Props are owed for bringing some true innovation to the space.
I'd love to know how this turned out. Did he eventually find a co-founder? Or did he continue in his YC application as a sole-founder?
For those that don't want to click through: There are replies in that thread such as..
- "No thanks. I'd rather sell sugared water."
- "Because bitcoin worked out so well. Have fun with that, dude."
Sure props to him to pull it off, you don't get net worth of $20B by accident or pure luck... but in terms of his vision of the world more united where it is easier to send and receive money without paying outrages fees, he definitely failed on that promise.
It was Bitcoin that failed to deliver that promise, not him.
At this point, there is no way to trade for free on Coinbase or Coinbase Pro. However, maker orders do still have a lower fee vs taker orders on Coinbase Pro, depending on the pricing tier / how much you trade per month (https://help.coinbase.com/en/pro/trading-and-funding/trading...).
IIRC, he did - they met on Reddit.
I didn't launch mine, nor participate in his (obviously). I suggested that a business in that space, if successful, would result in a similar outcome as happened to other founders of international money transmission systems that weren't under direct government control: i.e. swatting.
He was not dissuaded, to his credit. Score one for the "founders must have grit" camp.
To be honest, I'm still not sure why the hammer hasn't come down on something like Coinbase by now. It seems that cryptocurrencies in general are the exact opposite of the regime outlined by the BSA, PATRIOT, et c. My unsubstantiated theory is that it has something to do with pmarca, but that's just a guess. The founder of Kraken has expressed his feelings that it's coming soon.
I'm glad that Coinbase has permitted so many to participate in the ecosystem, but I wonder about how much of a benefit heavily regulated, custodial wallets bring to the ecosystem as a whole. It seems to me that Bitcoin existed to replace banks, and here we have a bank serving as the Bitcoin equivalent of gmail, re-centralizing everything in a place that is easily and instantly censored by the exact system it was built to replace. The fact that they're listed on a stock exchange and not as an ERC-20 or other permissionless token tells the whole story, in my view.
I have a special respect for those who can function in heavily regulated, guilty-until-proven-innocent style markets like financial services in the USA. I personally would not be able to handle it.
There's a lot of hidden soft power in the USA amongst the ultra-wealthy, I've come to learn.
(Note that this is not a criticism specifically against Coinbase, per se; more an indictment of the lack of equal protection under the law in the USA in general. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.)
Perhaps you have a answered yourself: “re-centralizing everything in a place that is easily and instantly censored by the exact system it was built to replace”.
To me, it's a shame to see. Now that Gmail and Coinbase have captured so much of their markets, they (or anyone who can coerce them) are now free to start censoring what goes in or out, turning a federated, permissionless system into effectively a dictatorship.
https://cryptobriefing.com/bitstamp-begins-track-off-exchang...
I really hope that's not what ends up happening. It's a bummer that financial services in the global west engage in such legally-mandated gatekeeping, locking billions out of the most lucrative payments markets. The internet and cryptocurrencies present a new opportunity there, and re-using the same decades old regulation to segregate the technology into the haves and have-nots is, to me, a tragedy.
I fear that neither is true.
Bitcoin was designed to replace fiat money, it can't replace swats.
1. Armstrong was so concerned about privacy that he used a throwaway, but ended up giving his identity away anyway.
2. Those responses! The negativity on Bitcoin has been there from the start on HN especially for some reason.
3. That whole payment angle has not worked out the way most people thought. Most enthusiasts in 2012 saw Bitcoin as a PayPal replacement. Instead, Bitcoin has taking its own path, confounding the predictions of skeptics, professional economists, and enthusiasts alike.
2. Bitcoin was always a dumb idea from the perspective of building a business or an economy on it.
3. Anyone who really looked at Bitcoin in 2012 could see it was not a realistic replacement for PayPal unless you were thinking about paying on a place like SilkRoad.
Not following the law is not a "metric" legitimate businesses usually brag about.
Anybody who use FUD as an argument for something is pushing some kind of snake oil. FUD stands for "Fear, uncertainty, doubt." Why does FUD exist? Because historically when we did dumb things there were consequences. Is fearing consequences an irrational thing?
I would argue though that the magic of Crypto isn't buying coffees. After Silkroad we have seen very little interest in using Crypto as money, and even with "high" fees, alternatives have not become desirable for their ability to transact cheaply. I would also point out that even the likes of Coinbase have a 0.5% fee before spreads. Using crypto over cash or card (at least in Europe) isn't a cheaper of faster process end to end.
IMHO Bitcoin IS an offshore account, and the ability to move wealth anywhere in the world, without a middle man, entirely permission-less and trust-less for even at $15 is a massive achievement. Don't get me wrong, it can be cheaper, but what Bitcoin can do, and how individuals from retail investors to publicly listed companies are holding Bitcoin its a massive signal in terms of whats actually desired.
Bitcoin has low transaction fees compared to US domestic wire transfers or compared to using a credit card on a purchase of $1000 or more.
But what I find interesting is that his vision was way off- crypto is nowhere near replacing credit cards, now or in the future.
But he did build a huge company because crypto became a speculative asset bubble instead.
Similar for the so called 'tech bubble' around the start of the millennium: if you bought all the tech stocks back then and held them until today, you would have made an OK return.
(Of course, many companies have gone out of business, but there were a few outsized winners to make up for it.
Any individual tech stock was extremely risky, but the overall sentiment that 'tech is the future' was right on the money.
If anything, it's not the high valuations of the 'dot-com bubble' that seem off, but the low valuations of the bust.
