Bitcoin is more like ham radio than the early internet - <AUTHOR> http://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2020/07/bitcoin-is-more-like-ham-radio-than.html <comment><USER3> There's a pretty key quote in here and an attendant logical fallacy:

"If five years from now everyone in the world has become a bitcoin user, that could only be because something very very bad has happened to the regular monetary system ... Surely no bitcoiner would actually want such a dark future."

That statement is absolutely true, as a conditional. But the logical fallacy it represents is "If X happens, that would be unthinkably bad. Therefore, X will not happen." (Similar thinking is behind coronavirus-denial and climate- change denial.)

I think that most hardcore Bitcoin aficionados (the group that's still in it, even now that the bubble has burst and you can't get rich off of it) would accept the above premise. If Bitcoin becomes successful, something seriously bad has happened to the monetary system.

The difference is that most hardcore Bitcoin investors also accept the premise that _something seriously bad is going to happen to the monetary system_. There's a very heavy overlap between folks who hodl Bitcoin and folks who believe that the Fed is going to continue to debase the dollar, we'll get hyperinflation, the government will collapse, and we'll all end up pledging allegiance to a variety of crypto-anarchist communes that conduct commerce through cryptocurrency. Many of them also include guns, stockpiles, and bug- out bunkers in their contingency planning. If you accept that premise, the goal is not "How do I get rich?", it's "How do I minimize the impact of this collapse to myself and give myself a leg up in the post-collapse world?"

<comment><USER4> You know what's definitely going to be valuable in a post collapse world where people are making heavy use of bug-out bunkers stashed with food and guns? A digital currency that requires a sophisticated global computer network to function.

Ya. That makes a lot of sense.

<comment><USER5> > A digital currency that requires a sophisticated global computer network to > function.

That's stretching it a bit. While Bitcoin looks sophisticated to the average Joe, it is actually a very simple protocol and require very little bandwidth. It's possible to run mining operations from all over the world on very limited connection (in fact you might need to connect only a few times per day). Processing transactions also consume very little bandwidth.

The crypto-folks have come up with something for you: [https://blockstream.com/satellite/](https://blockstream.com/satellite/)

So now even if your local infrastructure burned, you can still transact in bitcoin. Granted, there should be some guys somewhere doing the mining to ensure that the network is secure enough.

<comment><USER6> They're not saying that bitcoin is sophisticated (it's not), but the entire backbone of the internet is.

In some post-apocalyptic dystopia, people aren't going to be using their phones and laptops to make payments with bitcoin, they're going to use whatever is backed by the local authority.

<comment><USER3> Mesh networks over HAM radio, to tie it back to the article. ;-)

<comment><USER6> That requires electricity, which is spotty in a dystopia. Best to stick to encrypted smoke signals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm surprised the author didn't complete the analogy -- if Bitcoin and ham radio are both "clunky and old-fangled," what was the internet at its inception?

The internet didn't start in "1991" it started in 1966 with ARPANET and it was so hard and expensive to use it would make using Bitcoin feel like using a toy.

The tone of this article gives me Krugman-on-internet vibes: "By 2005, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's"

<comment><USER8> It's pretty easy to see why ARPANET took a while to develop and turn into the internet we know today. Youtube didn't exist in the 1960's not because people though that streaming video was a dumb idea but rather because it was simply technically impossible to do at that time. In order for the internet to develop it required massive progress in hardware and infrastructure. To this day many places in rich countries still have crappy internet access.

What's Bitcoin's excuse? Where is the technical limitation? Do we need nuclear fusion or 100Terabyte internet links for it to become usable? Do we need high speed data transmission to Mars?

The only thing standing in the way of Bitcoin is people finding compelling use cases for it in order to drive adoption. 10+ years and billions of dollars later it's still only useful as a tool for gambling and scams or to buy drugs and other illegal things online.

Also, ARPANET was already very useful by the mid-1970s (it was declared "operational" in 1975, 9 years after its inception). It was not the internet we know today of course, but it wasn't really meant to be. It was a defence project after all.

<comment><USER9> > What's Bitcoin's excuse?

Existing currency solutions exist. There was no technology or infrastructure displaced by the (early) internet. No industries or governments (who realized they should feel) threatened by the internet.

The internet was backed by nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. Is that really a fair comparison? Just think if there was never a person in the room to say "but what will regulators say?" when cryptocurrency came up.

Finally the internet as we know is unrecognizable compared to its initial incarnation. The network protocols we now have are layers upon layers of innovation that were all required steps to allow YouTube and Netflix to operate. And many or these innovations are solutions to problems the early engineers hadn't even encountered yet.

> Do we need nuclear fusion or 100Terabyte internet links for it to become > usable? Do we need high speed data transmission to Mars?

I think it's fair to say that there are unknown innovations in our future that will drive cryptocurrency adoption. I think it's unfair to insist that we must predict those right now or abandon all work on the technology.

<comment><USER8> So basically you're saying that cryptocurrencies don't work currently because there are established solutions that already solve the problem it attempts to solve but it's totally going to work eventually due to unknown unknowns and it's unfair to point that out somehow?

Come on. Apply that logic to literally anything else and see how that sounds.

>The internet was backed by nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. Is that really a fair comparison

The comparison was made by cryptozealots to begin with to justify the lack of results after many years of development and billions of dollars sunk into them. "How useful was the internet 3/5/7 years after its inception?!". Now that even this incredibly silly comparison fails to justify this waste of resources for so little results, cryptozealots have turned their back on it.

What's next, the timescale of the evolution of life on Earth? Who knows, maybe in a billion years Bitcoins will finally serve a purpose beyond buying cocaine online. HODL!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You can tell the author is not a ham when he says hams "broadcast" their radio message. They don't broadcast (per FCC rule), they make transmissions.

I can see where the author is going here, but the analogy seems a little weird. It also ignores that there is an overlap in the bitcoin and ham world, namely the "prepper" types that assume someday the entire world will implode on itself. These tend to be a vocal minority though (at least in the ham world, I can't speak to bitcoin as much).

The comparison seems flawed though because ham radio has never been about money (except maybe saving on long distance charges in the 70's/80's), and when money is involved (in whatever form) it certainly has an outsized influence on behavior (good or bad). As such I'm not sure you can draw and realistic comparisons between bitcoin and ham radio without stretching the analogy.

<comment><USER11> What's the difference between broadcasting and transmitting? It's not like the "transmission" is some directed line-of-sight thing.

<comment><USER12> Transmitting implies an exchange of messages. Broadcast implies indiscriminately ... broadcasting.

<comment><USER11> Transmitting and receiving implies an exchange. Transmitting just means sending.

<comment><USER12> Transmitting implies transmitting and receiving which implies an exchange of messages. The important part is that broadcasting is not exchanging messages.

<comment><USER11> This must be some nonstandard definition of transmitting.

<comment><USER12> What was the purpose of your original question? Was it to further your understanding or to open an opportunity to be fastidious?

Are you still incapable of seeing that broadcasting is a specific action?

<comment><USER11> It was to further my understanding. But responses like "well, actually transmitting means transmitting AND receiving" don't really do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > If five years from now everyone in the world has become a bitcoin user, that > could only be because something very very bad has happened to the regular > monetary system. Perhaps hostile aliens have enslaved us and are using the > payments system to control what we can buy, sort of like Margaret Atwood's > Compucounts in her dystopic Handmaid's Tale. And so bitcoin has gone > mainstream, but only because we have all been forced to become under-the- > table bitcoin users in order to buy stuff we need.

I'm not sure the author is paying attention to what really is happening to money around the world.

\- Local currencies are being weaponized in various ways from countries to individuals, including surveillance, sanctions, and civil asset forfeiture.

\- Physical currency is being withdrawn incrementally around the world, forcing citizens into electronic payment networks with greater weaponization potential.

\- The dollar's position as global reserve currency and asset have placed unprecedented stresses on the US financial/political system. there are only two options: default on the national debt(s) or devaluation. It's not going to be default. So, for as long as the global dollar short squeeze[1] rages, the Fed's balance sheet will expand, fuel devastating bubbles, and cause rational people to look for alternatives in the strangest places.

\- Gold is increasingly becoming problematic if held abroad. Venezuela recently discovered that gold stored in UK vaults can be stolen by men in 3-piece suits. This makes the picture around gold as a settlement asset increasingly murky.

Bitcoin may or may not offer solutions here. But to brush off obvious problems with the world's financial system at this moment in time seems rather short- sighted.

