Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer(defector.com)
defector.com
Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer
https://defector.com/cryptocurrency-bad-and-weird/
407 comments
Not really a revolution when most people just trade it (mostly via fiat money). The original idea was for Bitcoin to be a currency, unfortunately the "hodlers" won, now its only reason to exist is to be more expensive. Boosters are still milking the original premise as some revolution they're supporting, when of course, if you ask how much of their crypto assets they've actually used/spent, the typical answer is 0%.
Satoshi is dead, the dream is dead, people are just trading the corpse
Satoshi is dead, the dream is dead, people are just trading the corpse
L2s and decentralized stablecoins keep the dream of a free decentralized economy alive. It's a smaller community for sure (as most pretend enthusiasts aren't actually interested when there's no Ponzi in it for them, and most detractors would rather focus on easier strawmen), but it exists and it's thriving.
Stable coins do not solve the money printing problem at all. Their existence is mostly for avoiding tax events when speculators sell tops and buy dips. Also they are as centralized as it gets.
The term "decentralized stablecoins" itself precludes the USD-pegged voucher tokens you're referring to.
I'm talking about things like Reflexer's RAI[1], which is designed to have stable value independently of any singular currency, and whose most centralized component is price oracles (so not very centralized).
[1]: https://reflexer.finance/
I'm talking about things like Reflexer's RAI[1], which is designed to have stable value independently of any singular currency, and whose most centralized component is price oracles (so not very centralized).
[1]: https://reflexer.finance/
Are you sure that if the dev team will ababdon the project tomorrow it will b existent and people will trust it 5 years for now? If not, it's centralized. Also, how can it be a stable coin if there is nothing explicitly stated as peg?
I can use Bitcoin to safely, reliably and conveniently send money to people/organisations the US government doesn't like - eg, Wikileaks.
It is hard to understate how radical that is. Such an act of quiet resistance against the powers that be was somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible in 2005.
It is hard to understate how radical that is. Such an act of quiet resistance against the powers that be was somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible in 2005.
You can pretty much make the same case for the Internet. "Before I couldn't do X, bcs repression, mass media elite etc. but then the internet etc." The "quiet resistance" narrative is overshadowed by its primary function to make people money.
And so what if it does make some people money? Its other use cases all work just the same and as the points above mention, it can be used for a number of good things.. Does criminals using house purchases to invest laundered money make buying a house evil? It does not, but the hate just keeps getting dumped on bitcoin by people who should know better.
People don't hate Bitcoin, they just hate the MLM style marketing pitches from randos.
Sounds great btw, amazing product, can't wait to sell it to my friends and neighbors.
Sounds great btw, amazing product, can't wait to sell it to my friends and neighbors.
Then there are cases like this, one example among many in which there is a genuine case to be made for bitcoin and crypto. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28453256.
This is not to mention all the others that are possible and have been the case. For example, how do you think Sci-hub continues to function financially?. Regardless of how certain whales and other speculators use bitcoin et al to pump and dump, or how criminals use them to get and launder money, these negative things are secondary to two basic points that deserve much more respect than they often get:
1. At least so far, Bitcoin and the rest do indeed let you and anyone send or receive money regardless of what political institution, corrupt government or censorious, politically pressured private company prohibits or selectively permits (think Visa/mastercard/paypal and their bullshit arbitrary restrictions on all kinds of things they or some politician decided to call "immoral")
2. Anybody can access the BTC blockchain and most other blockchains with minimal cost, extremely minor technical knowledge that they could easily pick up, and use them for money transfers. Playing along with the pump and dump bullshit or falling victim the bubbles is strictly optional.
In these things, it is indeed revolutionary in a quiet but important way, and I have a hard time understanding the sheer amount of snarky, hateful commentary from so many people on this site. Where the goddam fuck did the scrappy, freedom-loving respect for technologies that help individuals avoid arbitrary rules go?
1. At least so far, Bitcoin and the rest do indeed let you and anyone send or receive money regardless of what political institution, corrupt government or censorious, politically pressured private company prohibits or selectively permits (think Visa/mastercard/paypal and their bullshit arbitrary restrictions on all kinds of things they or some politician decided to call "immoral")
2. Anybody can access the BTC blockchain and most other blockchains with minimal cost, extremely minor technical knowledge that they could easily pick up, and use them for money transfers. Playing along with the pump and dump bullshit or falling victim the bubbles is strictly optional.
In these things, it is indeed revolutionary in a quiet but important way, and I have a hard time understanding the sheer amount of snarky, hateful commentary from so many people on this site. Where the goddam fuck did the scrappy, freedom-loving respect for technologies that help individuals avoid arbitrary rules go?
It's snarky bcs people are sick of hearing sales pitches for moon money.
What has happened in those 12 years has been a great deal of scams, get rich quick scheme a and instability. Bitcoin has also become dominated by a few major players and is a power structure in itself, not really benefitting ordinary people much at.
Bitcoin is NOT dominated by a few major players. A few years ago when some large commercial players wanted to increase the block size, they weren't able to do so because a majority of nodes on the network rejected their code.
The Bitcoin network has stayed remarkably stable and it's still possible to run a node on a raspberry pi, which is done exactly because the Bitcoin community value the ability of normal people to participate and be able to verify their transactions and that of the whole chain.
Concerning scams. Let's look at another relatively open technology. Email.
The vast majority of emails are actually spam, and a lot of those are scams (phishing, Nigerian princes etc.). In the beginning a lot of people fell for email scams, many still do, but by and large people are aware they exist and are able to use email productively without constantly falling victim to scams.
The Bitcoin network has stayed remarkably stable and it's still possible to run a node on a raspberry pi, which is done exactly because the Bitcoin community value the ability of normal people to participate and be able to verify their transactions and that of the whole chain.
Concerning scams. Let's look at another relatively open technology. Email.
The vast majority of emails are actually spam, and a lot of those are scams (phishing, Nigerian princes etc.). In the beginning a lot of people fell for email scams, many still do, but by and large people are aware they exist and are able to use email productively without constantly falling victim to scams.
Exactly the opposite has happened: most players, including the lead developers, wanted block size to increase, because of the insane fees. But a small minority, who happened to hold the passwords to some major sites like bitcointalk, bitcoin.org and /r/bitcoin succeeded to wrangle control over and through bans and censorship took over the bitcoin project. They promised to deliver a solution to the problems of fees in the form of Lightning network, but it failed - still doesn't work reliably after all these years. Now that governing body gave up on Bitcoin development and advance their own projects based primarily on Tether. As a result, Bitcoin development has stagnated compared to competition, which is reflected in its market share diminishing.
the ecosystem from 12 years ago is radically different from what it is now. Heck, it's radically different from what it was just 2 or 3 years ago.
And well, it benefits (smart) ordinary people. That is, those who have invested or are investing. Smart money is here - and small investors are here too. And I'm saying purposefully "investing" as opposed to "trading". The former doesn't require any technical skills.
As for "ordinary people" not versed into technologies doing what their government is telling them to do (bans, warnings, hackers, criminals, murderers, ...), well... I'm feeling sorry for them, but crypto cannot just replace local country currencies without government consent. Now think again: who is to blame?
And well, it benefits (smart) ordinary people. That is, those who have invested or are investing. Smart money is here - and small investors are here too. And I'm saying purposefully "investing" as opposed to "trading". The former doesn't require any technical skills.
As for "ordinary people" not versed into technologies doing what their government is telling them to do (bans, warnings, hackers, criminals, murderers, ...), well... I'm feeling sorry for them, but crypto cannot just replace local country currencies without government consent. Now think again: who is to blame?
Yeah 12 years ago people actually thought they'd be using Bitcoin as it was intended: as a currency. Now most people know better than to do anything but trade it.
It's designed to be harder than gold. When there is a shortage of gold people starting mining it. With Bitcoin there is always a shortage of money. I don't know why people think expensive money is good money. It really isn't.
oh come on.
- defi?
- Twitter introducing tips in crypto?
..
personally speaking I'm paying every day with a crypto card (which gives me a few % cashback ..). But that's ok, you seem to purposefully want to miss the train, can't help people against themselves I guess :shrug:
personally speaking I'm paying every day with a crypto card (which gives me a few % cashback ..). But that's ok, you seem to purposefully want to miss the train, can't help people against themselves I guess :shrug:
For the past year your train cost you <$1<$4 for every dollar you spent.
You do know you're missing the train by spending your crypto?
Spending does not prevent stacking… The more you spend sats, the less you need Fiat…
Also velocity will get rid of volatility !
Also velocity will get rid of volatility !
And value. One of the reasons Bitcoin is so expensive is bcs most of it isn't being traded. If people actually start using it and loosen the supply, value goes down.
who says I'm spending my crypto? I'm spending my Euros moved over to my Crypto account...
lol
> Bitcoin is open source, the original founder is nowhere to be found, there were no VCs involved in its creation or in the distribution of the coins and the entire network is run out in the open. The Bitcoin network is a commons.
Hmmm. You've conveniently danced around any suggestion or mention of the fact that the "creator" of bitcoin mined 1.1 million - 1/20th of all bitcoins that will ever exist(!) - coins in private before launching bitcoin publicly and holds them to this day.
Hmmm. You've conveniently danced around any suggestion or mention of the fact that the "creator" of bitcoin mined 1.1 million - 1/20th of all bitcoins that will ever exist(!) - coins in private before launching bitcoin publicly and holds them to this day.
