Hacker News Reader

> try sending large amounts of money around in the legacy system, expect to wait several days for every action

The legacy system (e.g. banks) aren’t sitting still either. In many parts of the world (Europe) a transaction is pretty much instant.

Same in Brazil.

Maybe it’s better outside of America.

I still see the crypto tech being more capable long term, but the ux is still in its infancy.

> try sending large amounts of money around in the legacy system

Well, cryptos aren't really money so actually sending money via crypto requires transferring crypto from a bank to an exchange, making a purchase, withdrawing it to a destination wallet at an exchange, selling it, and transferring the proceeds to another account. That takes days, requires multiple transactions and costs boatloads of fees. By constraining it to transfer of an intermediate representation you're not making a good faith representation of the process.

Second, the only thing you can do better with crypto than a centralized exchange is crime, grift and regulatory arbitrage. What you're describing is the third. Sending money in any classic fintech system takes milliseconds. What takes longer sometimes is AML/KYC and security. Crypto pretends those don't exist. Like any other regulatory arbitrage you can certainly make things faster or cheaper, for instance by dumping chemical waste into lakes. Once again comparing a car to a little buggy with a 2-stroke engine and no catalytic converter on the basis of fuel efficiency is disingenuous too.

Anyways, sending "large amounts of money" isn't a problem most people have by definition. And if you actually do have large amounts of money, sending it around isn't an issue. I've had six-figure domestic wire transfers clear instantly with no questions asked from my brokerage account, free of charge, same day. The first time they called to check. I didn't mind.

Most of the world has free or nearly free instant transfers. Europe has SEPA, the UK has FPS, Canada has Interac e-transfers, Australia has NPP. The US is getting RTP and FedNow in 2023.

[edit] In fact, the cheapest way to move USDC from FTX to Coinbase is actually to request a free wire transfer from FTX to your bank account, and then either a free wire or ACH from your bank account to Coinbase. Saves $25.

> “ By constraining it to transfer of an intermediate representation you're not making a good faith representation of the process.”

Yeah, I’m betting on the future utility enabled by the tech, not what it can do right now. Similarly people said the web was useless in the 90s [0] when the future utility (imo) was obvious.

> “Second, the only thing you can do better with crypto than a centralized exchange is crime, grift and regulatory arbitrage.”

There are non-crime advantages to being able to use decentralized systems. These are most obvious in places with hostile governments and unstable currencies. The new stuff you can do with decentralized state and public auditable records is super new and the applications there I think will be really interesting.

> “ What takes longer sometimes is AML/KYC and security.”

Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong?

> “Like any other regulatory arbitrage you can certainly make things faster or cheaper, for instance by dumping chemical waste into lakes. Once again comparing a car to a little buggy with a 2-stroke engine and no catalytic converter on the basis of fuel efficiency is disingenuous too.”

I think you’re failing to steelman this. It’s possible to build a lot of stuff to handle things like KYC in a way that’s better because of crypto tech. Imagine using an NFT as a pseudonymous ID that you KYC once and then can use anywhere unless it changes wallets. There are also likely better ways to determine credit worthiness than FICO enabled by the new stuff. A lot of your arguments feel like someone saying “ever heard of radio” when someone else says you can stream sports on the internet. I think you’re being a little myopic.

I guess we’ll see how it shakes out, but for better or worse I’m betting against you.

[0]: https://youtu.be/lskpNmUl8yQ

> Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong?

Blockchain is a database. Records at a bank are a database. There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part.

That's why every one of the systems I mentioned supports real-time 24/7 transfers: SEPA, FPS, NPP, Interac, RTP, FedNow, ISO20022. Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right?

> It’s possible to build a lot of stuff to handle things like KYC in a way that’s better because of crypto tech.

It does not address KYC at all. KYC is built on top at the CEX level. If you have some concrete non-speculative way you think this is true, please share.

> I guess we’ll see how it shakes out, but for better or worse I’m betting against you.

I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha.

[edit] Any the reason settlement hasnt been addressed sooner is because thanks to the magic optimization of centralization and trust, you can just borrow the capital until settlement happens. I mean think about it, equity settlement is T+2 but yet somehow HFTs exist?

Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem.

I really try to resist being drawn into flame bait.

> "Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem."

There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on.

> "There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part."

Yeah - that's because that's ignoring the entire context of everything else required around that. The centralized systems, the manual trust, the integration problems between organizations. The sql update is not the issue.

