HN user
I can't remember which book it was but the comedic/tragic depiction of an unexperienced sister and two brothers overloading a sled, unwilling to give up useless comforts, so much so that the dogs couldn't move the sled, stuck in my mind.
That's from The Call of the Wild.
Nootropics Depot [0] appears to be a high-quality vendor. They claim to test every batch of every ingredient in-house for all of their supplements.
Give away your money and build a new company if that's the purpose you need to fulfill in life.
Being altruistic can be immensely rewarding.
You have tremendous privilege. Go help some people with that money.
Don't just think of yourself.
Try taking up meditation. Balance your mind. Try to stop your thoughts.
You are super lucky.
Also, consider your death. No matter how much money you have, you can't take any of it with you. One day you're going to die. It's all going away. Enjoy what you have now and ideally help some others. That will bring you purpose.
It's been the same with crypto, for that matter. None of the reasonable people I know ever saw any grand value in crypto. Researching myself, it always just seemed to be a bullshit fractal.
I consider myself to be a pretty reasonable person and I think the value in something like Bitcoin is as a backup or alternative to the traditional system. Similar to how someone would invest in gold. Except Bitcoin is much easier to transfer, requires much less space to store, etc., vs gold. I think 95% of crypto is bullshit though, and there are a lot of scams.
If you look at recent bank collapses, high inflation, etc., I think a reasonable person might question how long modern monetary theory can go on like this. I'm not a gloom and doom person. I still hold fiat, haven't given up on banks, still invest in US treasuries, stocks, etc. But I think holding some in crypto and gold, etc., also makes sense.
If the current financial system stopped working and for some reason we needed to actually use Bitcoin to pay stuff, it would not be possible.
This is... not true [1]. We'd need to use something like the Lightning Network. The traditional financial system also has layers build on top of it, so it makes sense that you wouldn't only use the Bitcoin base layer.
[1] https://voltage.cloud/blog/bitcoin-education/how-many-transa...
It's possible CBDC's will only be launched in certain countries. I'm hoping at least America will embrace crypto instead of pushing it offshore (and of course also figure out the regulatory aspects to reduce/eliminate the bad actors in the space). Time will tell.
My interest in Bitcoin (since 2014) has never been because I thought it was private. My interest is because of its potential to transform the financial system. I actually think the public auditability of Bitcoin is one of its strengths as a technology.
I always appreciate reading your comments even though I don't necessarily agree with the position you take.
However, I'm wondering, how would "1. An annual wealth tax on crypto holdings to fund (a) a victims’ compensation fund and (b) an enforcement agency;", make any sense? Why would someone who owns, say, Bitcoin, be required to pay a "wealth tax"? What is the rationale? Just because there are other people who use the Bitcoin system illegaly? If USD is used illegally, should everyone who holds USD pay a "wealth tax"?
In terms of "3. Reporting requirements for crypto transactions, crypto-fiat or DeFi, above $10k, individually or in aggregate. Civil fines for first time violators. Criminal referrals for repeat, large-scale violators.", how do you propose reporting works for personal wallet addresses, or DeFi protocols? It seems to me like the implementation of that would be a nightmare, not to mention the concerns with privacy.
If you like styled components, you can use this in a similar way, applying tailwind classes instead of CSS: https://www.npmjs.com/package/tailwind-styled-components
I like that it helps reduce the walls of class names since the classes are on their own lines in the tailwind styled component.
No concept of ownership is a stretch. If you have the keys to a Bitcoin wallet, you own that Bitcoin wallet. If you lost physical cash or gold, it would be like losing your keys to a Bitcoin wallet. No one would replace your physical cash, gold, or Bitcoin, if you lost it. However, that doesn't mean that you don't own that physical cash, gold, or Bitcoin, at least while you have it in your possession.
Direct ownership is the point though. Bitcoin allows direct ownership. Also, being the biggest, it can be considered the safest crypto.
I think a sufficiently advanced algorithm can over time.
Bitcoin is an example of a system of trust that has worked pretty well so far (although it requires a lot of electricity, but that is the trade off). There are also people on the Bitcoin core team, so there is some trusted element there.
Crypto will likely continue to innovate on algorithms, given the chance.
I think there can be trust in people, plus algorithms, with algorithms taking over more over time. This is already happening even in traditional finance, i.e. giving more control over to algorithms that participate in HFT. People do monitor those, but people monitor crypto, too, and maybe the failures in crypto so far mean too much control has been given.