This isn't true. The genesis block references a Times headline published on Jan 3rd 2009, so that block was created no earlier than that. The source code was published and publicly available on Jan 9th 2009, which is 6 days later. Blocks were mined much slower than the target of every 10 minutes in the beginning. Block number 17 was mined on Jan 10th 2009. At 50 bitcoins per block we are talking at most 850 bitcoin or so mined "in private" before launching bitcoin.
Even if that analysis were accurate, that isn't mining "in private" before "publicly launching" as you claimed.
That's fair, my memory was incorrect. However, I don't think that makes a difference w.r.t. calling the coin premined.
I do not think the term should be used in this case because anyone could've mined at that point; others that actually did pre mine did so when only a few insiders could as well, like a pre IPO.
As far as we know Satoshi himself was rather selfless. The Patoshi[1] miner suggests he actually calibrated his own mining to foster the network's health and decentralization in its early days, in detriment of his own output.
I'm absolutely on board to criticize the amazing amount of grifters in crypto. But letting this corrupt the image of the few people like Satoshi (and Vitalik Buterin and many others basically absent from the media), who willingly strayed from the opportunity to be among the richest individuals in the world, in order to instead focus on building something they think can better humanity, is not right. You don't need to look far to find the real grifters, they're showing ads in US media and paying millions to celebrities for product endorsements right now.
[1]: https://bitslog.com/2020/06/22/a-new-mystery-in-patoshi-time...
I'm absolutely on board to criticize the amazing amount of grifters in crypto. But letting this corrupt the image of the few people like Satoshi (and Vitalik Buterin and many others basically absent from the media), who willingly strayed from the opportunity to be among the richest individuals in the world, in order to instead focus on building something they think can better humanity, is not right. You don't need to look far to find the real grifters, they're showing ads in US media and paying millions to celebrities for product endorsements right now.
[1]: https://bitslog.com/2020/06/22/a-new-mystery-in-patoshi-time...
Those coins have never moved in all these years. You would think that Satoshi would want to spend and enjoy some of his riches right?
To me this points towards Satoshi likely being dead (e.g. him being Hal Finney).
Also, AFAIK those were mined because Satoshi was the first miner, not because he purposefully kept it private in order to get the most for himself before anyone else could participate.
Also, AFAIK those were mined because Satoshi was the first miner, not because he purposefully kept it private in order to get the most for himself before anyone else could participate.
Satoshi isn't Hal, and please stop suggesting it is.
You put Hal's family in danger with this nonsense.
Some of those coins moved in the last year or so [1]. Just because they haven't moved for a long time doesn't mean they won't tomorrow.
1. https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/satoshi-is-that...
1. https://coinmarketcap.com/alexandria/article/satoshi-is-that...
Those are coins from 2010, not 2009 when Satoshi started mining and they're not from the same addresses.
And he never spent them. It's the most selfless act I've witnessed in my life.
Might not be especially hard to use them as collateral for a loan, though. Live like a king and then eventually sell them, repaying the loan from the (now rather generous) proceeds.
This absolutely is not the case, as any collateralize loans require you to transfer custody to a 3rd party making the loan.
Otherwise, you could just steal the coins straight after handing over the private keys. And even if that wasn't the case, the loaner will want exclusive control and move them to another key they control anyway.
If it was a loan, you would have blockchain records of movement of Satoshi coins. This can be proven not to be the case, and so we can be quite confident there was no loans to Satoshi.
Otherwise, you could just steal the coins straight after handing over the private keys. And even if that wasn't the case, the loaner will want exclusive control and move them to another key they control anyway.
If it was a loan, you would have blockchain records of movement of Satoshi coins. This can be proven not to be the case, and so we can be quite confident there was no loans to Satoshi.
Not sure I understand. Why couldn't you just escrow the private key with a mutually trusted third party, and back the whole thing with a contract. You know - with a traditional bank, that has a contract with you, knows your identity, and can report you to the authorities - and sue you - if you default or sell the collateral you've provided for the loan?
Because he's dead.
May be I am too old but completely fail to see any value in the notion of NFT. I do see value in Bitcoin. Bitcoin has basically thrown a wrench into all government controls on cross border payments. I don't know if Bitcoins will be very successful or not, but I am pretty sure the concept will last very very long.
NFTs on other hand appears to be equivalent of selling Golden gate bridge to tourists.
NFTs on other hand appears to be equivalent of selling Golden gate bridge to tourists.
Do you see value in rare baseball cards selling for millions of dollars? That's the same, but the card's authenticity can be verified cryptographically rather than through complex means like radionuclide analysis and such.
Yes. A rare baseball card (physical one) might be worth some non zero money to many people. But only as long as it is physical card. Any digital asset that represents it would be valuable to if it is NFT. This is nearly same as holding some bits of data in your bank account. Those numbers are valuable because they map to real world currency which the bank is holding for me.
Physical goods would still need the same authentication if they were tied to an NFT, and may be rare as a consequence of their nature.
What's the value of pretending an easily duplicated digital thing is rare?
I realize that an NFT minted on a given chain is unique, but so what, that doesn't make it unique and interesting they way a baseball card might be.
What's the value of pretending an easily duplicated digital thing is rare?
I realize that an NFT minted on a given chain is unique, but so what, that doesn't make it unique and interesting they way a baseball card might be.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to cryptographically sign a physical object (like what, enumerating all of it's atoms and their positions?).
NFT is only valuable if the creator promises she will never sign any more identical objects in the future. And she is incentivized to do so by way of receiving royalties on all future resales.
I don't see any such conflation, nor do I see any rejection of cryptocurrency's future potential. This article is primarily about what is happening with cryptocurrency right now:
> Whatever cryptocurrency might someday be For All Mankind, it is most urgently and avidly in this moment something that people tell weird lies about in hopes of getting richer.
You seem intent on spreading such get rich quick and utopian dreams on cryptocurrency. How much do you have invested in the ecosystem?
Edit: In my opinion, people who genuinely care about the revolutionary potential of Bitcoin need to avoid feeding the hype train that helps normalize the sketchy lieing behavior in the ecosystem and simply work on building that future instead.
> Whatever cryptocurrency might someday be For All Mankind, it is most urgently and avidly in this moment something that people tell weird lies about in hopes of getting richer.
You seem intent on spreading such get rich quick and utopian dreams on cryptocurrency. How much do you have invested in the ecosystem?
Edit: In my opinion, people who genuinely care about the revolutionary potential of Bitcoin need to avoid feeding the hype train that helps normalize the sketchy lieing behavior in the ecosystem and simply work on building that future instead.
> You seem intent on spreading such get rich quick and utopian dreams on cryptocurrency.
Please point me to where I spread get rich quick dreams in my comments.
Please point me to where I spread get rich quick dreams in my comments.
yea bitcoin is open sourced, but with a substantial stake already mined by the founder (anonymous and which could also be an individual, VC, country etc who knows) so while the most popular is not exactly the best defense of the blockchain tech.
You need to buy crypto“currencies” to get into NFTs as far as I know; there's no conflating.
I was involved in a blockchain (DeFi) startup. All the blockchain companies are mostly a huge pyramid scheme. The company I worked for has a lot of big claims, raised millions, wanted to solve world hunger, prioritized partnership, marketing, while having no working implementation. Others in the eco system are the same.
The NFT scene is even more BS. It could destroyed uninformed people's life, just like gambling. However, this kind of gambling is public on the internet with little regulations.
I hope more tech people speak about this instead of just ignoring them.
The NFT scene is even more BS. It could destroyed uninformed people's life, just like gambling. However, this kind of gambling is public on the internet with little regulations.
I hope more tech people speak about this instead of just ignoring them.
> I was involved in a blockchain (DeFi) startup. All the blockchain companies are mostly a huge pyramid scheme. The company I worked for has a lot of big claims, raised millions, wanted to solve world hunger, prioritized partnership, marketing, while having no working implementation. Others in the eco system are the same.
I agree that there are lots of scammy "blockchain" startups, but I don't think it's fair to paint them all with that brush. There are also plenty that are actually building cool projects, without pumping their coin, and announcing light interactions with a company as partnerships.
If you have 20% of companies being scummy, but churning out 80% of the news, your assumption will be that all of the companies are scummy.
I agree that there are lots of scammy "blockchain" startups, but I don't think it's fair to paint them all with that brush. There are also plenty that are actually building cool projects, without pumping their coin, and announcing light interactions with a company as partnerships.
If you have 20% of companies being scummy, but churning out 80% of the news, your assumption will be that all of the companies are scummy.
The most absurd thing I've ever heard was crypto could help people in Africa store their diplomas.
Was is literally a pyramid scheme that recruited people and paid people for getting new recruits? Or just a scheme?
How did the pyramid scheme work? Who was recruiting (not in an abstract sense)? What were the rewards for getting new recruits?
"I worked for a sleezy startup that was scamming people, therefore all companies are scams"
"I worked at a sleezy startup and meet a bunch of partners doing similar things, and most of them are worse or just as sleezy"
- But cuz you work in a sleezy one so you can only meet the bad company
We were very technical oriented in the beginning. I was hired to do formal verification and system design. Until, money happened, and founders realize they over promised.
- But cuz you work in a sleezy one so you can only meet the bad company
We were very technical oriented in the beginning. I was hired to do formal verification and system design. Until, money happened, and founders realize they over promised.
Are you suggesting your statement is sarcasm?