It seems clear from your tone that you're not really curious about this so I'll just leave it here.

> "Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right?"

Good for you - let's check back in 10yr.

> "I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on.

I'm always open to that possibility, and I spend a lot of time learning about blockchain technology. And I've spent the last 10 years working in fintech. Of the commenters here, I probably have more context than most on both.

> Yeah - that's because that's ignoring the entire context of everything else required around that. The centralized systems, the manual trust, the integration problems between organizations. The sql update is not the issue.

Correct, centralization and trust represent massive efficiencies.

Banks trust each other or can trust a central intermediary which is again why NPP, RTP, FedNow, SEPA, FPA all work instantly, basically free, without blockchain. Whereas moving USDC-ETH between two accounts costs $25.

> Good for you - let's check back in 10yr.

It's been 14 years and yet we have nothing to show for it except a whole pile of used up Kazakh and Xinjiang coal - and some really ugly twitter avatars. But yes, I'll wait, I'm sure OP will deliver by 2031.

The bitcoin whitepaper came out in 2009, Ethereum was 2015, a lot of the interesting stuff has been within the last two years.

You may be right in the end, but people with exposure to the industry at risk of disruption are often bad at recognizing it. See Ballmer at Microsoft mocking the iPhone, Blockbuster failing to adapt to Netflix, Borders failing to adapt to Kindle/Amazon etc.

That knowledge can provide context for accuracy, but it can also mislead or bias you against something that's changing rapidly.

> "Correct, centralization and trust represent massive efficiencies."

At a real cost. The web comparison would be decentralized underlying protocols vs. the centralized applications on top of them. "Web3" may allow a way to fix the things that lead to centralization at the application layer with UX that actually works. This is distinct from cryptocurrency, but there's some overlap. ETH cost should get reduced by ETH2 and sharding, the cost is representative of current transaction demand.

I'm not a crypto-anarchist, I think both systems will have complementary purposes. Programmable money is something new, knee-jerk dismissals of "it's all crime" are dumb imo.

> You may be right in the end, but people with exposure to the industry at risk of disruption are often bad at recognizing it. See Ballmer at Microsoft mocking the iPhone, Blockbuster failing to adapt to Netflix, Borders failing to adapt to Kindle/Amazon etc.

That's a lovely narrative except I work in fintechs exposed to crypto.

> ... That knowledge can provide context for accuracy, but it can also mislead or bias you against something that's changing rapidly.

And as I said I spend a lot of time researching so that I can have informed discussions.

> At a real cost. The web comparison would be decentralized underlying protocols vs. the centralized applications on top of them. "Web3" may allow a way to fix the things that lead to centralization at the application layer with UX that actually works.

The real cost of PoW blockchain is the electricity consumption and e-waste production of a country, and the cost of all blockchains is a system absolutely rife with corruption and scams.

You're just describing APIs, which we've had forever.

>There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on.

I'm tempted to start keeping track of how many hundreds of negative comments about crypto HN generates each day, every day. It doesn't really come across as confidence to me.

HN is quite a bit softer on average on crypto than the broader audience. There's a small but confidently vocal minority of us keeping the light on for sanity.

You find me one thing, just one thing, that crypto is better at than a traditional solution and I'll be all over it. 14 years and counting. 0 killer apps.

People have mentioned things to you [0], you ignore them and repeat this phrase.

So despite what you say, you will not be “all over it”. You have no interest in changing your mind or in engaging in genuine discussion.

You won’t even update “14yrs” which is just a clear factual error.

[0]: getting wealth out of a corrupt country for one

> getting wealth out of a corrupt country for one

Do you have a concrete example that wouldn't (a) be suitably handled by Wise, Xoom or a wire transfer and (b) isn't out of a sanctioned country and (b) isn't out of a country where the transfer fee would be prohibitive? If so, could you quantify?

Is it even good for this? You have to buy the coins from someone else, meaning if you did it domestically you're still net the same level of welfare. If you traded them internationally, you can just buy USD.

This is yet another hand-wavey claim, and what I asked for was something concrete, tangible, measurable.

> You won’t even update “14yrs” which is just a clear factual error.

2008 to 2022. Just rounding by a couple months.

> So despite what you say, you will not be “all over it”. You have no interest in changing your mind or in engaging in genuine discussion.

I have no interest in slapping crypto on the back when it hasn't done anything but crime, grift and regulatory arbitrage. Bitcoin is the official currency of the alt-right and yes, it's now older than your average high schooler. [1] Just one, concrete application is all I ask.