I would argue that some more things in finance can be automated, without things being so black and white (i.e. no control vs total control given to algorithms). I do think the trust model given to governments and traditional finance gatekeepers can be iterated on, with some regulation involved too. I don't think we've figured everything out yet.
Do you ever feel that way normally?
I've felt it a bunch of times, but I've worked through it with meditation (without drugs)...
I think psychedelics just bring out deeper parts of the mind. I don't do them anymore, but I used to, so I have some experience. I'm not a teetotaler, I still drink alcohol and smoke weed sometimes, but I'm done with psychedelics for the time being.
In terms of NodeJS vs Python, specifically for web scraping, would you choose NodeJS? If so, why?
I'm more familiar with NodeJS but I'm working with a team that is leaning towards using Python for web scraping, so that's why I'm asking. They said spinning up multiple processes in Python is easier so at scale it will work better.
I know you can use the Cluster module to have child processes in NodeJS, but in my experience it's a bit of a pain to use, although it's not always required to use anyway, at least when only using NodeJS as a web server (as long as you have multiple NodeJS instances, in case one goes down). Web scraping is a bit different though.
Curious if you have any thoughts on this.
What language would you use for web scraping?
Yes, I agree with you, at least until Bitcoin is accepted widely, which I think is only a matter of time. At that time, there is no need to transfer to local currency, if Bitcoin is the global monetary standard and accepted for all day to day expenses as well as for larger expenses like real estate. At that point it's beyond an asset, but we will see with time what happens.
I agree, and I imagine it's seen as "expensive" due to the psychology of people wanting to own one whole of something, i.e. a whole Bitcoin, in this case.
However, due to the 21 million max supply cap, not even everyone in the world today can own a whole Bitcoin.
Measuring things in satoshis (100 millionth of a bitcoin) will probably become more common, assuming demand continues to increase. I think it will, due to Bitcoin's scarcity, and the ever increasing realization of the need for a hard asset, as inflationary monetary policies continue around the world.
I also think an important distinction is that several of the other popular cryptos do not have a hard supply cap, or it's so high as to not matter.
Ethereum does not have a hard supply cap. With EIP-1559, some ETH is burned, causing some deflationary pressure, but still, there is no max cap in place at this time. The Shiba Inu meme coin has a 1 quadrillion supply cap, which is so high as to not matter at all. People can own a bunch of Shiba Inu, and maybe they like having a high number of something, but IMO, it just doesn't have the long term resilience of Bitcoin.
By the way I'm not hating on Ethereum, I think it has a place too, but Bitcoin is different. I have no idea why people invest in Shiba Inu except just to try to ride momentum, but I don't see how that will work out well long term (or maybe they believe in ShibaSwap, I'm not sure).
Anyway going back to Bitcoin, another benefit is allowing the unbanked to economically participate with others using digital money just by having a smartphone or computer, and an internet connection. Otherwise they have to rely on physical cash.
The hard money aspect of Bitcoin, and the ability to transfer money to anyone across the world over the internet, even the unbanked, are two aspects that I consider a "revolution". I do think Bitcoin needs the Lightning Network to scale, but I don't see any issue with that.
I made a submission [1] about this today too, but it didn't generate any comments. I was hoping to have a discussion regarding how Bitcoin / crypto / web3 is often grouped into one category. Jack Dorsey is making a distinction here that they are not the same thing. This specific tweet [2] sticks out for me:
You don’t own “web3.”
The VCs and their LPs do. It will never escape their incentives. It’s ultimately a centralized entity with a different label.
Know what you’re getting into…
I know there are concerns with Bitcoin's energy consumption, but I still think it's one of the most innovative things to come in the last decade, and I don't think it should be grouped with things like NFTs, etc.
I like some other altcoins, like Ethereum and some other smart contract platforms, so I'm not just a Bitcoin maximalist. However, personally I think NFTs are a lot of hype. I don't think Bitcoin is the same as that. There were no early VC investors in Bitcoin (with the exception of Tim Draper, but he wasn't invested from the start of the network).
Now the VCs are looking for the next big altcoin and investing in that. I.e. some altcoins that I even think have potential, like Solana, are also heavily VC backed. In that regard people should also know what they are getting into.
To Solana's credit, they opted to create their own smart contract VM based on Rust, rather than build an EVM-compatible VM. It will take them time to get developer mindshare, but there's a real possibility to build dApps on Solana that couldn't exist on Solana.
Good point. What are your thoughts on Cardano, Algorand and Tezos?
Interesting points about AVAX's C-chain and Fantom as well. I have a friend who did a project on Fantom due to lower gas fees and it also being EVM compatible, but yeah, it's using Solidity.
Also, just wondering, do you agree with this quote from the article?
What most people don’t know is: Gas fees on Ethereum are supposed to be high. The goal for Etheruem is not to be the chain most consumers transact on. It’s to be the settlement layer for a number of other chains sitting on top of it, which can run much faster and much cheaper, because they’re backed by Ethereum’s security and infrastructure. In other words: the consensus layer for a variety of networks.
I'd also be curious to hear once you have time to look into zkRollup L2's.
I like Solana but it has gone down several times. Not totally an apples to apples comparison to ETH, which I don't think has ever gone down (someone please reply if that is incorrect). ETH did need to be forked, but that's a different story.
Avalanche does seem promising. I like their concept of multiple chains: Exchange Chain (X-Chain), Platform Chain (P-Chain), and Contract Chain (C-Chain) [1].
[1] https://docs.avax.network/learn/platform-overview/README/
For anyone who is a Principal Engineer at a FAANG, what do you do day to day?
I'm a Principal Engineer, not at a FAANG, and that mostly means i'm an expert at what I do and know the product inside and out, and I spend a good amount of time coding. I do also help others, answer questions, and deal with complex problems. I'd say I do 80% coding and 20% meetings / other things.
I interviewed somewhere else and they wanted me to do 50% coding and 50% meetings / other things. Was a bit surprised, since i'd personally rather code and keep my skills up.
My take is companies should have their top engineers spending a sigificant amount of time coding, or at least architecting, but I could imagine, and have read, that at FAANG sized companies it becomes more political? Also with so many employees I guess in theory the idea is to have Principals spend more time leveling up the rest of their workforce? In practice does that happen?
Or if we have the power to terraform Mars, and not just be stuck in a space colony out there, but be able to explore the planet freely, why not just terraform Earth back to Earth [1]?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XdkKMhAdnA&t=458s (Neil deGrasse Tyson)
Question makes more sense flipped on his head: if you think everything that looks a little bit like a telecoms network in terms of having lots of participants obeys Metcalfe's law, then why aren't actual Ponzi schemes actually extremely valuable to participate in?
Yeah, good point there. I think the thing with a Ponzi scheme, the way I see it, is that I can't transfer a share of that Ponzi scheme across the world, 24/7. I could only hold it, and if it is a Ponzi scheme, it would eventually collapse. I do see value in the monetary transfer aspect to crypto as well, so that's part of it, and I personally don't think crypto will collapse, at least not Bitcoin, Ethereum, and probably several of the other major ones. The rest, I have no idea, and maybe some of those other altcoins could be considered Ponzi schemes. Definitely some of the altcoins are pump and dump schemes, if not Ponzis, and definitely some altcoins will collapse. I just don't think applying Ponzi scheme to the entire crypto ecosystem is fair.
Also, sorry, I edited the comment you responded to, so it changed a bit. I do wonder what you think about the ceiling I mentioned, in regards to that there's only 21 million Bitcoin ever going to be created, and that's not enough for everyone in the world to have even one full Bitcoin. If interest grows, and population continues to grow, then how would a ceiling ever be hit? I don't see that as a Ponzi scheme, I see that as interest in a scarce asset, that you can't make more of, while we are in an inflationary period, with governments printing money all around the world. Just wondering if you have any thoughts on that.
The way I'm thinking about it is that some people may want to hold Bitcoin forever, and just loan it out, to put it to use, while also having a deflationary asset in their portfolio.
Do you think that it's possible that as the market cap of crypto grows, the volatility goes down? I believe this applies to traditional markets as well. It just takes more money to sway the price.
Also if people see value in it, vs other assets, wouldn't they want to hold it, so wouldn't value be stored in it? Curious if you have any thoughts about that.
Aren't social media networks like Facebook/Meta and Twitter valued higher as an increasing number of users join the network? Or new startups trying to get more users? Do you consider those ponzi schemes? Also, I'm just wondering, do you like tech stocks? And do you think high P/E ratios would be possible if new investors weren't buying those stocks?