I feel the IPFS blog post gave me a glimpse of how blockchain can be cool. In certain cases, the need for decentralization is so strong that it makes sense to build a blockchain system for it (or other secure P2P network thingy).
For example, authentication/identity using blockchain technology seems interesting to me.
[1] https://blog.ipfs.io/decentralizing-the-internet-s-root/
For example, authentication/identity using blockchain technology seems interesting to me.
[1] https://blog.ipfs.io/decentralizing-the-internet-s-root/
The only two known usage of blockchain that actually seem to offer a clear advantage over some other strategy (running the thing centralized, not having coordination at all, etc) are A) solving double spend (a la Bitcoin) B) solving zooko’s triangle (a la Namecoin, or the clone you mentioned from ipfs).
Identity on blockchain beyond resolving zooko’s triangle (I.e. stably mapping pseudonyms to pubkeys) typically does not offer an advantage over (partially) centralized identity providers. E.g. putting anything related to government ID on a blockchain is pointless because you might as well have the ID issuer run a central or federated service.
Identity on blockchain beyond resolving zooko’s triangle (I.e. stably mapping pseudonyms to pubkeys) typically does not offer an advantage over (partially) centralized identity providers. E.g. putting anything related to government ID on a blockchain is pointless because you might as well have the ID issuer run a central or federated service.
Why does Bitcoin have a clear advantage in solving double spend over a centralized solution?
> centralized
If you want to trust a conglomerate of folks who have a vested interest in keeping you small and poor to solve your problems, then there is no advantage. If you do not, then the advantage is exactly that it is not centralised.
If you want to trust a conglomerate of folks who have a vested interest in keeping you small and poor to solve your problems, then there is no advantage. If you do not, then the advantage is exactly that it is not centralised.
Why are you so convinced that cryptocurrency solves the "outside forces much larger and more powerful than me have influence over the system" problem? It exchanged a solution to some problems for a new set of problems to be solved.
You are questioning what I'm saying by telling me something incredibly vague. I'm afraid I just don't know what to do with your question.
I can rephrase it: why do you think it impossible for vastly resourceful entities to acquire so much power they can control the decentralized system - in a softer way, probably but still.
Imagine a world tmr where bitcoin is everywhere. You ll have mining conglomerates in the cheapest electricity providers working as cartels to help each other and protect their interests (so can envision centralizing a blacklist of addresses they dislike, coordination on software version etc), de facto cartels of whales (like todays "billionaires" people describe as a collaborative force), and large lenders who concentrate capital and therefore still can buy out whatever they want (today called banks).
How do you think the blockchain solve any of that?
Imagine a world tmr where bitcoin is everywhere. You ll have mining conglomerates in the cheapest electricity providers working as cartels to help each other and protect their interests (so can envision centralizing a blacklist of addresses they dislike, coordination on software version etc), de facto cartels of whales (like todays "billionaires" people describe as a collaborative force), and large lenders who concentrate capital and therefore still can buy out whatever they want (today called banks).
How do you think the blockchain solve any of that?
It's easy. Copy-paste the blockchain and start over with a fork. When the system delegitimizes itself, a debt jubilee lies around the corner. This stuff is just glue now - a cheap way of making a financial system.
So if you don't like the history of the currency, scrap it entirely and start over. That seems like the opposite of the point of Blockchain.
What keeps people small and poor is the insistence that people should save in monetary terms.
It's not rocket science. When you keep your wealth in monetary terms, you don't get to have it in physical terms. Money represents how much real wealth you could have if you spent it. It's deferred consumption. There is no real wealth in something that didn't happen.
It's not rocket science. When you keep your wealth in monetary terms, you don't get to have it in physical terms. Money represents how much real wealth you could have if you spent it. It's deferred consumption. There is no real wealth in something that didn't happen.
Money is a store of value. Money is a measure of wealth.
Because the trust is distributed. One single person can't cause the entire system to break down or steal all them money. With blockchain coins, the incentives are aligned. The weird thing that happened with BTC that I don't think Satoshi could forsee is that the more valuable it got, the less usable it got. This is one of the unsolved issues: how to create decentralized consensus very very quickly that can't also be attacked via a PoW that is too easy.
I don't trust the collective anonymous users of Bitcoin more than I trust my bank and the court system though.
If someone hacks into my account, my bank will likely reimburse me for any losses. There are controls in place to stop them from stealing it al. If someone just transferred it to their own account, I could use the courts to get it back. If I use a credit card to pay a scam, I can do a charge-back.
With cryptocurrencies, it's just "bye money". They're not going to fork for you. There's no logic to stop people in Russia transferring my entire account. It's too hard to find criminals to get any relief. It's just your fault for using cryptocurrencies and not having 100% perfect security.
Not to mention, the chance of my bank stealing all my money is nil. They'd be sued and arrested, and the FDIC would reimburse me anyway.
If someone hacks into my account, my bank will likely reimburse me for any losses. There are controls in place to stop them from stealing it al. If someone just transferred it to their own account, I could use the courts to get it back. If I use a credit card to pay a scam, I can do a charge-back.
With cryptocurrencies, it's just "bye money". They're not going to fork for you. There's no logic to stop people in Russia transferring my entire account. It's too hard to find criminals to get any relief. It's just your fault for using cryptocurrencies and not having 100% perfect security.
Not to mention, the chance of my bank stealing all my money is nil. They'd be sued and arrested, and the FDIC would reimburse me anyway.
> There are controls in place to stop them from stealing it al. If someone just transferred it to their own account, I could use the courts to get it back.
What if it's taken thorough wrongful civil forfeiture? Will you be able to afford to navigate the courts to get your assets back after they've been seized?
What if it's taken thorough wrongful civil forfeiture? Will you be able to afford to navigate the courts to get your assets back after they've been seized?
Not always, but wrongful civil forfeiture is just one of many possible ways to steal. In other cases using the court system will be possible. With bitcoin, it is never possible.
So if you think the risk of permanently losing your assets via legal channels is, let's say, 99-to-1 compared to the risk of losing your assets to cryptocurrency attacks, then wouldn't it make sense to hold 99% of your assets in the bank and 1% in cryptocurrencies?
Cryptocurrencies don't have to replace all existing financial instruments to be a useful hedge. They can just be one tool of many to diversify your risk profile.
Especially consider that for people living outside the developed world, the risk of having your assets stolen through legal channels is going to be much higher.
Cryptocurrencies don't have to replace all existing financial instruments to be a useful hedge. They can just be one tool of many to diversify your risk profile.
Especially consider that for people living outside the developed world, the risk of having your assets stolen through legal channels is going to be much higher.
If you think it is indeed 99-to-1, then perhaps. My perception of the trustworthiness of most crypto projects is certainly much lower (see the endless parade of crypto horror stories on https://www.reddit.com/r/SorryForYourLoss/), so personally I would think the odds of a crypto project going under or just simply losing my wallet keys is way higher than the chance my bank or my government will steal my money or my stocks or whatever. Then again, I do live in western Europe so YMMV if you live in Venezuela or someplace like that.
Cryptocurrencies are like Swiss bank accounts without Switzerland?
I don't think this is the kind of "trust" that is relevant in the prevention of double-spending.
Well on the 2008 Crash your ""acount"" was robbed and if you live in US you did not get your money back.
You had to cover the "too big to fail" system.
On btc no.
You had to cover the "too big to fail" system.
On btc no.
> One single person can't cause the entire system to break down or steal all them money.
Funny - I have never seen someone in the traditional financing system do that and not get caught. Closest things were ponzi schemes like Madoff (and he did get caught)
I have, however, heard of dozens of exactly this incident happening with cryptocoin exchanges (wallets, services, the most general term for all combined slipped my mind)
Funny - I have never seen someone in the traditional financing system do that and not get caught. Closest things were ponzi schemes like Madoff (and he did get caught)
I have, however, heard of dozens of exactly this incident happening with cryptocoin exchanges (wallets, services, the most general term for all combined slipped my mind)
Do you know of any lines of research that are out to prove mathematically that it is impossible to have these desirable characteristics simultaneously? I.e. any improvement in consensus efficiency necessarily gives up some amount of decentralization, appropriately defined.
This is the sort of thing that really needs to be questioned.
1. How much security do we need for this transaction?
2. For this block of transactions?
3. Can we have varying levels of security?
What we are ultimately trying to know is, is it profitable to double spend? If the answer is yes, then no one should be transacting, and anything they do transact is a gamble. If the answer is no, there's much less risk, and the farther the answer is no, the safer the transaction.
But we likely don't need as much security as we do now. In fact, it's very easy to handle at a user level.
A. Put the transaction on the blockchain.
B. Wait for additional blocks.
C. If your transaction is huge, wait for more additional blocks. Wait a week, a month. This is an important transaction. When the blockchain has not reverted for such a long time, finally do the transaction in the real world.
If you are transacting with yourself, you don't need any security at all. If you are transacting with a bar and the bar knows you, much like a tab, you don't need much security. If you are transacting with an anonymous person, you want high security.
So security is currently handled on a blockchain by blockchain basis, where it should be a transaction by transaction basis. What if you can't wait a month? Then you should put heavy fees on that transaction and it should be put in with other higher fee transactions.
4. How does security change with transaction size? Does it make sense to have limits?
5. How does security change with total transaction block size? Does it make sense to have limits?
6. When the coin price goes up, how does that change these factors?
7. When the mining reward in coins drops, how does that affect security?
8. When Bitcoin, in 100 years, moves to 100% transaction fee system, what happens to security? What would the transactions fees look like?