[1] [https://www.lynalden.com/global-dollar-short- squeeze/](https://www.lynalden.com/global-dollar-short-squeeze/)

<comment><USER14> > there are only two options: default on the national debt(s) or devaluation

I disagree that these are the only two options. There are quite a few other options:

(1) Limit deficit spending and continue paying down the current debt

(2) Raise taxes to eliminate the deficit, and continue paying down the current debt

(3) Sell US government assets to pay down the current debt (land holdings, gold)

(4) A combination of the above policies

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Bitcoin is an amazing project. And in fairness, has survived 11 years as a target for every malicious actor and curious mind out there.

That said from both an applied cryptographic point of view, and from an economic perspective I think Monero is just fabulous.

Given its fungible and private, its a lot closer to "money" than Bitcoin.

I think it has a strong probability of becoming an important part of global payment options. Its daily transaction count is also at an all time high.

<comment><USER16> Does Monero have a upper limit of issued coins like Bitcoin?

<comment><USER15> It drains to a trickle and then continues indefinitely. The supply is less than bitcoins until 2040.

<comment><USER17> Still, like Bitcoin, the vast majority of all Monero emitted in the first century, is emitted in the first few years. Grin has the simplest possible emission, at 1 Grin per second forever. They're all disinflationary, i.e. the yearly inflation rate goes down to 0.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> « _No, bitcoin isn 't going to become a mainstream kind of money. It's too awkward for most people._»

This strikes me as something written by someone who is fundamentally not a problem solver. It's like someone seeing the first cars in the late 19th and early 20th century: awkward, unreliable, etc, and thinking "clearly, cars are NEVER going to become mainstream".

Really? You can't think of any way the technology and tools could improve to make using Bitcoin less awkward?

« _Crazy price gyrations are far too wicked for the regular money-using public to tolerate_ »

Objectively, volatility has significantly decreased over the last 11 years, and will continue to decrease, which is perfectly expected with maturing financial markets.

<comment><USER19> Cars however did mature. Bitcoin does not. It just forks whenever someone wants to do significant changes. Also at that point no change could ever get it anywhere close to what other projects achieved with similar but better tech. The fundamentals in Bitcoins are de-facto unchangeable and very much outdated.

<comment><USER18> « _Bitcoin does not_ »

This statement betrays you have not paid attention to the numerous improvements made to the Bitcoin infrastructure over the last 11 years: wallets, nodes, exchanges, payment processors, vaults, blockchain upgrades, basically all the BIPs [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips) : segwit, P2SH, lightning, M-of-N keys, deterministic wallets, etc. Using Bitcoin in 2020 is nothing at all like it was in 2009.

<comment><USER19> Just because there are people coding on it and made improvements doesn't mean it matured. I know very well that there where changes but none of them made any relevant progress to get rid of the growing centralization, very slow speed, limited throughput. etc. etc. Next bullrun Bitcoin will hit the ceiling again and people will says Lightning and what not will solve this soon(TM) while it clearly does not. Bitcoin itself is outdated tech incapable of delivering what it promised 10 years ago and there is nothing being done to change that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> These posts always seem to focus on Bitcoin which of course is easy to dismiss and isn't likely to make any major changes anytime soon. If you want to talk about a financial network and something end users would actually use then articles should focus on something like Ethereum which does support decentralized finance applications and has easy to use interfaces such as Argent that normal people can use without technical knowledge.

>Crazy price gyrations are far too wicked for the regular money-using public to tolerate

This is what stablecoins such as DAI and USDC are for. People will use stablecoins for their everyday lives as it's built for being a medium of exchange.

>It's too awkward for most people

This is still true to an extent but most people would have no problem using Argent.

Average people need easy to use savings accounts. Easy ways to save and invest their money for the future. One click ways to purchase products. These can't happen on Bitcoin but they already exist on Ethereum and DeFi. All possible in a trustless way.

There's a lot of development happening on web3 right now but if you focus entirely on Bitcoin you will miss the important parts of what make this space interesting.

<comment><USER21> > These can't happen on Bitcoin but they already exist on Ethereum and DeFi. > All possible in a trustless way.

In reality, just about every DeFi platform is not trustless nor are the usecases possible in a trustless way. Uniswap is one exception that comes to mind.

The parallel is that you can have the existing financial systems replicated on Bitcoin, Ethereum, with some additional properties and tradeoffs. I don't think you could make that kind of comparison with ham radio?

<comment><USER20> >In reality, just about every DeFi platform is not trustless nor are the usecases possible in a trustless way

While this is true in these early days where developers need the ability to upgrade contracts and quickly fix bugs it is not the long term state of these projects and all of the major ones have defined paths to full decentralization. It's important to note that even today all of these services are non-custodial which is already a huge step up from the status quo. The amount of centralization is also variable with some projects able to upgrade certain portions of their systems but not all of it and other projects simply having an emergency kill switch they can use in case of a critical bug but can't actually change the contract.

It's definitely not perfect right now but it's already better than traditional systems with things becoming more trustless over time. Eventually these services will be as fixed as Uniswap/Balancer/etc as things get more stable.

<comment><USER21> "The path to decentralisation" for these projects are usually very primitive and don't actually arrive at the broad claims. Too often it's just putting wall paper over the hole in the wall. A DAO it self doesn't bring you decentralisation, the hardest problem is how you determine the members of the DAO. With how this is being played (tokens) you arrive at oligarchy or a federation, not decentralisation. The developers know this. That's why you don't see anything but baby steps forward with regards to decreasing their power over the protocols.

Ditto on the non custodial claims, I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen this term used to describe a product and for it to actually be the case.

<comment><USER22> Since you guys seem to know your stuff and can see past all the marketing bullshit meant to intentionally mislead people, you might be interested in Blocknet and Block DX (DEX powered by Blocknet). Unlike Uniswap which is Ethereum/account based, Block DX is UTXO based (ETH integration in the works) with every component decentralize. Non-custodial, order books are p2p, order matching is p2p, and verifications are performed locally, and settlement via atomic swaps. Trades are also extremely fast (3-10s) with trade times independent of block times. Also in regards to Blocknet as a whole, they also offer decentralize oracles. Anyway, I'll stop here because I think I may be coming off as a shill, but I just figured you'd enjoy taking a peak since you could appreciate what they're doing for the ecosystem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As a Bitcoin Core contributor[1] and recent Ham radio adopter, the author mistakes a key point:

> This lack of a gate keeper means that there is no one to soften the user > experience.

This is true of Ham radio[2], but it is not the case with Bitcoin. Like the internet, and unlike Ham radio, Bitcoin as a system/protocol is open to people creating centralized resources atop it and serving as gatekeepers.

The fact is that today a significant amount[3] of Bitcoin is stored in centralized exchange accounts, controlled by gatekeepers by way of hosted exchange wallets. Likewise, hosted web and mobile wallets are a significant element of the ecosystem, for example, while work on refining self- sovereign/non-custodial lightning network wallets continues, hosted/custodial mobile lightning network wallets are simpler to use, because the hosted gatekeeper can obviate concerns such as opening channels and managing liquidity. Several of the top lightning network wallets[4] are custodial gatekeepers.

Yes, Bitcoin enthusiasts are often hobbyist tinkerers of the sort you might see in Ham radio. At the same time the broader community is served via institutional exchanges and custodial wallets with no such effort required. Often it's the tinkerers who end up running the service providers.

While this decentralized tinkering is an initial hurdle to overcome - it would certainly be easier to have a single company build out all of the initial infrastructure, rather than a host of companies - the result is much more robust against the single failure or control of any one participant. Bitcoin benefits from each service provider, but isn't dependent on any of them. Like the internet, and unlike Ham radio.

[1] [https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?author=Empact](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?author=Empact)

[2] Largely due to the peculiarities of antenna installation and frequency selection.

[3] [https://news.bitcoin.com/new-list-claims-1-9-million- bitcoin...](https://news.bitcoin.com/new-list-claims-1-9-million-bitcoin-held- by-centralized-exchanges/)

[4] [https://blog.bitrefill.com/top-11-lightning-network- wallets-...](https://blog.bitrefill.com/top-11-lightning-network-wallets- bitrefill-328b5465b1b4)

</comment><comment><USER24> The mind boggles at the absurdity of this comparison.

The amount of social good, emergency preparedness, advancement of technology and just plain fun is what ham radio is about. Bouncing signals off the moon, communicating across the world with just 10 watts--these are common activities.

