as a warehouse full of a commodity like wheat or diesel. Those are your options for hanging on to your wealth.

> So to summarize, it is useful for variously exfiltrating money out of a country, laundering

Summarizing & paraphrasing :-) Greece instated capital controls virtually over night, likely illegally as there is freedom of capital movement in the EU [1]. The money on a bank account resides in a particular country, so its legislation applies. Which country's legislation applies to funds in a globally distributed blockchain, whose copies reside all over the globe?

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-33303540

edited for spelling

The vast majority of the planet have no access to the banking infrastructure the west and developed nations have.

Bitcoin fixes that and removes the middlemen.

- I want nobody to be able to get my money unless I choose so or somebody tortures me, therefore I want to be able do die with my money by not releasing the private keys.
>- The currency of my country is collapsing, I need to buy something which has a value unconnected to my country.

>- My country imposes export controls on foreign currency. I want to move my money out of my country.

Never understood who is the counter-party in these scenarios. Someone must sell you the crypto for seemingly worthless local currency. (Unless you somehow smuggle mining equipment in and buy local electricity)

Who would make that trade? Specially if currency was collapsing or not usable.

You can always find someone to sell USD for crypto in cash. And you will be able to do it only because crypto allows you to actually own your assets.
You already need crypto though.
You don’t need to buy it, you can just accept it as a fee for your work.
So now the unbanked need an entire shadow economy to exist in their country to take part!? Plus all the accoutrements to access crypto.
You do.

I meant mostly that if you store your assets in crypto - it can help a lot in situations like this, presenting a great use case.

Question really isn't about USD or Euro. You are already quite happy if you have either.

But let's say you are in Africa and have a lot of local hyper-inflating currency. Who will give you crypto for that? Or at least more than they need for immediate needs.

Anyone who needs to buy goods and services, or settle debt, in the local currency.
You forgot the most important use case: you want to build fintech services and applications, but you don't want to deal with almost a century worth of compliance and a tech stack built on rotten foundations and middleman rentseeking.
Avoiding regulation is a good one, but they'll come for crypto as well.

It's already hard to find unregulated exchanges

The credit card one is a good one, credit cards are the worst possible approach I can imagine to transact money with.

Forex exchange is pretty cheap these days with things like Wise.

You can technically charge your debit / credit card just by knowing the number.

All the others are political problems and they can't beat a state actor. Eg. You won't stop the government from seizing your assets: they'll put you in jail until you give them up. We should think about a political solution, not a technical one (I'm all for abolishing the government).

I'm surprised they didn't crack down on crypto earlier, I suspect they're using it as a sort of inflationary device. Having extra unbacked crypto in the world means you have more money in the world, making the rest of the money a little bit less valuable - but I don't think crypto was considered seriously enough to affect fiat, at the beginning. Now, when you want to push your currency or local assets up you can just ban/harm crypto (which is what Russia proposed with the RUB going down a month ago).

The credit card one makes sense if you are dealing with a completely untrusted third party with no intermediary, although in practice it probably just means you are using a crypto-based intermediary instead of a conventional one (PayPal, Venmo, etc.).

I’m not sure what you would be doing where that would make sense that’s not an illegal/illicit transaction.

> I've lost my phone and wallet, I can still get cash from a bitoin ATM using the crypto I'm storing in my brain.

When I enter my debit card and PIN into an ATM belonging to a legally regulated bank, I can be reasonably certain that it won't directly steal all my money. Using a BTC ATM, however, sounds like a convenient way to have all your funds stolen without having to wait for the next big crypto hack/fraud.

My Government coordinates with technology companies to hinder if not eliminate my ability to purchase basic items or use fundamental services for me to carry out my daily life.

A Government forces a private company to restrict 9 million CAD donated to a cause.

Bitcoin today is mainly seen by its investors as a store of value. The closest real-world asset would be gold, which is arguably even less ecologically friendly.
Bitcoin eliminates the need for trust during monetary transactions while backstopping central bank monetary policy. Is a big deal.
I think the NIST flowchart helps explain the use cases well

https://twitter.com/sweis/status/1049047164117078016

IMO the main use case is a decentralized currency that isn't centralized by any specific government (but may be, given enough power). Also things like escrow in a 0 trust system are possible.

That being said, like everything, there are _massive_ tradeoffs to this. Almost nobody actually needs this. IMO buying and selling drugs on the internet was one of few actual use cases, whther "right" or not.

(comment deleted)
The criminalisation of gambling in Asia and the United States (in both cases widely but not entirely).

People have always found alternatives, for example in South Korea index option trading was historically popular. In the United States it was originally illegal online poker, now single stock options are popular. In Europe trading FX was once popular.

Many of these outlets that either replace or augment gambling have now been supplanted by crypto trading. In many markets you can actually see how declining activity in one aligns with increasing activity in crypto.

Buying drugs online, that's what i use it for anyways.
Scott Alexander recently ran a grants program (https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/so-you-want-to-run-a-m...) and wrote this about the experience:

> Then you have to actually give people money. > > You know how, whenever there’s a debate about cryptocurrency, some crypto fanboy gushes about how it makes sending money so much easier? And if you’re like me, you think “yes, but right now you can just enter a number into Paypal, that already seems pretty easy to me”? > > I take it all back. The crypto future can’t come soon enough. Sending money is terrible. > > Paypal charges 2-3% fees. If you’re sending $50K, that’s a thousand dollars. Your bank might do wire transfers for you, but they have caps on how much you can send, and that cap may be smaller than your grant. Wires can involve anything from sending in a snail mail form, to going to the bank in person, to getting something called a “Medallion Signature Guarantee” which I still have not fully figured out. Sometimes a recipient would tell me their bank account details, and my bank would say “no, that account does not exist”, and then we would be at an impasse. If you have double (or God forbid, triple) digit numbers of recipients, it all adds up.

It seems the core of this is that Paypal charges 3% and alternatives like banks don't work because either they are not allowed to transfer that much money or the recipient does not have an account.

Regarding the transfer cap, I really don't understand this. Is that a cap on personal transfers?

Regarding Paypal price, let me ask this: Is the 3% Paypal asks required costs o working with fiat currencies? NO.

Then that is that? That is the price Paypal asks for using their product. Is a price on a free market.

So how will this happen in the crypto space?

Will everybody know how to do transfer with crypto? Or will there appear some products that might charge a fee to facilitate the transfer? And if they will appear what stops them to add 3% fee?

If the answer is everybody will know how to keep a personal wallet and do transfers then the answer is probably wrong. People (outside our small IT bubble) don't want to learn complicated technologies so a nice product with a good UX might appear that will do what PayPal did for credit cards transfers and they will find a way to charge their users.

The state (in the general sense, as in the federal government) wants to know where money comes from and where money goes to. Control over capital flow is one of the fundamental levers of modern day political power.
You can say that and it sounds intellectual, but the government’s real interest is in collecting taxes and preventing crime.

If you’re not trying to avoid legally-owed taxes or commit crimes, these things can all be done by traditional means.

Doesn't Transferwise work in the US?
Blockchain only solves the issue of a distributed system without trust. None of the issues Scott mentioned are inherent to a centralized, trust based system. And some exist just as much in crypto space (wrong bank account number -> wrong wallet address and you also pay a fee for transfers)
High transaction cost is not inherent in the technology of bank transfers. Within Europe it's all electronic and my bank in Norway charges less than 1% for an international transfer.
Bank transfers are free in several countries in the UK and in Europe.

I can even get free (both personal and business) bank accounts.

They are free in the entire SEPA (for personal use, up to some number of transactions, within the SEPA in EUR).

Free bank accounts are becoming pretty rare, unfortunately. Give it a couple of years and they'll be extinct :-(

buying and selling of drugs/weapons/child pornography

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that the ledger is public, but not everyone is.

Banks were closed during the early days of the pandemic.

Can't have a bank run with closed banks! (Taps forehead).

So, crypto is a bank always open. It's better money than actual money.

The ability to rip off naive investors since the traditional financial markets have a lot of cumbersome regulation wrapped around it
(comment deleted)