9. In 50 years when the block reward has been halved 5 times, either the price of Bitcoin moves to $1 million, or the security drops. Is that okay?
1. How much security do we need for this transaction?
2. For this block of transactions?
3. Can we have varying levels of security?
What we are ultimately trying to know is, is it profitable to double spend? If the answer is yes, then no one should be transacting, and anything they do transact is a gamble. If the answer is no, there's much less risk, and the farther the answer is no, the safer the transaction.
But we likely don't need as much security as we do now. In fact, it's very easy to handle at a user level.
A. Put the transaction on the blockchain.
B. Wait for additional blocks.
C. If your transaction is huge, wait for more additional blocks. Wait a week, a month. This is an important transaction. When the blockchain has not reverted for such a long time, finally do the transaction in the real world.
If you are transacting with yourself, you don't need any security at all. If you are transacting with a bar and the bar knows you, much like a tab, you don't need much security. If you are transacting with an anonymous person, you want high security.
So security is currently handled on a blockchain by blockchain basis, where it should be a transaction by transaction basis. What if you can't wait a month? Then you should put heavy fees on that transaction and it should be put in with other higher fee transactions.
4. How does security change with transaction size? Does it make sense to have limits?
5. How does security change with total transaction block size? Does it make sense to have limits?
6. When the coin price goes up, how does that change these factors?
7. When the mining reward in coins drops, how does that affect security?
8. When Bitcoin, in 100 years, moves to 100% transaction fee system, what happens to security? What would the transactions fees look like?
9. In 50 years when the block reward has been halved 5 times, either the price of Bitcoin moves to $1 million, or the security drops. Is that okay?
It does not.
Bitcoin (and it's successors) are a decentralized solution to the double spend problem. If "decentralized" is a requirement, then a cryptocurrency can be an excellent solution. Other known solutions (like "just trust everyone") don't scale well (an understatement!).
If "decentralized" is not a requirement then there are other solutions to the double-spend problem.
Bitcoin (and it's successors) are a decentralized solution to the double spend problem. If "decentralized" is a requirement, then a cryptocurrency can be an excellent solution. Other known solutions (like "just trust everyone") don't scale well (an understatement!).
If "decentralized" is not a requirement then there are other solutions to the double-spend problem.
So it's your contention that the current traditional financial system "don't scale well (an understatement!)"?
If you’re fine with all the downsides of trusting you bank, the bank’s central bank and currency issued, the bank’s government, etc then that obviously makes Bitcoin less appealing for you. Remaining upside includes reduced friction for things like international settlement. Don’t tell me that international settlement is easy with traditional banks - I am a financial system power user and it is not.
I think this is an accurate assessment but I think authentication and account management should be seen as separate from 'identity'. Authentication can be useful without being associated with a real-world identity; for example, it can be useful for spam-prevention as an alternative to signups with captcha. You could theoretically log into multiple services which you don't trust by signing messages using your private key without revealing your passphrase to any of those services.
Authentication using the blockchain makes a great AI-resistant alternative to signups with captcha. The same account could be used by multiple independent services and this removes the need for a signup process altogether. It also removes the need for password management since you can use a single account/passphrase to log into various services without revealing your passphrase to any of these services; you can simply sign a message to prove to any service that you control an account (and know the passphrase) without actually revealing the passphrase to any of the third party services.
> The same account could be used by multiple independent services and this removes the need for a signup process altogether.
This is only marginally better than SSO with Google/Apple/Facebook/whatever. It dodges the "Google closed my account" problem, which is a meaningful improvement. But I'm not fully certain why you need the public key to be part of a blockchain for this to work. Couldn't you just publish your public key identity on any number of considerably less wasteful systems? As far as I can tell, the only advantage here is the mapping between the name "UncleMeat" and my public key would be able to be reused across services... but in so many cases I don't want my identity to be consistent across services.
This is only marginally better than SSO with Google/Apple/Facebook/whatever. It dodges the "Google closed my account" problem, which is a meaningful improvement. But I'm not fully certain why you need the public key to be part of a blockchain for this to work. Couldn't you just publish your public key identity on any number of considerably less wasteful systems? As far as I can tell, the only advantage here is the mapping between the name "UncleMeat" and my public key would be able to be reused across services... but in so many cases I don't want my identity to be consistent across services.
- Resistant to centralized censorship (as you pointed out)
- It allows you to use the same passphrase for all services without compromising security since your passphrase never needs to leave your own machine; it is never sent over the wire. You just send signatures to different services.
- The cost associated with purchasing tokens needed to initialize an account on the blockchain would serve as a spam prevention mechanism; an alternative to SIM cards which most centralized services rely on today as a cost barrier to limit the creation of spam accounts.
- Superior integration potential between different services/systems provided by different companies/groups since they can all refer to the exact same account on the same blockchain and provide new ways to unify data between the different services.
- It allows you to use the same passphrase for all services without compromising security since your passphrase never needs to leave your own machine; it is never sent over the wire. You just send signatures to different services.
- The cost associated with purchasing tokens needed to initialize an account on the blockchain would serve as a spam prevention mechanism; an alternative to SIM cards which most centralized services rely on today as a cost barrier to limit the creation of spam accounts.
- Superior integration potential between different services/systems provided by different companies/groups since they can all refer to the exact same account on the same blockchain and provide new ways to unify data between the different services.
> Resistant to centralized censorship (as you pointed out)
I'd wager that most people don't care about this much, though it is real. Still, this can be achieved with signature-based authentication that doesn't require the tremendous waste of BTC. Just... tell the service your public key and sign a message when you sign up. Your key pair doesn't need to be associated with some distributed system for that to work. This has been around for decades and not exactly caught on.
> It allows you to use the same passphrase for all services without compromising security since your passphrase never needs to leave your own machine; it is never sent over the wire. You just send signatures to different services.
This is true for all signature-based authentication, which does not necessitate a blockchain.
> The cost associated with purchasing tokens needed to initialize an account on the blockchain would serve as a spam prevention mechanism; an alternative to SIM cards which most centralized services rely on today to limit the creation of spam accounts.
This sounds like an anti-feature to me. Especially since it'd be foolish for a service to only support authentication via a blockchain. Imagine telling my grandmother that she needed to buy some btc in order to sign up for the service that hosted my wedding photos.
I'd wager that most people don't care about this much, though it is real. Still, this can be achieved with signature-based authentication that doesn't require the tremendous waste of BTC. Just... tell the service your public key and sign a message when you sign up. Your key pair doesn't need to be associated with some distributed system for that to work. This has been around for decades and not exactly caught on.
> It allows you to use the same passphrase for all services without compromising security since your passphrase never needs to leave your own machine; it is never sent over the wire. You just send signatures to different services.
This is true for all signature-based authentication, which does not necessitate a blockchain.
> The cost associated with purchasing tokens needed to initialize an account on the blockchain would serve as a spam prevention mechanism; an alternative to SIM cards which most centralized services rely on today to limit the creation of spam accounts.
This sounds like an anti-feature to me. Especially since it'd be foolish for a service to only support authentication via a blockchain. Imagine telling my grandmother that she needed to buy some btc in order to sign up for the service that hosted my wedding photos.
>> This sounds like an anti-feature to me. Especially since it'd be foolish for a service to only support authentication via a blockchain. Imagine telling my grandmother that she needed to buy some btc in order to sign up for the service that hosted my wedding photos.
This is different because your grandma would have to buy the tokens once and signup once and she will have access not only to the 'wedding photo service' but a large number of other services. It's more like paying a small amount of money to get access to an ecosystem of services. Like how people pay money to buy an iPhone and this gives them access to the Apple App Store and all the apps therein.
There will also be network effects associated with the blockchain price going up with adoption. People who signed up early to the right blockchains will have priority access to certain software ecosystems and exclusive services which are only accessible to the richest among them (for example).
This is different because your grandma would have to buy the tokens once and signup once and she will have access not only to the 'wedding photo service' but a large number of other services. It's more like paying a small amount of money to get access to an ecosystem of services. Like how people pay money to buy an iPhone and this gives them access to the Apple App Store and all the apps therein.
There will also be network effects associated with the blockchain price going up with adoption. People who signed up early to the right blockchains will have priority access to certain software ecosystems and exclusive services which are only accessible to the richest among them (for example).
> People who signed up early to the right blockchains will have priority access to certain software ecosystems and exclusive services which are only accessible to the richest among them (for example).
I cannot possibly imagine a world where services will choose to only permit authentication via some expensive blockchain such that they deny themselves access to markets outside of the global rich.
And telling my grandma "don't worry, the coins you don't understand will go up in price" is not going to help.
This is the core question: why is signature-based authentication using public keys associated with BTC wallets superior to signature-based authentication using public keys not associated with BTC wallets? As far as I can tell, the only benefit here is that now my identity on my photo sharing service can be linked to my identity on my wine rating service. Why do I want that?
I cannot possibly imagine a world where services will choose to only permit authentication via some expensive blockchain such that they deny themselves access to markets outside of the global rich.
And telling my grandma "don't worry, the coins you don't understand will go up in price" is not going to help.
This is the core question: why is signature-based authentication using public keys associated with BTC wallets superior to signature-based authentication using public keys not associated with BTC wallets? As far as I can tell, the only benefit here is that now my identity on my photo sharing service can be linked to my identity on my wine rating service. Why do I want that?