Can you compare the energy consumption of a ham radio conversation with the amount of energy bitcoin requires to buy a pizza? Many orders of magnitude.

Insofar as being old and clunky, digital modes such as FT8, FT4, Olivia and associated technology is far from clunky.

If there is a disaster that affects the financial system, bitcoin is not going to help--it will be just as paralyzed as the rest of it.

One is expensive fantasy, the other has an ongoing practical use with social benefit.

<comment><USER25> Not saying there aren't big problems with Bitcoin, but I think that's it something more than an expensive fantasy. I recently bought a service with Bitcoin for a 10% discount, which seems to suggest it helps that company process payments with lower cost. The engima with cryptocurrencies is that the zealots seem to significantly overvaul it while some outsiders seem to undervalue it.

And I think that's what the point of this article is: that Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies can be useful without replacing the USD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Blockchain is a database. Bitcoin is a blockchain database with an cryptographic identity layer where transactions are mostly immutable. If all of the people who run Bitcoin don't all agree on governance then the database is formed into two versions where the transactions before the fork are kept but after the fork the second group will have a different set of transactions (like bitcoin gold) . Ethereum has a super set of features which adds the ability to run a stored procedure which enforce a contract that will be run on the network but have the resources of a microcontroller .

Since the hello world of your own cryptocurrency can be done on ethereum it makes it popular in that respect. Stablecoins are coins pinned to currency values because of the volatility of the underlying coin poses unique issues due to people paying each other in bitcoin or any altcoin.

Bitcoin is the most mature implementation of a blockchain due to being in existence longer . Ethereum has had unique security challenges and transaction issues but since databases are hard to make correctly it will win out due to age .

Bitcoin has proven itself to be able to support speculative investment and faster transaction times than a SWIFT transfer . Ethereum has been used to implement altcoins and stable coins and also encompasses bitcoins feature set too).

<comment><USER27> It does not encompass Bitcoin's feature of being Bitcoin. Should majority of digital wealth ever be transferred to another Technology, I think it is most probable that this transfer is going to be discussed a lot even before it happens in orderly fashion, e.g. by forking or airdropping. Else, most Bitcoin holders probably won't move on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > If five years from now everyone in the world has become a bitcoin user, that > could only be because something very very bad has happened to the regular > monetary system

If you ask a bitcoin "true believer," many will tell you that something terrible has already happened to the regular monetary system. This crowd is typically very concerned with the level of debt in society, especially US government debt, and the devaluation of the dollar during WW2 and the Vietnam War.

<comment><USER28> Or the fact that just holding capital has better returns than most any other economic activity. That's a recipe for extreme income disparity. It appears our current government is handing out billions in "relief" to churches in an attempt to offset that income disparity.

<comment><USER8> I don't disagree, but Bitcoin is deflationary by nature so it's effectively worse on that count. You have zero incentive to spend or invest bitcoins since by design they increase in value as time goes by.

<comment><USER29> You have incentive to spend, since the point of life is not to die with as many bitcoins as possible, but to spend your wealth on things that you enjoy and matter. I think it is a great thing that BTC makes disincentivizes _unnecessary_ spending.

<comment><USER8> >You have incentive to spend, since the point of life is not to die with as many bitcoins as possible, but to spend your wealth on things that you enjoy and matter.

Do we live in the same world? Do you think Jeff Bezos has hoarded all this money to buy himself nice clothes, ice cream and trips to the beach? Dying with as much money (i.e. power) as possible is very much the endgame for many people.

And note that it's not just individuals that accumulate a lot of wealth, it's also corporations and governments. Do you think Fort Knox is just a piggy bank for when the citizens of the US decide to go on a collective vacation in Thailand?

>I think it is a great thing that BTC makes disincentivizes unnecessary spending.

Investing into the economy is not unnecessary spending. Every time you hear about a funding round or somebody making a loan, that's somebody else investing money. Fractional reserve is also about reinvesting money instead of letting it sit idly in a coffer.

The fact that these Econ 101 points have to be made again and again in cryptocurrency discussions is probably the best evidence as to why they're doomed to fail. If you don't even understand what inflation is about how can we have a reasonable discussion about currencies?

<comment><USER30> > Dying with as much money (i.e. power) as possible is very much the endgame > for many people

At which point, if they didn't provide their private keys to their heirs, the UTXO become unusable, and everybody is a bit richer thanks to these thrifty people generous sacrifice.

> Fractional reserve is also about reinvesting money instead of letting it sit > idly in a coffer

Environmentalists seem to dislike investment for investment sake. I don't think they will be too sad if we collectively think it's better to have fun times and let money sit idly in wallets.

> probably the best evidence as to why they're doomed to fail

Doomed to fail, yet continuously succeeded, for over 10 years now, from less than 1 cent apiece to over 10 grands apiece.

It took me a while to realize HN is not fundamentally different from other social networks, like facebook. There is social pressure, and external reality doesn't matter as much as conforming to what the peer group says. Here, ever since BTC original announcement, the majority opinion has been mostly negative, with people actively trying to steer other away from BTC.

The majority has been consistently proven wrong, but social pressure has made that a non issue.

Meanwhile, those who learned how to dissent and did the opposite of what everyone else recommended are set for life. A few people tried to warn us. There was someone who announced here many years ago he put all of his retirement savings in BTC, after which we never heard from him again.

Yet the sour grapes keep complaining. Just for fun, try to read this 2013 thread, and ask yourself what state of reality it will take to consider the possibility you may be wrong: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6927637](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6927637)

<comment><USER28> You've entirely missed the point.

No one is arguing that Bitcoin isn't deflationary.

<comment><USER30> And if you pretend deflation is bad, you also have entirely missed the point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> As someone who works at a large cryptocurrency business, and who's welfare is thus bound to the ongoing success of cryptocurrencies, I would like to state my unequivocal support of the notion presented in this article.

I think the potential of life improvement for many unbanked people in non- first world countries extends a little beyond the life improving characteristics of ham radio, but overall his sentiment on how inaccurate the "BTC is basically 90's internet" people are, is entirely correct.

<comment><USER32> Ham radio is often pretty critical during natural disasters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> >But when regular service is restored, it becomes a hobby again. And that's fine.

A hobby that burns 1% of the words electricity and costs literally Millions of dollars every day. If that should stay like that It would need to be a very very popular hobby. Like watching soccer matches popular. The thing is 99.9% do not participate in Bitcoin as a hobby on alternative money. They speculate on gains in the regular money. If there is no more uptrend and crazy gains it cant sustain as a small hobby with only a fraction of the people left paying for the actual running costs which are now still payed by the block reward.

<comment><USER33> > A hobby that burns 1% of the words electricity and costs literally Millions > of dollars every day.

70-80% of mining is using renewable energy or reducing pollution, and isn't pulling away from other use cases.

But you didn't know where the energy came from, only how much was being used I guess? You should be able to corroborate this, let me know!

<comment><USER19> Your pollution non-argument It's completely irrelevant. I never mentioned pollution anyway. They could get the energy from clean fusion reactors or magic unicorn generators. Someone still has to pay for it. The hobbyist would collectively need to pay millions per day just for the energy. Even today with probably around 100 Million Bitcoin owners that would lead to several dollars per person per day. That half the Netflix user base paying their monthly subscription every day. Do you seriously thing people will do that? For a funny alternative money hobby thing. It's absurd. Its entirely running on its own printed bitcoins which slowly fade to zero block reward.

<comment><USER33> okay I misunderstood, whats the problem with people paying millions of dollars for something they want to do to the person providing power?

<comment><USER19> There is no problem. It's just highly unrealistic that such people can be found. And if they cant be found the end result is quite clear. Hashrate will drop to the point where attacks are possible and will occur. Or more likely non-profitable miners will do the final double spend scam before turning their hardware off. Or they go bankrupt and someone buys the hardware cheap to do the double spend after the difficultly adjusted. Either way BTC can not become the ham radio niche thing. Its endless growth or fatal failure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Last time I checked you didn't need to buy special equipment, study for a test, pass that test and register with the government to buy or hold cryptocurrency.

</comment><comment><USER35> While the clunky UX and low speed of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies definitely remind me of packet radio of early 90s, it was pretty amazing to transmit data wirelessly like that, and now we have 4g (and soon 5g and satellite internet) everywhere. I definitely don't think we are at early IRC/netscape/email level experiences yet.

I think you can also only stretch the analogy so far through, and like others have commented I think the future of decentralised cryptocurrencies has more to do with the actions of central banks and the phase of the fiat mega cycle we are coming to.