This story doesn’t likely have a happy ending.
And energy is cheap where it is subsidised or in abundance. The first is often 'China'. The second, currently often hydro.
A lot of mining is now moving to Iceland, Canada etc. Where energy is becoming cheaper than CPC funded energy.
And that's exactly what you would expect when extrapolating from the economic argument above!
To come back to the analogy with dot-com companies:
In a field where a winners might give you outsized 100x returns, you expect perhaps 99 out of 100 companies to be total garbage losers that go bust. So that the average return from investing in all companies in that field is something normal.
Otherwise, rational investors will keep pumping money into that field and funding more and more companies until that's true.
Same here: even if you believe that in 20 years cryptocurrencies will dominate the world economies (just like 20 years after the dot-com boom and bust, internet companies like Amazon and Google dominate economies), still most almost all cryptocurrencies will fail.
The political risks, that you are alluding to, fit this argument just like any other risk would.
Thanks to eg bitcoin futures, it's not relatively easy to go shortsell (something like) bitcoins, so I expect the market price to be roughly in line with the best forecasts possible.
(Only 'roughly', because the market for bitcoin is still pretty tiny, and not very developed, compared to eg US inflation forecasting markets like https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIE )
Bitcoin - not. On the other hand, modern altcoins who are faster, PoS-based, low fees, etc are on the path to exactly this.
An expert in the space, Andreas Antonopoulos, speaks to this topic here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0T49duRt74&t=2720s
Proof of Stake is more secure than Proof of Work because it's not possible to use external resources to take control of the system. The cost of hijacking PoS is exponential, not linear.
With PoW, someone who has no stake in the network could buy or rent mining hardware using fiat and take control of the network for a linear cost - This is because, unlike cryptocurrency tokens, hardware is not a scarce resource; it's always possible to produce more of it.
With PoS, the only way to take control of the network is to buy more than 50% of all tokens. The cost of acquiring 50% of all tokens is non-linear since tokens become more expensive as the attacker purchases more. This is because the attacker will generate continuous demand against fixed supply of tokens; in accordance with the law of supply and demand, the price will keep increasing as they buy more tokens. Also, the incentive to follow through on the attack decreases as the attacker accumulates more tokens.
If an attacker wanted to not raise the price of a coin, couldn't they use crypto OTC markets to buy large amounts while not raising the price (i've seen OTC at least marketed that way)?
Aren't cryptocurrencies also only a scarce resource if they have a hard supply cap? Or do you figure in something like inflation vs coin burning to this as well?
I do understand your point that the incentive to follow through on the attack decreases as the attacker accumulates more tokens, since it would be in their interest for the network to function properly at that point due to how many tokens / how much stake they have in the network.
The only reason I could see the attack making financial sense at that point would be if it was a competitor who was trying to kill a competing PoS network and it was worth it to them to do so in order to promote their own network (or maybe it could be a government trying to protect their fiat currency)?
I've been involved with Lisk (LSK) for several years. It's Delegated Proof of Stake though so you can use your LSK to vote for block forgers who offer a good % share of their block rewards and earn interest that way.
>> If an attacker wanted to not raise the price of a coin, couldn't they use crypto OTC markets to buy large amounts while not raising the price
Yes, that can happen in theory but in practice it's not feasible. In DPoS especially, whales would rarely agree to sell more than 50% of their own stake because if they did they could lose their forging delegate spot (which yields higher rewards than just voting). Because the blockchain is public, delegates all watch each other's on-chain activity and they can lose votes if they try to sell too many tokens (doesn't matter if it's OTC or exchange).
>> Aren't cryptocurrencies also only a scarce resource if they have a hard supply cap? Or do you figure in something like inflation vs coin burning to this as well?
If there is inflation, it doesn't affect the security of the blockchain because the attacker must acquire 50% of all tokens in any case. The more tokens there are in total, the more tokens the attacker needs to buy to get to 50%.
>> The only reason I could see the attack making financial sense at that point would be if it was a competitor who was trying to kill a competing PoS network and it was worth it to them to do so in order to promote their own network
Early days of any blockchain are always more risky. That said, the early days of most PoW blockchains are even more precarious than those of PoS. This is because with PoW, the community has no say over who can start forging blocks on its new blockchain (anyone who owns some crypto mining hardware can compete to produce blocks on potentially any PoW blockchain).
If just a tiny % of Bitcoin's miners were temporarily repurposed (e.g. minor software changes) to mine any new PoW blockchain, those miners could easily take over the new blockchain and create any transaction they want. With PoS, in the early days, the community gets to decide who will receive the initial tokens; so outsiders cannot highjack the network unless then find a way to buy more than 50% of the tokens from existing token holders.
I wonder if he's kicking himself now for not taking the job.
Their retail platform has a 1% withdrawal fee unless you are using USDC in which case it is 0%
And their trading platforms have 20 basis points and less commissions
We also charge a Coinbase Fee (in addition to the spread), which is the greater of (a) a flat fee or (b) a variable percentage fee determined by region, product feature, and payment type. The flat fees are set forth below:
If the total transaction amount is less than or equal to $10, the fee is $0.99 If the total transaction amount is more than $10 but less than or equal to $25, the fee is $1.49 If the total transaction amount is more than $25 but less than or equal to $50, the fee is $1.99 If the total transaction amount is more than $50 but less than or equal to $200, the fee is $2.99
Edit: There's another section about how they charge 4% to deposit dollars unless you use ACH (and wait 1 week) or wire transfer (then they charge you $10 to deposit or $25 to withdraw)