The benefit is that many third-party services and many users don't want to have to trust a centralized auth provider. The blockchain provides redundancy and security guarantees which don't require trusting company employees. Not to mention the financial incentives which are associated with being an early adopter of a blockchain project and the network effects which come from that.
I'm convinced that decentralized communities will eventually corrupt and destroy all centralized services and agencies by manipulating their employees and members... Because they can. People will always find a way to create new problems to make themselves necessary. In these political games, decentralized anonymous communities have the upper hand. Unlike centralized projects, you can't corrupt decentralized projects. What can be corrupted, will be corrupted.
To understand why it's the future, you need to look at the big picture. You're assuming that centralized auth providers are secure and trustworthy. This is not going to be true in the future. Trust in institutions and organizations has been eroding and will continue to erode.
I'm convinced that decentralized communities will eventually corrupt and destroy all centralized services and agencies by manipulating their employees and members... Because they can. People will always find a way to create new problems to make themselves necessary. In these political games, decentralized anonymous communities have the upper hand. Unlike centralized projects, you can't corrupt decentralized projects. What can be corrupted, will be corrupted.
To understand why it's the future, you need to look at the big picture. You're assuming that centralized auth providers are secure and trustworthy. This is not going to be true in the future. Trust in institutions and organizations has been eroding and will continue to erode.
OK let’s try again. What precisely is the difference between signature based auth that uses a key pair associated with a wallet and a key pair that the user submits the public key for when they sign up? Why would the latter be vulnerable to additional insider threats?
“Services will make more money because blockchains are trendy” isn’t a meaningful difference.
“Services will make more money because blockchains are trendy” isn’t a meaningful difference.
> People who signed up early to the right blockchains will have priority access to certain software ecosystems and exclusive services which are only accessible to the richest among them (for example).
This seems even more like an anti-feature TBH. Imagine not being allowed to use the future equivalent of basic services because you were not "early enough". Sorry grandma, no wedding photos for you because you didn't buy these specific three coins out of the thousands started every month.
This seems even more like an anti-feature TBH. Imagine not being allowed to use the future equivalent of basic services because you were not "early enough". Sorry grandma, no wedding photos for you because you didn't buy these specific three coins out of the thousands started every month.
> - The cost associated with purchasing tokens needed to initialize an account on the blockchain would serve as a spam prevention mechanism; an alternative to SIM cards which most centralized services rely on today as a cost barrier to limit the creation of spam accounts.
Doesn't seem like that to me. If I get banned I can just move my cash to another account and start again, and assuming multiple services does this I can amortize the cost over all of them.
The rest seems to me like something mTLS could solve better.
Doesn't seem like that to me. If I get banned I can just move my cash to another account and start again, and assuming multiple services does this I can amortize the cost over all of them.
The rest seems to me like something mTLS could solve better.
> it is never sent over the wire. You just send signatures to different services.
You don’t need blockchains for this. Ordinary websites can implement this. They usually don’t, but, they could?
You don’t need blockchains for this. Ordinary websites can implement this. They usually don’t, but, they could?
Wouldn't that make it impossible to change your password if compromised?
As the saying goes: not your keys not your wallet. This is the fundamental issue with the anonymity. You can prove you have access, but you cannot prove it belongs to you. The centralized/decentralized conversation often doesn't touch this aspect. When it comes to ownership, at some level, there needs to be a central power to enforce it as ownership is in itself a vague concept.
The path forward are contact wallets and dead man switches
Ah, so then possession becomes ten-tenths of the law. I'm not sure this is a system that we want. A system that allows for every day trading (buying something at a store) that requires a second piece of equipment to verify your identity that, if someone steals, there is no means of recourse. Sure, multiple wallets, something something, but this just sounds like a nightmare of record keeping where you offload a single point of failure to somewhere else (password manager to remember all your wallets).
You could store that second piece of equipment on your person, like an ultraviolet invisible ink qr code tattoo on your right hand or your forehead since no one can see it except under a black light.
This post is talking about what is essentially a signing setup. If your private key is stolen in such a setup, the person who steals the key becomes you.
Essentially yes :)
Essentially yes :)
Yes but it also makes it a LOT less likely that your passphrase would be compromised because it is never sent to any service over the wire; with blockchain signatures, your passphrase never needs to leave your own machine. So the service providers you log into never have any opportunity to even see your passphrase; they only see your signatures which proves that you know the passphrase. You could use a different program for signing login messages so that you don't even need to insert your passphrase inside third party UIs. You'd use one trusted program of your choice to handle logins for all the different services; just copy paste the signature into the different services.
There are some stateful blockchains which allow changing the passphrase but of course there is no 'forgot my password' feature; a malicious actor who manages to steal your passphrase could potentially use it to change your passphrase and lock you out of your account but at least you don't have to live in doubt if you suspect that your passphrase was compromised.
The idea behind the blockchain auth approach is that you would only need one passphrase for all services but you would have to secure it carefully since losing it would cause you to be locked out of all services associated with that account.
There are some stateful blockchains which allow changing the passphrase but of course there is no 'forgot my password' feature; a malicious actor who manages to steal your passphrase could potentially use it to change your passphrase and lock you out of your account but at least you don't have to live in doubt if you suspect that your passphrase was compromised.
The idea behind the blockchain auth approach is that you would only need one passphrase for all services but you would have to secure it carefully since losing it would cause you to be locked out of all services associated with that account.
If someone does steal your identity in this way, there's no way of getting it back. You can't appeal to any authority, because there's no authority to appeal to in a decentralised system. You literally have to start again and create a new identity.
So you're gambling bigger: less likely to have your identity stolen, but complete loss of everything to do with that identity, with no recourse, if it is stolen.
I'm not sure I like those odds.
So you're gambling bigger: less likely to have your identity stolen, but complete loss of everything to do with that identity, with no recourse, if it is stolen.
I'm not sure I like those odds.
It can't be much worse than relatives claiming you as dead so they can have your house, and then every government system denies you any service because you're "dead"
> Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer
An amazingly succinct title. Absolutely true. Whenever someone hypes up cryptocurrency, it is almost always for their personal gain, directly or indirectly.
An amazingly succinct title. Absolutely true. Whenever someone hypes up cryptocurrency, it is almost always for their personal gain, directly or indirectly.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
What was Satoshi lying about? What has he done with his riches?
> The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
This is not the motivation of someone trying to get richer. It's someone who cares deeply about humanity.
Is it so hard to believe that there are others in the space with similar motivations?
What was Satoshi lying about? What has he done with his riches?
> The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
This is not the motivation of someone trying to get richer. It's someone who cares deeply about humanity.
Is it so hard to believe that there are others in the space with similar motivations?
Who cares what Satoshi said back then. What Bitcoin has become now is a complete sham with early adopters stoking the flames of FOMO to get rich quick at the expense of everyone else.
I wish cryptocurrency fans would stop smelling their own farts for once and realize they aren't the absolute geniuses in finance that they claim to be. It's arrogant.
I wish cryptocurrency fans would stop smelling their own farts for once and realize they aren't the absolute geniuses in finance that they claim to be. It's arrogant.
And I wish cryptocurrency detractors would stop lick state boot, calling for bans and throwing out stupid arguments like energy usage.
While many in the coin space are arrogant from ignorance, I would argue that the detractors are universally arrogant with their ignorance.
Bitcoin people are trying to decentralize the world. Make the powerful less powerful. Free humanity from debt economies, inflation, weak fiscal policy and the slow theft of fruits of your labor.
AntiBitcoin people are trying to centralize the world. Empower the already powerful. Stamp that boot onto the face of humanity forever. Ensure that the state can always rob its people of their savings and lifes work, and force compliance with weak fiscal policy, negative interest rates.
I think I know which is on the correct side of history.
While many in the coin space are arrogant from ignorance, I would argue that the detractors are universally arrogant with their ignorance.
Bitcoin people are trying to decentralize the world. Make the powerful less powerful. Free humanity from debt economies, inflation, weak fiscal policy and the slow theft of fruits of your labor.
AntiBitcoin people are trying to centralize the world. Empower the already powerful. Stamp that boot onto the face of humanity forever. Ensure that the state can always rob its people of their savings and lifes work, and force compliance with weak fiscal policy, negative interest rates.
I think I know which is on the correct side of history.
>Bitcoin people are trying to decentralize the world. Make the powerful less powerful. Free humanity from debt economies, inflation, weak fiscal policy and the slow theft of fruits of your labor.
I have looked at lots of potential money systems and I'd say most cryptocurrencies fall into the usual deflation speculation death that lots of government currencies (especially during the gold standard) have fallen victim to.
In fact, most currencies are heading down that route. The euro and yen are prime examples. It's kind of funny how people shout about inflation the most when it's been super low for a long time. They complain about inflation when their real problem is that they have no bargaining power because inflation target policies are also supposed to inflate wages. Bitcoin also doesn't solve the rentier problem with land. If your purchasing power magically increases with Bitcoin then the land owner just gets more of your money.
I am really tired of the anti debt crap. The only reason people would be against debt is that there are crazy people who are out of touch with reality who insist on permanent positive interest rates. Just think about the absurdity of hating debt when interest rates are negative. It's simply illogical.
>AntiBitcoin people are trying to centralize the world. Empower the already powerful.