Also, if there's not enough Bitcoin ever going to be created for everyone alive even now to own just one (21 million max supply cap), and assuming the interest in it only increases over time, how would a ceiling ever be hit?
I have heard Metcalfe's Law applied to crypto networks, and I think it actually does make sense. I.e. as the number of participants goes up, the value increases, similar to how as the number of users goes up on a social media or other technology platform, those networks are considered more valuable. Crypto is a technology so I think it makes some sense to apply the same framework.
* Is it a currency or an investment? None of the major coins seem usable as a currency to me, the values are too volatile.
More of an investment, for the time being.
* What does it offer me over using USD? For me at least I see very little value, I often cannot use it for purchases and most of the places that I have seen it offered do it for secrecy, VPN or counterfeit goods. I am not trying to perpetuate the idea that cryto is only used for illegal activities but for myself I have little to no benefit of using it for purchases.
Yes, I've purchased like one thing with crypto and that was back when you couldn't buy hardware wallets with USD, so crypto was the only option.
* Would you compare your "store of value" use case the same as owning gold? It is interesting to hear coins having a store of value since for me at least the volatility kills it and without a huge use in the economy I don't have confidence in it holding up.
Yes, I do compare the store of value use case similar to owning gold. Gold is just much harder to transport, send across the world, store, etc. Gold has also been trading sideways for about a year, so I don't think it really protects from inflation (someone correct me if I'm mistaken about that). I actually do own both gold and crypto, so I've been able to compare them first hand.
Also, crypto is super volatile, for sure, but if you think about it over a multi-year horizon, similar to how someone would invest in an S&P 500 index fund, then I think crypto will in general appreciate and the volatility should go down as more people hold it and consider it valuable. The idea is that it stabilizes as its market cap goes up. Also just want to call out that I consider Bitcoin its own thing, apart from the rest of crypto, since Bitcoin actually has a max supply cap. Many cryptocurrencies do not (they can essentially print money), or their max supply is so ridiculously high as to barely matter at all.
Thanks for responding! I like to hear about how people are thinking about this, beyond the point that it's only used for illicit activities.
I see this point rehashed on HN over and over. I'd love if there was a more productive discussion of cryptocurrencies. I don't think they are going away anytime soon. Too many technologists and others are thinking about them now. I personally think store of value is a strong use case, at least for those of us who consider them to have value.
Just wondering, what would it take for you (and others who share similar views) to change your mind about crypto? How long does the technology need to be around to be validated? Would you feel better about the space if it was regulated (which would bring scams, manipulation, and illicit activity down), or would you still think it's all nonsense?
As for Bitcoin: You're missing the fact that while Bitcoin can't be manipulated away from 21 million, the Bitcoin markets can definitely be heavily manipulated by sufficiently large players and insiders. And there does seem to be ample evidence that this is happening.
So what will the argument be when this market is regulated? Gary Gensler is obviously a fan of Bitcoin. He considers other digital assets in a different light, and seems to consider many of them to be securities. What happens when crypto exchanges are regulated and the level of manipulation is much harder, similar to traditional financial markets? The 21 million cap on Bitcoin is going to look more attractive then, I think, at least to those who aren't considering that now. Plenty of folks already consider the 21 million cap on Bitcoin very attractive, and I think this will only increase over time.
Also the other comments that I see arguing how Bitcoin could be changed tells me that those people have not followed the history of Bitcoin very closely. It seems one of Bitcoin's main goals over the past 10 years is ossification and hardening of the system, i.e. being very strict and careful about changes. This seems built into the ethos of the system. The Bitcoin Cash fork is an example of this. Bitcoin Core refused to change the block size and that led to a fork which has not done well in terms of price in comparison to Bitcoin. One could say that so far the Bitcoin Cash fork has failed in comparison.
Crypto will undergo a major crash in 2022. It follows predictable, cyclical patterns, and we are nearing the end of the classic boom/bust cycle. It is unclear whether this will cause the Tether situation to blow up.
Crypto and stocks seem to be correlated at this point. Both are considered risk on assets by institutional buyers. I don't anticipate crypto to crash unless stocks start to crash. If the Fed keeps interest rates low and assets continue to rise, I think it's likely that crypto continues to rise as well. From what I've heard, there is likely to be heavy institutional buying in Q1 2022 as hedge funds and others who like to take risk will add risky assets at the start of the year.