There has to be a stable store of value that also works well as a currency, and these days it has to be digital. I don't know if it will bitcoin - it's too volatile and not particularly good as currency - but there will be something. Perhaps it will be backed by something physical with finite supply, or perhaps by just algorithms - we will find out. Sometimes I wonder what advanced enough AI would use as a medium of exchange and a store of value - <USER2> anything?

</comment><comment><USER36> I completely disagree. The amount of c02 dumped in the atmosphere from this product is unfathomable. HN is full of environmentalists and I don't understand why they don't speak out against bitcoin and like technologies that are doing tremendous damage to the planet.

<comment><USER37> The internet burns more. Why haven't you gone offline yet?

Source: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2016/06/28/ho...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2016/06/28/how- much-electricity-does-it-take-to-run-the-internet/#78527fed1fff)

<comment><USER38> Maybe because the internet actually provides tremendous value to society in exchange for that energy, unlike Bitcoin.

Or maybe because there's no inherent reason why the internet couldn't be made more energy efficient, also unlike Bitcoin.

<comment><USER37>
      the internet actually provides tremendous value to society

Like cat videos and clickbait?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Whether intentionally or not the article entrenches some narrow ideas of what blockchain is. At this point talking about Bitcoin as _the_ blockchain is an ancient narrative and does not see wood for the trees. Bitcoin fulfills a certain goal but the world of blockchain (and related to them) systems has become extremely diverse, with many systems racing to fill many niches in various ways. We should drop the Bitcoin == blockchain narrative. It's a narrative for non-technical people and maximalists. We should even stop using the word "cryptocurrency".

Let's take Baseline project as an example of one that defies our ideas of what blockchain is meant to do. Baseline is a protocol developed by a few parties, in particular EY and Microsoft, that means to reduce friction in _communication_ between business entities. If, say, a factory needs more parts delivered it's SAP system communicates with the supplier's Oracle system through a public mainnet protocol encrypted via Zero-Knowledge Proofs. Yes, the system could potentially also handle transfer of value, but it's more than that. It's not bitcoin, it's not a currency, transfer of values isn't even the main point, it's a system of record and communication.

<comment><USER40> What's so wrong with a HTTPS REST API call that you need a Zero-Knowledge proof posted on a public mainnet protocol?

<comment><USER39> I think you are vastly underestimating the complexity of communication across businesses. I am not an expert in what it takes for, say, two ERP systems to sync (EY are, though). But if you have two separate companies trying to order things from each other:

* You need to decide on a protocol

* You need to run servers (if separate from ERP)

* You need to decide on a method of authentication

* Your REST API needs to be very secure (in blockchain you need to keep your keys secure, yes)

* If the other party is unreachable then you need to start queuing transactions and in theory they might be lost, the system falling out of sync without paper trail. Actually they could be lost in any case, cause the other party might be buggy and "forget" to record.

* Which brings to: you need secure logging of your transactions for paper trail.

* You need a method of resolution in case values on each side do not match ("Billion dollar question" Baseline people refer to it as. Immutable ledgers are perfect for this.)

* Probably lots more I cannot think of right now or just do not know.

Using smart contracts as your protocol solves all of those plus:

* You can effectively transfer value over the wire as well. No need to keep an extra payment system in sync. But yes you would need to eventually convert to fiat.

* A standard protocol. If you wanted to talk to yet another company you don't need to set up yet another system and get a team to negotiate auth, security, method of audit, conflict resolution, etc.

The process is, at least in theory, simpler, cheaper, more secure and reliable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The money use case is cool, but only really that helpful if you want to evade the law. A much broader use case is building applications. This will not work for all apps (eg social networks that produce massive amounts of data), but many apps in the business world (eg accounting systems) do not produce a lot of data.

The advantages are that it will be easier to build apps this way because no outside server is needed. This is great for prototyping and bootstrapping. Apps built on Bitcoin have other advantages like maintaining data provenance (useful for audit purposes), managing data ownership (who is allowed to update a piece of data), or storing cryptocurrency atomically with data.

Frameworks along these lines are starting to pop up. One example is the Bitcoin Computer ([http://bitcoincomputer.io/](http://bitcoincomputer.io/)): It allows you to write an app entirely as frontend code and gives you simple provisions for persisting data on chain with a single line of JS code.

<comment><USER9> I don't get the dogma that bitcoin as a currency is all about lawlessness.

What if I just want to make an electronic transaction and maintain the same privacy I have with physical currency? Am I an outlaw because electronic transactions are usually completely tracked?

(And I understand that physical currency transactions do not have absolute privacy. I can be physically tracked or recorded, etc. Just as my computer can be bugged before I make a cryptocurrency transaction.)

My fear is that the answer very soon will be: only criminals want to use physical currency -- what are you hiding?

<comment><USER41> Where the legal money use case really shines is in micro transactions. If the amount you want to send is really low it makes a difference if your fee is 30 cents on paypal vs a fraction of a cent with bch, bsv, or ltc. The problem is that it is very hard to monetize apps with micropayments: you need a massive user base because you only earn a fraction of each micropayment. It is hard to convince a massive user base to go through the hassle of obtaining Bitcoin.

I do not want to discourage the use of Bitcoin for that, I think there will be awesome businesses built on micropayments and payments in general. I just want to point out that there is an opportunity to use Bitcoin to make application development faster and cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> What this article misses is that Bitcoin is not a protocol but a _name_. You might say a _currency_. Let me explain:

The dollar started as a gold backed piece of paper with a certain type of look.

At that time, nobody would have accepted a payment via credit card with today's fiat dollars.

But today, we still pay in "Dollar". Even when no paper at all changes hands.

The same can happen to Bitcoin. All kinds of future protocolls might be used to transfer "Bitcoins". These future "Bitcoins" might coexist with current "Bitcoins" during the transition phases.

In fact, in the early days, the Bitcoin protocol _did_ change. But the "wealth" of each holder was preserved.

Saying "Bitcoin isn't going to become a mainstream kind of money. It's too awkward for most people." is like someone 30 years ago saying the dollar must be replaced with a different currency because eventually people will pay digitally instead of moving paper around.

"Bitcoins" are not bound to a certain technology.

"Ham radio" _is_ a technology.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is a failed argument. Internet is already decentralized; there's no need for ham radios. This comparison would make some sense if there was just a single website controlled by the government, and ham radio was the only solution for freedom of information. Current money systems are centralized and controlled by the governments. Bitcoin fixes that.

<comment><USER44> The internet is not decentralized. The internet is controlled by the government to the same extent that money systems are centralized and controlled by the government. Maybe more actually.

Ham radio allows for communication without the internet or really anyone's permission. It is worth looking into possibilities that the internet may not always be as free or as available. Ham radio fixes Bitcoin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Here's a telling fact about the Bitcoin community: this article is auto- censored in a prominent online Bitcoin forum.

<comment><USER46> It's both hilarious and sad that the bitcoin subreddit that's about uncensorable money is also one of the most censored places on reddit. And many other cryptocurrency subreddits are similar.

<comment><USER47> It's sad that there is an ongoing dilution of the term "censorship" which is really referring to moderatorship of online forums.

<comment><USER46> I would still call it censorship when you constantly violate the moderation rules you supposedly follow.

Just look at their "no altcoin discussion rule". Altcoin discussion is allowed if it makes Bitcoin look good, but you'll get banned if you point out benefits of other coins over Bitcoin (or pointing out any flaws with Bitcoin at all).

Or how discussion about the Lightning Network and the centralized sidechain Liquid is allowed and even encouraged, while discussion on a blocksize increase has been bannable for years. Even before Bitcoin forked discussion of full node clients such as Bitcoin XT, which followed all the rules of Bitcoin, were blocked because it was "an altcoin" (which is was not).

Explaining away the countless of unjustly banned users with "moderation" is part of the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> We don't need the entire system to collapse for bitcoin to become mainstream. This can occur with slow integration. It's probably a good thing the halvings occur every 4 years since these tend to drive bull cycles, and are spaced out enough to give time for the technology to catch up with the market cap.

</comment><comment><USER49> The difference between Bitcoin and ham radio is money. Money is an extremely powerful technology that has changed the world, but one of the most profound ways it's done so is to distort the minds of those trying to harness it.

When your intellect is a servant of your lust for shiny digital metal, something has gone badly wrong.

</comment><comment><USER50> Wow the old "bitcoin is an energy hog" argument. (kidding)

Terrible jokes aside, I like this take, but from the standpoint that Bitcoin is a "primitive", almost analogue type technology. But it demonstrates clear innovations over the old existing "normal" payment systems. So the conclusion, in my opinion, that Bitcoin is only for hobbyists in extreme circumstances, includes a fallacy, and one piece of evidence is the increased efficiency in using Bitcoin for intl settlement / remittance.

But Bitcoin is not the end-all of cryptocurrencies. It has flaws and its iteration is relatively frozen.

We need a sound settlement layer first and that settlement layer will need to obtain some degree of generalization in programmability.

<comment><USER51> Bitcoin is still under active development and conservatively and very carefully adding new features.

Source: Attended one dev group meeting.

That said, I do think that it's like the DOS of cryptocurrencies.

<comment><USER50> Bitcoin is not under fully free "active" development when its technical spec is constrained by its social contract.

Besides, privacy is the important thing (no fungibility), and you will not be able to hide all that metadata anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Bitcoin is an incredible technology. It can survive on its own. Bitcoin is an important piece of future money. Bitcoin is not the new internet protocol. The system is slow moving and hard to change. Bitcoin can be compared to ham radio. But it can interact with other systems. This is how Bitcoin is different from ham radio.

I see Bitcoin as the first puzzle piece. We're searching for more pieces to construct the future of money puzzle. I think a missing piece is a crypto with inflation. I started a project to explore this:

[https://bitflate.org/](https://bitflate.org/)

</comment><comment><USER53> This does fit with what I think is the most interesting use case of bitcoin that I'd read about: A Ukrainian living in the Russian controlled portion of the country getting out with his wealth intact.

The border was controlled by corrupt Russian guards that would steal things of value. You could pass the border occasionally to visit family on the other side, but it was risky to take anything.

He put all his wealth into bitcoin, memorized his wallet seed words like his life depended on it, crossed the border with nothing, and then regenerated his wallet on the other side (and then presumably transferred the money back into a usable fiat currency/bank account).

I thought that was pretty cool.

It'd be interesting if the community put a guide together to make it easy for people that need to escape hostile countries with their wealth intact to do so, something I might try to do if I find some time to write it up.

<comment><USER54> Just as a warning to people that might want to try this, a lot of work has gone into monitoring the addresses tied to private keys created from potential words.

For example, if you use a word in the (infamous) rockyou wordlist as your private key & send money to the corresponding public key, it will not be your money for long.

If it were me, I think I'd be sneaking out an SD card in a condom in my prison wallet.

<comment><USER55> BIP39 ([https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawi...](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki)) mnemonics are the industry standard for deriving keys. If you use enough words (the standard will not let you use less than 12), then you are completely fine.

<comment><USER5> The problem is if you come up with the words yourself, you are most likely to screw up. So people should be aware that they should use a random number generator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I think the game changed a while ago. It is not Bitcoin mainstream if/when something bad happens to the monetary system anymore.

It is many blockchain building alternatives to the monetary system. With Bitcoin being a digital gold, Ethereum being a decentralized central bank for layer two solutions running decentralized finance system (with stable coins and financial instruments) and perhaps other blockchains with different roles (payments anyone?).

</comment><comment><USER57> The crypto boom of 2017 was fueled by the launch of new trading platforms making it easy to trade for small investors. Most of those investors graduated to stocks and options, and never looked back. There has not been anything to increase the valuation of Bitcoin as an asset since then. I say this as someone holding >$10k of crypto assets in case I am wrong.

<comment><USER58> It was also fueled by market manipulation by one major bitcoin holder using Bitfinex[0]

0: [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/study-single-anonymous- marke...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/study-single-anonymous-market- manipulator-pushed-bitcoin-to-20000.html)

<comment><USER59> Interesting, and I think I've heard that before, but your source doesn't seem that great.

<comment><USER60> Here's a report from the WSJ if you don't like CNBC:

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/large-bitcoin-player- manipulate...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/large-bitcoin-player-manipulated- price-sharply-higher-study-says-11572863400)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Bitcoin being ham radio rather than the Internet would be problematic, because it is priced as if it's the heir to the Internet.

<comment><USER62> Bitcoin market cap is 171 billion, to say if that's lot or not so lot is quite hard to say. Personally however I don't think its that much - there are lots of individual companies worth more than that.

<comment><USER61> How many of them derive most of their revenue from the ham radio market?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Like HAM radio, there is an incredible amount of metadata that is necessarily public.

(Seriously, any use case for which Bitcoin is a privacy solution puts Bitcoin up against strictly superior implementations of decentralized BFT value exchange protocols which I will not list as to not come across as a shill but are all things you have probably heard of).

</comment><comment><USER64> I usually filter out articles when they make arguments like "no, x isn't going to y" either in the title or inside them. It shows that the author is passionately biased against what he is writing and wants also to show how right he is, traits that don't go well with factual realism

</comment><comment><USER65> Most people think Bitcoin is a gambling chip, but it is first and foremost a new form of money. Let me repeat Bitcoin's benefits:

\- You can pay anyone and been paid by anyone without anyone's permission. Not so with government money.

\- Can't be counterfeited. You don't need to check the bills under UV light, no need to check if your gold bullion has lead or copper inside.

\- Can't be inflated

\- No one can take it from you. No one even knows that you have it and how much.

\- Safe for merchants. If they got it, they got it, no risk of transaction being reversed because the shopper paid by a stolen credit card. Because of that, merchant doesn't need to ask for your name, phone number, home address and other information required to sue you in case of a fraud. So the shopper in turn enjoys better privacy.

\- With second layer solution in place, such as Lightning Network, transactions will be fast, cheap and private. We are not there yet, but will be in a few years.

</comment><comment><USER66> I don't use bitcoin because every method of converting fiat to btc (or vice versa) takes an absurdly high fee. It's even worse when buying stablecoins.

</comment><comment><USER67> I'm just waiting for whatever crypto/digital finance thing that comes along next that actually works and lead them to crash.

</comment><comment><USER68> crypto is a nice idealistic idea. would work well, on a local level. however, since money is invested into crypto all logical thought goes out of the window, compared to radio operators. now people function by pure emotion. to tell someone they've invested into a bubble, is a personal attack. as we noticed, into the late 2017 crypto bubble.

</comment><comment><USER69> There are massive flaws in the logic of this piece. In order for JP's metaphors to be accurate, the following would need to be true:

1) CELL PHONES CAUSE HURRICANES. 2) HOSTILE ALIENS ENSLAVE US EVERY YEAR.

First, let's not get hung up on Bitcoin alone. Bitcoin is designed for a specific use case (store of value) while other cryptocurrencies have different use cases (means of transaction, etc.). Bitcoin is also version 1 of a new category. So maybe Bitcoin will end up being like Netscape and will pass the baton to other cryptocurrencies which go on to be successful.

I will use JP's hurricane metaphor against him. He basically compares "mainstream" telecommunications (cell phones, 911 call centers) to fiat currency. He says mainstream telco is preferable to ham radios just like fiat currency is preferable to cryptocurrency. Fine. Here's where the metaphor breaks down:

Mainstream telco doesn't CAUSE hurricanes.

Fiat currency CAUSES (leads to) hyperinflation crises. If mainstream telco usage CAUSED hurricanes, I guarantee alternative communication methods would be given more attention.

JP also claims a breakdown in the fiat system would be similar in magnitude and probability to a situation where "hostile aliens have enslaved us." Wrong again.

There have been 34 episodes of hyperinflation in the LAST 30 YEARS ([https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/workingpa...](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/workingpaper-8.pdf)).

Just because you are lucky to live in a place where hurricanes haven't affected you (erm...Canada) doesn't mean hurricanes aren't a problem. Also, these "hurricanes" don't just hit the coast. Argentina had a population of around 30 million people when hyperinflation was raging in 1990, impoverishing millions in a matter of months.

In order for JP's model to be accurate, modern telecommunication equipment would cause hurricanes and hostile aliens would enslave us roughly every year (34 times in the last 30 years).

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies fix a little bug in fiat currencies where every so often ALL THE PEOPLE USING THAT CURRENCY ARE SWIFTLY IMPOVERISHED. I think it's worth keeping an eye on crypto.

</comment><comment><USER70> If Bitcoin is like ham radio, then Ethereum is more like the early internet.

</comment><comment><USER71> I think Bitcoin is not at all like ham radio.

I think Bitcoin is a dangerous fad that just conjures money out of the pockets of rubes to enrich a few.

