Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The author is the cofounder and CEO of Coinbase. It seems like an important article.


Coinbase centralizes bitcoin by removing it's intended purpose, peer-to-peer cash, altogether.

Naive people who do not understand bitcoin, use services that take away ownership of coins, like coinbase, circle, etc. because they achieve a few advantages over traditional bank accounts - its fast, no downtime & without limits. Banks are moving towards digitalization all over the world and these advantages will no longer remain so in future if banks decide on getting their game sorted. Then people who see value in using services like coinbase will go away because banks can provide all advantages of coinbase even today if they decide to, but much better.

However, what they can't provide is decentralization & privacy. But people who use coinbase, by virtue of them using it, do not desire decentralization & privacy. Thus, the bitcoin community should not pay attention to these companies or their users (though they might be large in numbers & even be current majority of users) unless decentralization & privacy is no longer desirable in bitcoin.


Before Coinbase I remember spending days navigating dodgy sites trying to exchange dollars for bitcoin and failing.


Localbitcoins has been around for years. Even in the early days, when I used the less reputable sites, I always got the bitcoins I paid for.


I still have some of the MtG cards I got for Bitcoin, before the $450M fraud unwound the largest Bitcoin exchange operating at the time.


Coinbase still doesn't solve that without compromising decentralization & privacy, no one does. The premise of centralization is achieving security by compromising liberty. When buying bitcoin you are achieving liberty but compromising on peace of mind by being responsible for your own security.


Ignoring the companies that onboard almost all new users and process transactions for most merchants sounds like a bad idea. But whatever, it's clear at this point that Ethereum will be how most people interact with blockchains for the first time. Anyone who wants to ignore the drama should pick up the docs and start building cool stuff with us.


The goal is not mass adoption. The goal is nonpolitical money.


Blockchains are a liberating technology, and I want liberty for the people. I want the network effect of decentralized identities to suck in as many applications as possible and liberate their users. My goal is mass adoption.

Money is inherently political. The ease of creating viable competing currencies will constrain the politics, but it can never eliminate it.


And yet all the difficulties cited in the linked article are political difficulties. Anytime you put three or more people in a room together, you get politics.


Yes majority is not always right.

Ethereum has no solutions for this 'drama' of decentralization & governance either.


I think it has pretty good solutions for those, but that's not the point. Blockchains are viewed as a way to make money from speculation, which is why the Bitcoin community is freaking out. Blockchains are actually a revolutionary technology for empowering users with applications they control. If Ethereum had the same sort of governance issue, it wouldn't matter. All of us developers would move our apps to whichever chain ends up being stable, because they'll all support the EVM our apps run on.

Ignore the speculation and build cool stuff.


Yes, but since no chain is 'stable' or has solutions for these issues, a developer should spend time building apps on their own blockchains which takes just minutes to make.


That's exactly what I do, and that's what I'm suggesting. Developers should read the docs, spin up a chain on their laptops, and build cool stuff.


Despite the valuation, Coinbase is just a very tiny of the transactions.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: