Hacker News Reader

Comment by misrab | Hacker News Reader

I think people are severely underestimating the value of a single source of digital signing and chronology, as well as the network effects of interoperability. Time will tell ;)

also to the point of specific design decisions, there are plenty of models that will evolve including arbitrary protocols on the Filecoin Merkle forest, so I'm not worried about that

also find that distributed systems experts tend to fail to see things through the lens of cryptoeconomics, which was nakamoto's fundamental innovation. it's about provable behavioural security

View on HN

I agree. Imagine a frontend developer connecting to the internet and with a couple tools like truffle and his crypto wallet, that dev will immediately have access to so much information and logic through smart contracts via one interface, that it blows my mind. It's still young but it's going to be ubiquitous and pervasive. At least I'm 90% sure it will be ;)

I'm a frontend developer. So let's assume I've connected to the internet with "a couple of tools". Which information and logic (???) are now available to me that were previously inaccessible?

I don't think they're severely underestimating it. Look at the market capitalisation of cryptocurrencies, and how much is being invested into new blockchain-based applications, via venture capital and token sales.

Do you people just come here to shill bitcoin? This stuff reads like some MLM brochure.

Market cap in the crypto space is a joke. It is super easy to manipulate and poeple (like you) fall for it.

First of all, a market cap of $300 billion could not be spoofed. The trading volume is enormous, and far beyond what any conspiracy of price pumpers could fabricate, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of significant fiat investments being made into cryptocurrency all the time.

Second, me saying people are not underestimating it is not an endorsement of it as an investment. If I were endorsing it, I would say the opposite; that people are underestimating it.

>First of all, a market cap of $300 billion could not be spoofed.

Market cap number is irrelevant to whether or not it is spoofed. That's just the current trading price * the outstanding coins.

If 99% of the people holding the coins do not trade, that means 1% is manipulating the price.

The trading volume is what determines how plausible it is that the market cap is spoofed. It's literally the second line in my comment:

>The trading volume is enormous, and far beyond what any conspiracy of price pumpers could fabricate ..

You can't spoof a market price at the volumes that the major cryptocurrencies trade at.

I mentioned the market cap because it is generally associated with trading volume, so gives you an idea of how much the asset is being traded.

Trading volume can easily be faked in unregulated exchanges. These exchanges aren't exactly trying to ensure people aren't trading out of multiple accounts against themselves.

Look at the entire USDT fiasco for an example.

Trading volume across a diverse range of exchanges cannot be easily faked. Large exchanges with institutional investors, like Coinbase, are not going to fake their volume.

>>These exchanges aren't exactly trying to ensure people aren't trading out of multiple accounts against themselves.

Many of them verify ID and don't allow people to have multiple accounts.

Also, people pay fees on every trade. All of this volume being a conspiracy by people, working on a dozen exchanges, and willing to pay millions in fees to each exchange just to pump up its volume, is highly unrealistic.

It's not how conspiracies work. There needs to be a way to enforce a pact for a pact to be successful. No such method exists for the thousands of traders across the world.

Hah yeah. Extreme example:

I make 1 gazillion "Moodle-coin". I sell you one for 1$. Oh snap, Moodle-coin is now worth a gazillion USD.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com