Bitcoin should die, and all the cryptocurrencies with it. They solve no relevant problem but they cost our society dearly.

<comment><USER70> How do you explain decentralized finance and Ethereum? Anyone, anywhere, can have access to a financial system with zero barriers to entry. I'd say that's pretty useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Bitcoin is more like an environmentalist's worst nightmare.

</comment><comment><USER73> Oh the good old "Most active and vocal Bitcoin fans are talking non-sense all the time so the Bitcoin is not that important" narrative.

</comment><comment><USER74> bitcoin -> ham radio ethereum -> computer chainlink -> internet

</comment><comment><USER75> Perfect analogy. Just like Ham Radio. Pretty cool but of little practical use.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the point of the TM and (R) symbols? - <AUTHOR> I was reading that Mercedes-Benz PRE-SAFE(R) marketing prose, and it prompted me to ask this question that I've been wondering for a while: Why do companies mess up their text and logo images with TM and (R) symbols?<p>To be clear: I understand what trademark laws and registration are for. I am not asking for an overview of the theory of trademark law. I'm specifically asking why they insist on slathering TM and (R) symbols in text and in images. What horrible thing would happen if Mercedes-Benz had not awkwardly slapped (R) after every-other word in that article? <comment><USER2> To maintain a trademark and fight back infringement you have to repeatedly claim it by putting those annoying symbols after it.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/383evo/e...](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/383evo/eli5_why_do_brands_always_put_tm_or_r_after_their/)

<comment><USER3> Then why doesn't Apple, who have some of the most valuable trademarks in existence, include a single (R) or TM in their (for example) iPhone marketing [1]?

1: [https://www.apple.com/iphone-xr/](https://www.apple.com/iphone-xr/)

<comment><USER4> Some lawyers are more conservative about what they should and should not do. Apple's lawyers put it all on one page: [https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual- property/trademark/...](https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual- property/trademark/appletmlist.html)

Other lawyers want it everywhere possible. It's not required to be everywhere, however, just sometimes.

I have one customer who is a franchisee and their franchiser company demands the (R) everywhere because their MARKETER think it's "impressive" to people.

<comment><USER5> One old company of mine had an awful lawyer that even insisted on putting 'SM' everywhere while we were going through trademark applications. There are still dozens of permanent installations of their branding that show BLAHBLAH(sm). It looks awful and served no purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Those marks are notice of a claim. Known, willful infringement carries much higher penalties than accidental infringement. There's also a protect-or-lose standard in the US for trademarks that is unlike patents or copyrights. "Vigorous defense" IIRC is the term.

Either the lawyers are having the copywriters maximize the notices to be very clear, or the copywriters are told they need to include the symbol and are being overzealous in how often they include it.

IANAL.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's my understanding that the R, TM and C symbols are not required to enforce trademarks / copyrights. So, if you register a trademark and forget to put TM or R next to it, it's not like your content is suddenly fair game. Same goes for C, they look at your history of public use, not the instances of a copyright symbol.

However, those symbols signal to others that a trademark / copyright exists and helps to discourage others from copying it.

INAL

</comment><comment><USER8> To answer your question directly: because companies are unduly paranoid. You should use those symbols _once_ in a document, generally at the first use, but there's no need to keep using it over and over.

<comment><USER9> When Yahoo! ditched the stupid ® someone had to go around and physically remove the thing from the branding on campus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> (R) is only for registered marks, using it improperly can amount to Trademark Fraud. Consult a lawyer not HN.

Improper use of the federal registration symbol, ®, that is deliberate and intends to deceive or mislead the public or the USPTO is fraud. See Copelands' Enters. Inc. v. CNV Inc., 945 F.2d 1563, 20 USPQ2d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lundeen & Assocs., 20 USPQ2d 1156 (TTAB 1991) .

Edit: Otherwise those marks are used to put the public on notice of the claim of the mark. A brand like Mercedes isn't worried about their marks/logos looking ugly with the addition of (r) or (TM), they are worried about their legal rights, and using those symbols (properly) will only assist in their legal claims and enforcement of the same.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but how does the vendor benefit from including the (R) in their advertising?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am not a lawyer, but I do know a famous example of how not including a © could result in the loss of protection in the past:

> _The copyright on this image has been repeatedly violated, and it has been > widely reproduced on T-shirts, posters, belt buckles, mudflaps, and other > items. In the early 1970s, Crumb 's lawyer started threatening lawsuits > against anyone using the image without permission. Crumb and A.A. Sales, a > producer of unlicensed Keep On Truckin' merchandise, reached a settlement of > $750 for the past usage. But A.A. continued to sell unlicensed products > after the settlement without paying additional license fees. In 1973, Crumb > went to the U.S. Federal Court, and wound up in the courtroom of Judge > Albert Charles Wollenberg, who had previously ruled against the Air Pirates. > A.A. Sales claimed the work was in the public domain, because Crumb had not > included the copyright symbol on the work, although he had in Zap #1 as a > whole. The work was covered under the 1909 Copyright Act, and any omission > of notice caused the work to be public domain. The drawing had appeared on > the business card of Crumb's publisher without the copyright symbol. Based > on that, Wollenberg granted A.A. Sales' request for summary judgment and > Keep On Truckin' became public domain. In 1977, the Ninth Circuit Court > reversed that decision, and it returned to copyrighted status._

Perhaps it is the similar for trademarks. Note that one no longer needs to include the copyright symbol to maintain your copyright: (in the US)

> _In the United States, the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, > effective March 1, 1989, removed the requirement for the copyright symbol > from U.S. copyright law, but its presence or absence is legally significant > on works published prior to that date, and it continues to have effect on > remedies available to a copyright holder whose work is infringed._

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_on_Truckin%27_(comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_on_Truckin%27_\(comics\))

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_symbol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_symbol)

<comment><USER13> But that's about copyright, not trademarks.

<comment><USER12> > _Perhaps it is the similar for trademarks._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Similarly, I see web developers manually or automatically updating the (c) 2019 in the footer of Web pages. My understanding is that you want to claim an _older_ copyright date rather than a newer one in most cases so this is counter productive except for the small "hey I'm modern and up-to-date" content you're reading" signal it sends.

INAL

<comment><USER15> By the way, it is widespread a myth that (c) is an acceptable replacement for the copyright symbol or the word "copyright". That is, it makes for an invalid copyright notice, BUT IT DOES NOT INVALIDATE YOUR COPYRIGHT, which is automatic anyway (in the US.)

It is optional (in the US) to provide a valid notice, but if you really want the extra benefits of a copyright notice, the notice must conform to the copyright law. Note that outside of the US, a proper notice may be required, not optional.

<comment><USER16> Random aside... The 80s BBC Micro required that ROM-based software included a copyright message using "(C)" in the header. The OS would look for those three ASCII bytes in the right place and ignore the ROM if it wasn't there.

<comment><USER17> I don't remember the exact details but a console of the 90s did something similar, but it was challenged in court and they lost

<comment><USER18> The Sega Genesis required the string "SEGA" to be somewhere in ROM. They tried to use this to gatekeep development for the system by threatening to sue any unlicensed third-party developers for trademark infringement. They were, after all, forced to use the "SEGA" mark if they wanted their game to run.

A federal appeals court ruled, in _Sega v. Accolade_ , that you can't use a trademark that way. They also ruled that you can copy and reverse-engineer a piece of software to determine functional aspects of the console's operation for interoperability purposes.

It's perfectly legal to require a string somewhere in the header before booting a ROM or running a program. (Otherwise, "magic number" checks to determine if a program is in executable format would be illegal!) The Sega case was specifically about using trademarks and copyright to restrict access to functional aspects of your hardware.

<comment><AUTHOR> The Gameboy did similar. For some odd reason they only verified the top half of the logo, though, so some devs got creative [http://fuji.drillspirits.net/?post=87](http://fuji.drillspirits.net/?post=87) Technical details here: [https://catskull.net/gameboy-boot-screen- logo.html](https://catskull.net/gameboy-boot-screen-logo.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> 1) Hey HN peeps - I'm disappointed in the number of people that are either not addressing the actual question, or are simply offering speculation. I'm not angry, just disappointed.

2) On the USTPO.gov site I found the following:

> What is the difference between TM and the R within the circle ®?

> Use of the TM and SM symbols may be governed by local, state, or foreign > laws and the laws of a pertinent jurisdiction to identify the marks that a > party claims rights to. The federal registration symbol, the R enclosed > within a circle, may be used once the mark is actually registered in the > USPTO. Even though an application is pending, the registration symbol may > not be used before the mark has actually become registered.