Deflation is empowering the rich. That's what positive real interest rates do. If you have a lot of Bitcoin and Bitcoin goes up in value then you get more gains than a poor person with very few Bitcoin. Inflation and negative interest rates hurt those who are rich the most and hurt those who have very little the least.
>Stamp that boot onto the face of humanity forever.
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke?
>Ensure that the state can always rob its people of their savings and lifes work, and force compliance with weak fiscal policy, negative interest rates.
Savings are literally just a reduction in demand for labor. Reducing your demand for labor doesn't make anyone wealthier by itself. It's only because there are other people who want that labor that saving even earns a return. You are basically paid to reduce your demand so that other, more productive people get to have the scarce labor. If you reduce your demand for labor and nobody ends up demanding the freed up labor then you basically worked for nothing. The entire point of inflation and negative interest rates are to get this fact into your damn head. You are piling up a bunch of potatoes that spoil before you eat them. Stop that.
I have looked at lots of potential money systems and I'd say most cryptocurrencies fall into the usual deflation speculation death that lots of government currencies (especially during the gold standard) have fallen victim to.
In fact, most currencies are heading down that route. The euro and yen are prime examples. It's kind of funny how people shout about inflation the most when it's been super low for a long time. They complain about inflation when their real problem is that they have no bargaining power because inflation target policies are also supposed to inflate wages. Bitcoin also doesn't solve the rentier problem with land. If your purchasing power magically increases with Bitcoin then the land owner just gets more of your money.
I am really tired of the anti debt crap. The only reason people would be against debt is that there are crazy people who are out of touch with reality who insist on permanent positive interest rates. Just think about the absurdity of hating debt when interest rates are negative. It's simply illogical.
>AntiBitcoin people are trying to centralize the world. Empower the already powerful.
Deflation is empowering the rich. That's what positive real interest rates do. If you have a lot of Bitcoin and Bitcoin goes up in value then you get more gains than a poor person with very few Bitcoin. Inflation and negative interest rates hurt those who are rich the most and hurt those who have very little the least.
>Stamp that boot onto the face of humanity forever.
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke?
>Ensure that the state can always rob its people of their savings and lifes work, and force compliance with weak fiscal policy, negative interest rates.
Savings are literally just a reduction in demand for labor. Reducing your demand for labor doesn't make anyone wealthier by itself. It's only because there are other people who want that labor that saving even earns a return. You are basically paid to reduce your demand so that other, more productive people get to have the scarce labor. If you reduce your demand for labor and nobody ends up demanding the freed up labor then you basically worked for nothing. The entire point of inflation and negative interest rates are to get this fact into your damn head. You are piling up a bunch of potatoes that spoil before you eat them. Stop that.
I fundamentally disagree with everything you have written, from definitions, to target of harms, to outcomes. I think your philosophy is dangerous and harmful.
So, No, I will not stop that. Thank Satoshi that I don't need to.
I choose to opt of your authoritarian and paternalistic philosophies. I will always convert fruits of my labor into hard money, where you cannot hurt me.
You can't stop us (all).
So, No, I will not stop that. Thank Satoshi that I don't need to.
I choose to opt of your authoritarian and paternalistic philosophies. I will always convert fruits of my labor into hard money, where you cannot hurt me.
You can't stop us (all).
This statement is actually quite similar to what I used to hear people say at a stock technical analysis class. In speculative financial markets, one person's loss is another person's gain. So almost no one is going to give you any advice that will help you.. more likely they're helping themselves by misdirecting you.
Absolutely. And with anything that involves greed and riches.
And likewise, whenever someone downplays/criticizes cryptocurrency, it is almost always for their personal gain, directly or indirectly.
I want poor people to stop losing their money to scammers. This is primarily who loses money in pump and dumps. Rich people pump the currency, recruit, then dump.
FOMO hits the poor way harder than it does the rich. Rich people have lots of places to invest their money that give good returns and they don't need to "get rich quick".
I want cryptocurrencies shut down so they stop using insane amounts of power so that people can gamble.
We all indirectly gain if cryptocurrencies cease to exist, because less carbon will be released into the atmosphere.
FOMO hits the poor way harder than it does the rich. Rich people have lots of places to invest their money that give good returns and they don't need to "get rich quick".
I want cryptocurrencies shut down so they stop using insane amounts of power so that people can gamble.
We all indirectly gain if cryptocurrencies cease to exist, because less carbon will be released into the atmosphere.
> I want poor people to stop losing their money to scammers
Then your ire should be directed at scammers, not a specific implementation detail of their scams. Should we abolish wire transfers and gift cards because scammers use those in scams, too? How about stocks, while we're at it? Those get pumped and dumped all the time, too.
> I want cryptocurrencies shut down so they stop using insane amounts of power so that people can gamble.
> We all indirectly gain if cryptocurrencies cease to exist, because less carbon will be released into the atmosphere.
Not all cryptocurrencies are proof of work; proof of stake, for example, is increasingly common (Cardano is the biggest current example, and Ethereum is moving toward it) and uses negligible energy (and therefore releases negligible carbon into the atmosphere).
Then your ire should be directed at scammers, not a specific implementation detail of their scams. Should we abolish wire transfers and gift cards because scammers use those in scams, too? How about stocks, while we're at it? Those get pumped and dumped all the time, too.
> I want cryptocurrencies shut down so they stop using insane amounts of power so that people can gamble.
> We all indirectly gain if cryptocurrencies cease to exist, because less carbon will be released into the atmosphere.
Not all cryptocurrencies are proof of work; proof of stake, for example, is increasingly common (Cardano is the biggest current example, and Ethereum is moving toward it) and uses negligible energy (and therefore releases negligible carbon into the atmosphere).
Cryptocurrency gives people something they want. At best it might a new decentralized leaderless censorship-resistant free-as-in-freedom finance platform. At worst it might be a new decentralized leaderless pyramid scheme where we don't even need a Bernie Madoff because now we have The Algorithm.
If I am simultaneously cynical and hopeful, maybe it will have an adolescence of B and mature into A.
Except its not very decentralized and leaderless. It is dominated by a few ultra rich players, to an even greater extent than the stock market. And that didn't democratise finance either.
This article argues that they are currently used transactionally to launder money. Not the only way to launder money. Not an easy way to promote prosperity among the poor, either. Not even a heuristic to tell the good sources of money from blood-stained ones.
To get to (B) from here, we must endure some path dependence that takes us through an era of unaccountable wealth transfer.
To get to (B) from here, we must endure some path dependence that takes us through an era of unaccountable wealth transfer.
The whole NFT craze lost me when tech founders I once highly respected started pushing and showing off their ugly gifs and trading cards on Twitter.
Bad taste of the bored rich is not a new thing, but I hope NFTs won't become a noble tradition.
Bad taste of the bored rich is not a new thing, but I hope NFTs won't become a noble tradition.
I must be getting old because I just don't get NFT's. They look stupid and I don't get why anyone would buy them. Declining tech companies and startups seem to be trying to crowbar them into their products much like Blockchain when it was new and shiny. Perhaps younger me would of seen something I can't anymore.
The thing about NFTs is that many people who buy them "don't get NFTs".
All an NFT is is a token that represents ownership, like if the title to your car or house deed was on a blockchain.
NFTs have some sane use causes like designating the owner of a valuable asset or creating electronic tickets that can be resold or transferred without some centralized entity like ticketmaster.
Prior to NFTs existing, would you purchase the ownership rights to a gif or tweet? Probably not. And that is what is dumb about the excitement around NFTs, some people with more money than sense seem to think that now that you can represent ownership on a blockchain some things, like crappy jpegs, have suddenly become valuable assets.
All an NFT is is a token that represents ownership, like if the title to your car or house deed was on a blockchain.
NFTs have some sane use causes like designating the owner of a valuable asset or creating electronic tickets that can be resold or transferred without some centralized entity like ticketmaster.
Prior to NFTs existing, would you purchase the ownership rights to a gif or tweet? Probably not. And that is what is dumb about the excitement around NFTs, some people with more money than sense seem to think that now that you can represent ownership on a blockchain some things, like crappy jpegs, have suddenly become valuable assets.
Thing is, NFTs don't represent ownership, absent some external legal documents which tie ownership to the NFT. (And even with such external documents p perhaps not; see e.g. the statute of frauds which restricts in what form land ownership can be transferred.)
I can sell NFTs of bridges all day long; doesn't mean anyone is buying a bridge.
I can sell NFTs of bridges all day long; doesn't mean anyone is buying a bridge.
An NFT is decent evidence in favour of the keyholder being the creator of a work, if there's no earlier evidence of somebody else being the creator of the work.
When people first started talking about them I thought that was the idea - a kind of people's copyright registry on the blockchain. Which seems like a fairly reasonable idea, as far as it goes.
Edit: To be clear, I mean a copyright registry that is used for the sort of thing copyright registries are used for, ie. adjudicating copyright disputes. I am not saying an NFT of the Mona Lisa is good evidence you painted the Mona Lisa (unless you minted it in 1502), and I'm definitely not saying the current market in NFTs is sensible.
When people first started talking about them I thought that was the idea - a kind of people's copyright registry on the blockchain. Which seems like a fairly reasonable idea, as far as it goes.
Edit: To be clear, I mean a copyright registry that is used for the sort of thing copyright registries are used for, ie. adjudicating copyright disputes. I am not saying an NFT of the Mona Lisa is good evidence you painted the Mona Lisa (unless you minted it in 1502), and I'm definitely not saying the current market in NFTs is sensible.