[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/9/30/22703200/bitcoin-cryp...

Ukraine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tatianakoffman/2020/06/13/why-b...

Stored wealth, memorized seed words and regenerated on the other side.

There was also an interview with someone relying on BTC in Venezuela too because their currency is worse.

You’re rounding by multiple years, especially if you consider ETH.

Also: https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skepti...

> Stored wealth, memorized seed words and regenerated on the other side.

Of course its possible for one or two people to benefit but net net the Ukranians either (a) traded amongst themselves in which case the net welfare stayed the exact same or (b) they traded with people abroad in which case they could have chosen literally any asset on earth, many of which outperformed Bitcoin and other cryptos.

> There was also an interview with someone relying on BTC in Venezuela too because their currency is worse.

An anecdote is not a substitute for data, and Venezuela decided to dollarize, not bitcoinize. 66% of transactions in Venezuela are USD denominated now due to a groundswell of popular support. [1] They didn't bitcoinize. Because the dollar is better.

> You’re rounding by multiple years, especially if you consider ETH.

I'm rounding by a few months. That there are recent developments doesn't roll forward the clock on launch day. The iPhone launched at the same time as Bitcoin. That's what a killer product looks like.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-13/venezuela...

It’s pointless to continue - you asked for “just one thing” then come up with reasons why the use case I gave doesn’t count. It wasn’t about trading, it was about being able to store value without needing trust in a central authority.

It’s hard to get dollars in Venezuela which is why this guy was relying on BTC. I never claimed BTC was superior to the dollar.

The iPhone is a product, Bitcoin (really blockchain and programmable money more broadly) is more akin to the web in 1996. It’s a protocol for money.

You can believe what you want, the nice thing about economic bets is it doesn’t matter.

You gave me a bad example haha. One Venezuela persons poor substitute for the USD they wish they could have is hardly a killer app. If you could come up with a good one you’d be wealthier than bezos.

> There are always people dismissing any new thing - the value of that signal is near zero

Crypto is too old to play this card.

Could you have gotten rich off investing in Enron? Sure, it made some people fantastically rich. That doesn't mean Enron was a sound company.

Nothing with the word "currency" can experience 5 digit deflation and call itself anything but a failure in that regard. Nothing cynical about that take, and it's a useful signal for those who expect to treat it as a currency.

> “ That doesn't mean Enron was a sound company.”

You’re right of course, my point was not that cynicism is always false, but that people are cynically dismissive about everything so it holds zero signal.

It’s basically the Sagan quip, “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

BTC is more like some sort of asset class than a currency imo [0], but there are others that are more suited to currency.

[0]: https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skepti...

You're missing the most important part of the quip...

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses

The dismissiveness is often a signal, that was his point.

BTC has grown too far to be compared to Columbus setting out anyways, it's reached widespread access and accessibility, there are public companies devoted to it's access, BTC ETFs, etc.

We've reached the point where the cynicism is backed by reality. I think the fact we're now abandoning the currency pipedream for the most well known cryptocurrency says it all.

I wasn't missing it - that part is implied by the meat of the bit I quoted.

The point is to keep in mind that just because people are laughing doesn't mean you're a genius, but people do also mock people doing great things.

Elon Musk is another easy example, look at the HN dismissal of Tesla and SpaceX over the years - even in the face of obvious massive success. You basically have to dismiss the naysayers and evaluate things for yourself.

> You basically have to dismiss the naysayers and evaluate things for yourself.

... why? Any point of view, pro or against, should be evaluated for substance.

Telsa naysayers were going on about things like "the quality sucks" "Promising FSD today is incredibly stupid", etc... well they were right? Quality has been varying depending on which part of the car you look like in a very "one step forward two steps back" way, FSD hardware did end up changing and the FSD beta is a farce, etc.

The only naysayers to dismiss are people who can't justify their position, but the same also goes for people who support something without being able to justify it. The problem isn't "naysaying", it's not saying anything at all.

There were Tesla naysayers saying EVs wouldn't work, that the model3 would never ship, that Elon was a 'fraud', etc. etc. - a lot of that is forgotten now, but it was rampant and constant and completely wrong.

I'd argue the problem is often overconfidence everywhere mixed with people who don't know what they're talking about.

I agree that stuff needs to be evaluated for substance, I just think there tends to be a pretty extreme status-quo bias by default so a naysayer is more likely to be wrong because of that.