> The federal registration symbol should only be used on goods or services > that are the subject of the federal trademark registration.

> PLEASE NOTE: Several foreign countries use the letter R enclosed within a > circle to indicate that a mark is registered in that country. Use of the > symbol by the holder of a foreign registration may be proper.

And also:

> Do federal regulations govern the use of the designations "TM" or "SM" or > the ® symbol?

> If you claim rights to use a mark, you may use the "TM" (trademark) or "SM" > (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim of a "common- > law" mark. No registration is necessary to use a "TM" or "SM" symbol and you > may continue to use these symbols even if the USPTO refuses to register your > mark. Those symbols put people on notice that you claim rights in the mark, > although common law doesn't give you all the rights and benefits of federal > registration.

> You may only use the federal registration symbol "®" after the USPTO > actually registers a mark, not while an application is pending. And it may > only be used on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the > federal trademark registration and while the registration is still alive > (you may not continue to use it if you don't maintain the registration or it > expires). Although there are no specific requirements on where the symbol > should be placed relative to the mark, most businesses use the symbol in the > upper right corner of the mark. Note: Because several foreign countries use > "®" to indicate that a mark is registered in that country, use of the symbol > by the holder of a foreign registration may be proper.

So, in the U.S., it appears there is no federal NEED to use these marks, aside from being able to say that any infringer can't claim ignorance of your claim, BUT that still leaves any state, county, local, or other nation usages unanswered.

<comment><USER20> > _I 'm disappointed in the number of people that are either not addressing > the actual question_

What a weird complaint. 99% of your answer does not address the actual question. The only relevant part of your answer is "those symbols put people on notice that you claim rights" and you then neglect to say why that's important.

<comment><USER19> ...and the rest is evidence that it's not speculation. The poster SAID they understood trademark law, and specifically asked only about the symbols, so posting "why that's [notice] important" was redundant and off-topic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> We just had a project in our app to _remove_ these. We had lists of credit card names and they'd be ridiculous things like "Company(TM) Product(R) VISA(TM) for Business(c)" and the client had no idea which credit card was theirs because they signed up for "Product for Business".

Our legal team agreed that in functional contexts (like picking a credit card name from a select box) we could omit the trademarks. But if we had a page that listed all the features and restrictions about the card (non-functional usage) then they must be there.

</comment><comment><USER22> R is a registered trademark, which means you have registered it with the proper authorities TM is a self claimed trademark, which means that you include it on your first use and you continue to claim it via using the TM. If you have to defend it in court you have to prove that you had it in use before the trademark infringement happened and that you continued to defend it via using the TM mark. If you cannot prove that, then you run the risk of loosing said trademark.

There is also SM which is a service mark, TM is generally used for goods or products where a service mark is generally for services offered.

So to answer your question, they would loose their trademark and it would be publicly available for anyone to use.

This has happened and almost happened to many companies when their product becomes hugely successful and people start using their name as the generic name for said item.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand- nam...](https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-names- generic-words-2018-5)

[https://www.gerbenlaw.com/university/trademark- symbols/](https://www.gerbenlaw.com/university/trademark-symbols/)

<comment><USER23> > TM is a self claimed trademark, which means that you include it on your > first use and you continue to claim it

This feels like kids playing something silly like "mom and dad".

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> In theory, those symbols make it easier to demonstrate you show and claim a mark. Yet, I have never heard of a trademark case failing because of a missed symbol. In practice, they're mostly about marketing - trust is so important in digital marketing that signs like that get splashed around.

</comment><comment><USER25> Anybody can claim a trademark (TM symbol), but only those who have registered it with USPTO can claim the (R) for registered trademark.

Once you claim something as a trademark, you own it. You don't officially need to file anything. HOWEVER, if you end up in court against someone with a registered trademark, you'll likely lose unless you can establish "prior art". Prior art means you've used the trademark _in commerce_ prior to the date they did.

<comment><USER26> _Anybody can claim a trademark (TM symbol), but only those who have registered it with USPTO can claim the (R) for registered trademark._

This is not true. It might be the legal position in the United States, but other jurisdictions have their own rules and registration processes for trademarks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> What I don't understand is how companies can do this with common language words and hashtags; example, #betterplanet

</comment><comment><USER28> Intimidation.

</comment><comment><USER29> These days their main purpose is to broadcast to the world that you're a dinosaur corporate zombie company.</comment>


Amazon Sellers Brood as States Come Calling for Taxes - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/technology/amazon-sales-tax.html <comment><USER3> It's a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

Let's say you use Amazon Fulfilment (FBA):

1\. Does just storing goods in a state establish tax nexus in that state? Most states claim it does, but it hasn't been tested in court.

2\. Assuming it does, Amazon keeps moving your goods between warehouses - <USER2> do you keep track which states do you have nexus in and need to have a business license in?

3\. Assuming you figured it out, in some places you need to register per county, not per state (I believe it was 10+ registrations in one state, can't remember which). With all the locations with Amazon warehouses you're looking at 25+ licences. Possibly 40+.

4\. Let's say you're willing to handle the 40+ business licences you're supposedly required to hold, you have to file 40+ tax returns with different deadlines, make 40 payments and keep track of law changes. Also you have to pay to get a business license and often you have to pay to keep it active every year.

5\. Add being a foreign seller (let's say Canadian):

\- out of all the states with Amazon warehouses only 2 will accept a non-us business address when registering for a business license. The others either don't allow you to select a country, require you to select a US state or only accept The One True Zipcode Format.

\- taxes you remit using ACH will also routinely explode due to a non-US address on your US bank account.

\- sure, you can file a paper registration (usually at 3+ times the registration fee), unless the state only accepts a XFA PDF form that generates a scannable code. One DOR representative told me the only way I'm getting a licence in that case is if I show up in person.

\- government issued photo id is sometimes required. Guess which government often is the only one that exists ;-)

By comparison in EU you collect VAT per destination country, remit it to your local tax office indicating where it should go and forget about the whole thing.

<comment><USER4> Possible solutions (speaking about the US of course):

1\. Let the federal government establish a uniform national sales tax _and_ outlaw all state and local sales taxes.

2\. Even better, eliminate sales taxes entirely. Replace it with higher income taxes or property taxes. Yes, yes, I know, regressive, not progressive, taxing consumption is better, but there's something to be said about an economy without crazy levels of bureaucracy and regulations.

3\. Just keep fighting off the states until they accept that Internet orders should be non-taxable. The Internet has completely changed the business models of music delivery, porn, and newspapers. No reason it can't _eventually_ convince states to back off on sales taxes.

<comment><USER5> The federal government has no Constitutional authority to outlaw sales taxes on intrastate sales.

<comment><USER4> I did realize that, but there are ways the federal government could do it. For example, the way they strong-armed[1] all the states to impose a 55 mile per hour speed limit for a period of 2 decades by threatening to cut off highway funding.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law#Ena...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law#Enactment)

<comment><USER5> That was an unconstitutional disgrace and should not be a model for the future.

<comment><USER6> I downvoted this, but now I wonder if I was too hasty. I agree that it might be a disgrace, but I don't know of any legitimate argument that the approach was unconstitutional. Do you have such an argument?

<comment><USER7> They lacked the explicit constitutional power to enforce the federal will, so they did it in a sneaky, backhanded manner by pulling at the purse strings.

Same BS as making the uniform drinking age of 21 years.

The feds raise taxes in every state to pay for something, then extort those same states to dance to the federal tune in order to get back some of the money taken from their citizens to build roads that would benefit them. If the Feds didn't take that money, the state could have taken it to build their own roads.

It would be great if the federal power could not transfer funds to the states without using apportionment solely by criteria that cannot be gamed politically. Divide-and-conquer is not a tactic that should be countenanced within a federation of supposed equals.

I think Real ID is the latest round of the same way of strong-arming the states, by denying to non-compliant states a benefit that will be enjoyed by compliant states.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > _(...) from the millions of independent merchants who sell products through > Amazon's website_

It may make Amazon of lot of money, but it has become increasingly frustrating to try to buy products through Amazon. Get thousands of hits on a search. Mostly the same crap through a thousand dropshippers. Used to shop through Amazon because it was consistent and easy. Now it's like shopping on Ebay.

<comment><USER9> It gets worse the closer you get to generic items, like usb cables. What's more annoying is filtering by prime and selecting amazon as the seller doesn't actually stop marketplace sellers from showing up. All they have to do is be just one cent cheaper than amazons price.