> An NFT is decent evidence in favour of you being the creator of a work, if there's no earlier evidence of somebody else being the creator of the work
It's really not at all reliable. I could create an NFT for the "Joeboy" HN account right now, and ostensibly become the owner of your HN account since such an NFT does not already exist. Obviously, this makes no sense, the NFT is meaningless.
It's really not at all reliable. I could create an NFT for the "Joeboy" HN account right now, and ostensibly become the owner of your HN account since such an NFT does not already exist. Obviously, this makes no sense, the NFT is meaningless.
No, you could create an NFT that supposedly represents that but unless people buy into the idea, no is becoming the owner of anything.
If instead Ycombinator would release each user as an NFT, and allow people to buy/sell then, then yes you could become the owner of an HN account via NFTs. But until then, the one who knows the password is the owner.
People seems to have some sort of problem with trying to understand NFTs were all thoughts and logic go out the window as soon as NFTs are mentioned.
If instead Ycombinator would release each user as an NFT, and allow people to buy/sell then, then yes you could become the owner of an HN account via NFTs. But until then, the one who knows the password is the owner.
People seems to have some sort of problem with trying to understand NFTs were all thoughts and logic go out the window as soon as NFTs are mentioned.
As I understood their comment, they were pointing out the absurdity of the idea you are also pointing out the absurdity of.
[deleted]
If there was no evidence of the account existing before you registered the NFT, I think that would be a reasonably credible bit of evidence in your favour.
It's not at all there is rampant fraud in the NFT market. So much so Deviantart made some detection software to help alert artists their work is being stolen.
All that can be definitively proved outside of other methods is who created the token.
All that can be definitively proved outside of other methods is who created the token.
It sounds like you're talking about cases where, as I said, there's "earlier evidence of somebody else being the creator of the work". In the absence of that, I think the token would be a decent piece of evidence in favour of the token owner.
So would posting it anywhere online essentially. Twitter would work for the same usecase. Or the old sending it to yourself through the mail thing.
NFTs also don’t put the image on chain usually instead just linking from the metadata so a fraudster could register a bunch of placeholder NFTs and then later put stolen art where the link points to. Hey Presto you can steal art and “prove” the actual creator is the fraud.
NFTs also don’t put the image on chain usually instead just linking from the metadata so a fraudster could register a bunch of placeholder NFTs and then later put stolen art where the link points to. Hey Presto you can steal art and “prove” the actual creator is the fraud.
Well, posting the actual content publicly would obviously make it public, which registering a hash on the blockchain would not. "Sending it to yourself through the mail" would probably be the competition, and I would say a cryptographic hash is at least as good as a postmark, as well as cheaper.
Anyway. I wasn't talking about NFTs as they exist today. I'm just saying the original concept (as I understood it) seemed basically reasonable, before everybody went insane.
Anyway. I wasn't talking about NFTs as they exist today. I'm just saying the original concept (as I understood it) seemed basically reasonable, before everybody went insane.
The useful part of what you describe is called timestamping and predated (and inspired) Bitcoin.
> An NFT is decent evidence in favour of the keyholder being the creator of a work, if there's no earlier evidence of somebody else being the creator of the work.
The second clause shows why the first is not true: the other evidence is what gives you the information you need. In every context where it really matters it comes down to what a court would accept and … uh … I would not want to be the one having to tell a judge that something is proof of ownership when anyone on the internet could submit the same record.
The second clause shows why the first is not true: the other evidence is what gives you the information you need. In every context where it really matters it comes down to what a court would accept and … uh … I would not want to be the one having to tell a judge that something is proof of ownership when anyone on the internet could submit the same record.
I can't say for sure what a judge would make of a cryptographically secure hash of a piece of content that there's no record of prior to the hash's registration on a blockchain. I think if somebody tries to claim authorship of eg. a screenplay I've written, such a hash should be pretty good evidence in my favour.
[deleted]
Yeah, an NFT is more like a receipt. Except when you buy one, you only get the receipt. The actual item remains "out there".
> Thing is, NFTs don't represent ownership, absent some external legal documents which tie ownership to the NFT.
NFTs are the ownership-tying documents - specifically, asserting ownership over some property, just like any other deed/title to some property (be it tangible or abstract/intellectual). NFTs, like any other sort of deed/title, require recognition, validation, and enforcement by society at large to have any real value.
That is:
> I can sell NFTs of bridges all day long; doesn't mean anyone is buying a bridge.
I can sell deeds/titles to bridges all day long (complete with thick paper and fancy seals); doesn't mean anyone is buying a bridge.
NFTs are the ownership-tying documents - specifically, asserting ownership over some property, just like any other deed/title to some property (be it tangible or abstract/intellectual). NFTs, like any other sort of deed/title, require recognition, validation, and enforcement by society at large to have any real value.
That is:
> I can sell NFTs of bridges all day long; doesn't mean anyone is buying a bridge.
I can sell deeds/titles to bridges all day long (complete with thick paper and fancy seals); doesn't mean anyone is buying a bridge.
[deleted]
> All an NFT is is a token that represents ownership, like if the title to your car or house deed was on a blockchain.
No. An NFT is just a few bytes of text pinned to a blockchain. They are essentially useless, and every useful property of an NFT can be achieved using asymmetric encryption or digital signatures, the blockchain component is just wasteful hype.
No. An NFT is just a few bytes of text pinned to a blockchain. They are essentially useless, and every useful property of an NFT can be achieved using asymmetric encryption or digital signatures, the blockchain component is just wasteful hype.
If an external source - say the Twitter account of an artist - can authenticate that the holder of the NFT is who the creator of the art work wants to be recognized as the owner, then social consensus will lead to widespread value assignment to that NFT.
The ability to hold and trade the NFT on the public blockchain makes that asset accessible to a large number of autonomous on-chain markets, like dApps which allow a person to take out self-executing loans that use the NFT as collateral.
The ability to hold and trade the NFT on the public blockchain makes that asset accessible to a large number of autonomous on-chain markets, like dApps which allow a person to take out self-executing loans that use the NFT as collateral.
> If an external source - say the Twitter account of an artist - can authenticate that the holder of the NFT is who the creator of the art work wants to be recognized as the owner, then social consensus will lead to widespread value assignment to that NFT.
In other words, you don't need the blockchain because the actual value comes from a different system. The only thing it's adding is overhead and unreliability.
In other words, you don't need the blockchain because the actual value comes from a different system. The only thing it's adding is overhead and unreliability.
The second paragraph explains the utility of issuing it on the blockchain.
It fails to establish that this is unique to a blockchain: we do, after all, have decades of experience building distributed applications and it’s not like banks haven’t issued loans before and the hypothetical benefits have to be weighed against the added costs of relying a very slow, expensive database with no mechanism to correct bugs or fraud.
What I described IS unique to blockchains:
"makes that asset accessible to a large number of autonomous on-chain markets, like dApps which allow a person to take out self-executing loans that use the NFT as collateral"
What market undergridded by banks provides these features.
The blockchain provides extremely high assurances of up-time and immutability in its protocol rules - which assures accessibility and protection from third party interference. This is ideal as a digital asset registry.
"makes that asset accessible to a large number of autonomous on-chain markets, like dApps which allow a person to take out self-executing loans that use the NFT as collateral"
What market undergridded by banks provides these features.
The blockchain provides extremely high assurances of up-time and immutability in its protocol rules - which assures accessibility and protection from third party interference. This is ideal as a digital asset registry.
NFTs don't sell ownership rights. NFTs are equivalent of buying photographs of a celebrity. You may own NFT that represents Taylor Swift, but she aint going on a dinner date with you.
Not to mention you are not the only one to hold it either as someone else can Taylor Swift NFT and sell it to.
It is exactly same as buying and owning cards of your favourite celebrity. They are worthless even compared to cowdung and have absolutely not practical value.
One has to be high on drugs to buy ugly gifs for thousands of dollars.
Not to mention you are not the only one to hold it either as someone else can Taylor Swift NFT and sell it to.
It is exactly same as buying and owning cards of your favourite celebrity. They are worthless even compared to cowdung and have absolutely not practical value.
One has to be high on drugs to buy ugly gifs for thousands of dollars.
The NFTs that people are making their profile pictures are drastically different from the celebrity and athlete NFTs put out by DraftKings or topshot. The NFTs in profile pics on Twitter (like crypto punks) have randomly generated features making each and every minted nft completely unique.
I feel like there are two vastly different audiences with NFTs. The casual, celebrity/athlete NFTs that are selling multiple of some persons face for fiat currency, and parole who are actively participating in minting NFTs with web3 dApps made by developers with roadmaps and a strong community.
I feel like there are two vastly different audiences with NFTs. The casual, celebrity/athlete NFTs that are selling multiple of some persons face for fiat currency, and parole who are actively participating in minting NFTs with web3 dApps made by developers with roadmaps and a strong community.
Can't understand "Ownership of a Tweet" as Twitter owns them - or at the very least they can destroy them whenever they want.
Yep. It's a completely made up problem. It's maybe useful in enforcing existing IP law (i.e., I can prove that that picture is mine), but even that is questionable (proof of ownership of digital IP has already been proven satisfactorily for courts of law to rule on it).
The fact there is a new way of proving ownership doesn't make the thing owned valuable.
The fact there is a new way of proving ownership doesn't make the thing owned valuable.
