Skip to content

Comment on How many Bitcoins does it cost to maintain the Bitcoin network?

Comments

  > if Bitcoin was a cheaper or more efficient transaction method,
  > for-profit organizations such as large payment processors would have
  > forked it long ago and would likely already be using it internally in
  > order to shore up their margins.
This guy is clueless. The whole point of bitcoin is that it appeals to people who want a decentralized medium of exchange. It's basically useless to large payment processors.

I don't think he is clueless, I think he is trying to make a point.

Some people have internalized the message "Bitcoin is good". They then draw inaccurate conclusions from this message. Things like "Bitcoin is anonymous... more so than cash!" (This is not true. Bitcoin is pseudonymous, but transactions are very public and it offers LESS anonymity than cash.)

Some people have drawn the conclusion "Bitcoin is cheap... cheaper than the standard ways that a bank manages their balances." This is also false. Bitcoin actually requires significantly more computation (and thus cost) than simply keeping a single centralized ledger -- exactly why and how is what the article explains.

What Bitcoin DOES have going for it over the centralized ledger is that it does not require trust in any individual participant in the system. Depending on your goals, that may well be valuable enough to be willing to put up with a large multiplier on your transaction costs.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.