<comment><USER10> eBay is actually better for "generic" items like USB cables, because at least you know you're getting whatever's in the picture. There's no telling what you'll get from Amazon... unless it's sold+shipped by Amazon.

<comment><USER9> Even if it's shipped and sold, because they comingle inventory there's a chance it won't be identical. That's why anker products are listed the way they are. Prevents 3rd parties from coming in and selling fakes.

<comment><USER10> I don't think Amazon comingles "Sold and shipped by Amazon" inventory. Or at least they didn't use to - do they now?

<comment><USER11> Purchased a Pure water filter shipped and sold by Amazon for my girlfrend...it arrived yesterday. I go over to her apartment to install it and wow what a surprise. It was a used filter. The filter element was in a ziplock bag. One of the faucet attachments was out of its packaging and the inside of the main unit was wet. It has nearly caused me to not renew Prime this spring.

<comment><USER12> This is a different but similar problem. The wearhouse employees mark pretty much every return as "sellable" and put it on the shelf if it's in the box it came in. Even if the return reason is "tried it and it doesn't work." Leads to a lot of people getting returned items.

I wrote this is a comment last week:

>Several years ago I sold a memory card via FBA. The buyer returned the card, they said they were returning it because of a defect, they said "card slows down significantly after it gets half full." Amazon's wearhouse receives the return, they mark it as sellable, and then sell it (as new) again!! Clearly its not new, the problem was evident only from using it!...If the return reason is "defective," why would mark as sellable ever be possible?

<comment><USER11> That's incredible! What stunning dishonesty on their part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The same is happening in the EU where marketplace sellers are using tons of shady tactics essentially pocketing the VAT for themselves and having a 10-25% (depending on EU country) extra profit compared to businesses that follow the law.

</comment><comment><USER14> I honestly don't think sales tax as currently structured is worth the complexities (and is also - uninformed armchair lawyering opinion incoming - conceivably a violation of the commerce clause since its taxed rate is not reflective of anything that explicitly occurred within state borders as it would be with a VAT or similar).

I also feel like taxes are something that deserves to be in a the transaction handling layers rather than the buyer/seller layers. Of course this would drive people to cryptocurrency, but imagine if taxes were just added to your credit card bill based on its billing zipcode and merchants didn't have to think about it at all. I mean for all kinds of reasons it's not feasible, but it seems like the least pain point to deal with transaction taxes is at the transaction.

<comment><USER15> > imagine if taxes were just added to your credit card bill based on its > billing zipcode and merchants didn't have to think about it at all

That would be great, for customers. You can have your billing zipcode anywhere you want, regardless of where you might technically live or buy things.

<comment><USER16> No that would be terrible for customers because the .gov would hike taxes and they wouldn't notice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This seems like a rather glaring omission to have gone unaddressed for so long by such a giant? Has it not come up before?

<comment><USER18> _> to have gone unaddressed for so long by such a giant?_

It's complicated because Amazon isn't the one who owes the state taxes -- it's the _marketplace sellers_. This is a different situation from the previous cases of "nexus" which determines state taxes that Amazon itself owes. That nexus case was resolved and Amazon has been paying its own state taxes for many years now.

In other words, Amazon already pays all sales taxes for items that say _" Ships from and sold by Amazon.com."_ Amazon does not file sales taxes for items such as _" Sold by RareOldBooks and Fulfilled by Amazon."_

Even if Amazon added a "sales tax" line item for 3rd-party marketplace sellers, it's still up to those marketplace entities to properly file their state tax forms and declare Amazon sales revenue. The state regulators know that Amazon can't file on their behalf but they'd at least like some "help" from Amazon by way of audited reports so they know which marketplace sellers to pursue.

In contrast, Ebay does have the ability for sellers to add sales tax for bidders when they check out. However, it's optional. Ebay doesn't actually collect the sales tax money for sellers. In other words, Ebay is just providing a sales tax "calculator" rather than _acting as a sales tax "collector"_. Paypal also doesn't collect and pay sales tax on behalf of sellers.

<comment><USER19> There are arguments that Amazon does have to collect the tax. The theory is that they are the actual seller.

See [https://www.ecommercechris.com/south-carolina-amazon- collect...](https://www.ecommercechris.com/south-carolina-amazon-collect- sales-tax/),

[https://www.ecommercechris.com/amazon-sales-tax-amnesty- need...](https://www.ecommercechris.com/amazon-sales-tax-amnesty-need-know/)

[https://www.sellerlabs.com/blog/sales-tax-amnesty-what- do-i-...](https://www.sellerlabs.com/blog/sales-tax-amnesty-what-do-i-need-to- know/)

<comment><USER18> _> The theory is that they are the actual seller._

Right, South Carolina in particular wants to change the "seller of record" from the marketplace sellers to Amazon itself. Most of the other states are targeting the marketplace sellers and they want more of Amazon's help in that. (E.g. add explicity sales tax line items like Ebay and provide audit reports to help identify sales tax evaders.)

<comment><USER20> Which, if sellers are going to collect sales tax at all, is probably the only thing that makes sense. It's impractical for small sellers to file tax returns for all the states they sell to just because they sell on Amazon. (And in the vast majority of cases, non-Amazon sellers without a presence in the buyers state don't and, indeed, can't be forced to.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > Caught in the middle are Amazon's marketplace sellers, who run the gamut > from small mom-and-pop operations

This will be a nightmare to fix, especially for the small sellers. Taxes based on where the seller is, taxes based on where the buyer is, taxes based on where the warehouse is, etc. Plus accounting and declaring profits government.

</comment><comment><USER22> Another very real and expensive proposition from the point of the marketplace seller is the cost of compliance in each State and within each State every municipal tax district. Collecting sales tax is relatively easy, filing to remit that tax in each state is a varied, difficult and expensive process that most "mom and pop" retailers can't easily comply.

<comment><USER23> Aren't there services that can handle this for smaller companies? Delivering physical goods to thousands of households scattered across the US is an even more varied, difficult, and expensive process, yet many "mom and pop" companies do it with ease by outsourcing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > over Amazon's resistance to charging state sales tax

Correction, it should be "collecting sales tax". The one charging state sales tax is the state, they want Amazon to collect it on their behalf.

</comment><comment><USER25> Amazon has the ability to easily fix this. Also, I would say that I believe the reason why Amazon isn't collecting and paying taxes is not because of US sellers; it's because of foreign sellers. Their existing process allows them to put it on the seller, who may be one of the thousands of chinese sellers they are signing up. This allows them to outcompete Walmart because they can say it's the sellers responsibility. The seller, not located in the states, is under no threat to ever have to pay that state tax.

</comment><comment><USER26> I thought the law is the buyer is response to pay for usage (sales) tax for item they purchase online.

Now, it is the seller's responsibility when the sellers don't even live or ship from that state?

</comment><comment><USER27> It sounds like Amazon should collect taxes for the 3rd Party and FBA merchants. The states need to indemnify Amazon against sellers messing up so Amazon is not legally on the hook for any additional taxes owed by a seller. And Amazon could pass along the compliance costs to the sellers easily enough. Doing it as a whole for Amazon would simplify the matter and make it 'fair' for the merchants since it would be for all of them.

</comment><comment><USER28> The next issue is going to be the Alibaba's and AliExpress's. Good luck trying to collect taxes there, so that means that they have an artificial advantage over domestic sellers (or reseller/dropshippers).

Personally become a big fan of AliExpress. It's a much better experience than buying a 3rd party item on Amazon. Although, only if you're flexible on shipping times.

</comment><comment><USER29> My guess is that people/voters in these states aren't chomping at the bit to pay extra for their amazon goods. Hopefully the desire to not get unelected is greater than the desire to have not tax money to play with

</comment><comment><USER30> My inner frustrated cyberpunk novelist says that this will be resolved when Congress admits Amazon as the 51st state.

</comment><comment><USER31> I was paywalled form the article but wouldn't an easy solution be to rule;

1) Businesses are responsible to collect tax at point of payment.

2) Sales tax is paid at the rate of, and to the state where-ever the item is delivered to/or picked-up by purchaser.

</comment><comment><USER32> Meanwhile in Congress...</comment>


Steve Wozniak Debunks One of Apple's Biggest Myths (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJif4i9NRdI <comment><USER2> The video doesn't make clear what the myth was susposed to be. Steve Wozniak designed the Apple I, Steve Jobs joined later, that's not really a secret.</comment>