As far as I'm aware, the NFT doesn't itself convey any transfer of copyrights (or any other form of IP). That has to be done by a separate document (and therefore it's that document that transfers the rights, not the NFT). So I don't see how the NFT is doing anything to help enforce existing IP laws?
NFTs don't actually prove ownership of anything but themselves. Owning a hash of a URL has no connection to the real world, and can't prove that the NFT was created by the author of the artwork.
It makes me doubly furious that NFT is advertised as caring for artists. In fact, NFT makes it easier than ever to sell stolen artwork. NFT itself doesn't contain any copyrighted material, and selling metadata/URLs is not illegal, so it's likely that fraud through NFT is de-facto legal if you just carefully word it as selling the NFT of the artwork, and not the artwork itself.
It makes me doubly furious that NFT is advertised as caring for artists. In fact, NFT makes it easier than ever to sell stolen artwork. NFT itself doesn't contain any copyrighted material, and selling metadata/URLs is not illegal, so it's likely that fraud through NFT is de-facto legal if you just carefully word it as selling the NFT of the artwork, and not the artwork itself.
I'm not saying it does; I AM saying that it's an additional public record that can be used to bolster a case in the event of unclear ownership. And even that is "maybe" useful, hence my use of that phrase.
[deleted]
Here's an NFT which is the best description I've ever seen of what NFTs actually are, https://foundation.app/@visualizevalue/nfts-explained-12012
It sold for 74 ETH.
It sold for 74 ETH.
Except that, it's not even true.
NFTs are equivalent to a orange checkmark on the website twotter.com that I just set up.
NFTs are equivalent to a orange checkmark on the website twotter.com that I just set up.
I imagine it could actually develop into a similar situation for physical art. There is an original work that is worth a lot because humans are weird like that, and an entire industry of experts who try to sort out the actual original NFT that was minted by the artist over the duplicates and fakes.
For example, we know the original creator of Nyan Cat came out of the woodwork to retroactively mint an NFT for it, https://foundation.app/@NyanCat/nyan-cat-219, which sold for 300 ETH. Obviously, anyone can create an NFT with the same gif, but we are reasonably certain that the actual created this ONE and declared it be the original.
Obviously, this is a very odd thing to try to wrap your head around, but is it really that different from valuing original physical artwork?
For example, we know the original creator of Nyan Cat came out of the woodwork to retroactively mint an NFT for it, https://foundation.app/@NyanCat/nyan-cat-219, which sold for 300 ETH. Obviously, anyone can create an NFT with the same gif, but we are reasonably certain that the actual created this ONE and declared it be the original.
Obviously, this is a very odd thing to try to wrap your head around, but is it really that different from valuing original physical artwork?
Which is about approximately $240,000 USD.
Hrm...I wonder if I should mint some nft's?
And so it begins.
Hrm...I wonder if I should mint some nft's?
And so it begins.
I think it's more likely that the author of this NFT paid this much to himself. It's the pump phase of a pump and dump scam.
This is the equivalent of someone seeing how much a Picasso sells and wondering if they should become an artist. For every success, there are 10,000 failures.
That's true, but in the Picasso scenario I actually need to learn to do art. In the NFT case, apparently a 3rd grade level of photoshop skills would do.
You could also tape a banana to a wall and sell it for $120k in the traditional art world. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/maurizio-cattelan-banana-c...
Don't mistake extreme technical skill as being the sole reason humans value things. Sometimes, it's just about being the first to effectively convey a new idea, and the crudeness of the execution doesn't matter. And there are plenty of extremely skilled artists that spend decades mastering their craft whose work is effectively worthless, because they're not actually breaking new ground.
Don't mistake extreme technical skill as being the sole reason humans value things. Sometimes, it's just about being the first to effectively convey a new idea, and the crudeness of the execution doesn't matter. And there are plenty of extremely skilled artists that spend decades mastering their craft whose work is effectively worthless, because they're not actually breaking new ground.
In hindsight, I was making a joke that seeing the value of an NFT has convinced me to make NFT's - and that this is the very cycle which has made NFT's valuable.
I was not actually implying that I would literally start making NFT's right now.
I did however forget that jokes and humor were against Hackernews rules, and for that I thank you kind sir for the reminder.
I was not actually implying that I would literally start making NFT's right now.
I did however forget that jokes and humor were against Hackernews rules, and for that I thank you kind sir for the reminder.
3rd-grade photoshop and weapons-grade marketing
s/Picasso/Rothko/
To make that nft would take me - or my 8 year old niece - no more than 2-3 hours to craft.
Learning to mix paint like Rothko would take years.
Learning to mix paint like Rothko would take years.
Beanie Babies also looked stupid. It's just another fad and bubble.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubbl...
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubbl...
At least you may physically own a beanie doll.
Exactly. If you think your beanie baby is still interesting in 2021, you can put it on a shelf. Showing off your NFT quickly devolves to "cool story, bro."
The only implementation of NFTs I've come across that doesn't look like a fly-by-night operation is NBA's Top Shot, where you can buy video NFTs of special moments in NBA history.
At the very least, you can buy a piece of IP directly from the IP holder, and receive a package that's nicely presented.
It's still totally overpriced, but I can see at least some value. It still needs to go a step further technologically. Like a special app that allows you to view the NFT with AR features artificially implemented. Or displaying it in a holographic form, especially for moments captured with 360-degree cameras.
At the very least, you can buy a piece of IP directly from the IP holder, and receive a package that's nicely presented.
It's still totally overpriced, but I can see at least some value. It still needs to go a step further technologically. Like a special app that allows you to view the NFT with AR features artificially implemented. Or displaying it in a holographic form, especially for moments captured with 360-degree cameras.
> At the very least, you can buy a piece of IP directly from the IP holder
You're not really buying the IP in any meaningful way, though, you just get a non-exclusive, non-transferable (!) right to display it. They can still air it or license it to others without paying you royalties.
You're not really buying the IP in any meaningful way, though, you just get a non-exclusive, non-transferable (!) right to display it. They can still air it or license it to others without paying you royalties.
I understand that, I am likening it to purchasing a DVD of a game, which is something that used to happen. Maybe not in the NBA, but in soccer, some clubs do put out DVDs of famous victories.
And even then, I'd say those mass-manufactured DVDs with 90 mins of content are intrinsically more valuable than a GIF-length video clip.
And even then, I'd say those mass-manufactured DVDs with 90 mins of content are intrinsically more valuable than a GIF-length video clip.
Ah, I think we agree then. I guess someone could make the argument that even though the license to reproduce is limited (e.g. it must be non-commercial), you technically have more IP rights with a TopShots NFT than with a DVD. But yeah, I'd take the DVD myself (if I still owned a player).
My main complaint with Top Shot is that the moments exist only on the proprietary site. They also can't be traded anywhere but that site. This removes any value the nft aspect brings to the table as it's now single-point-of-failure.
There was talk about expanding off the one site, but I haven't seen any progress there.
There was talk about expanding off the one site, but I haven't seen any progress there.
TopShot is nice and I made some money on it — but it only takes fiat currency and can’t be sent to my cold storage or transferred off the marketplace. Nothing about it is in the spirit of an NFT or anything decentralized.
I'm still skeptical, but think of them as digital goods that you own, and that can follow you across applications. If you collect items in a game, you can have them in another place too.
The metaverse pitch is that you can create economies around these that aren't constrained to a single application. I can make and sell cool art, and you can buy that art and put it anywhere - and it's yours, in a way that a downloaded PNG just isn't.
The metaverse pitch is that you can create economies around these that aren't constrained to a single application. I can make and sell cool art, and you can buy that art and put it anywhere - and it's yours, in a way that a downloaded PNG just isn't.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing to "get":
https://www.fortressofdoors.com/the-degraded-blockchain-prob...
I feel exactly the same way when thinking about the 90s. Telemetry and multimedia... two words that back then had exactly the same vibe to me. Both sounded as ambitious as ambiguous, raised millions and made zero business sense despite sounding glamorous and all-encompassing.
The writing was on the wall when the big newspapers gave stock tips for consumers on the hottest newest telemetry startups.
We all know how it went.
The writing was on the wall when the big newspapers gave stock tips for consumers on the hottest newest telemetry startups.
We all know how it went.
NFTs can be anything.
I don't get the art focus.
They can be a degree, a concert ticket, a driving license, a permission to a API service, equity to a company.
I don't get the art focus.
They can be a degree, a concert ticket, a driving license, a permission to a API service, equity to a company.
Out of the examples you gave, degrees, driving licenses, and permission to an API service are not suitable for NFTs, since they cannot/should not be traded. Presumably we do not want for people to sell their driving licenses or their degrees.
The (non-) fugibility of a token is just one aspect of it.
You can code a non-tradable NFT no problem.
Tradable NFTs are just the hype right now.
You can code a non-tradable NFT no problem.
Tradable NFTs are just the hype right now.
> You can code a non-tradable NFT no problem.
WTF does that even mean?
Do people remember what a blockchain even is, at this point?
A blockchain is a chain of transactions. You take away the transactions, and its not a blockchain anymore. Unless we really stretch the definition of a "transaction" or blockchain......
Cryptocurrency has lost the plot. People are talking about blockchains, that don't have mining, or transactions now apparently.
WTF does that even mean?
Do people remember what a blockchain even is, at this point?
A blockchain is a chain of transactions. You take away the transactions, and its not a blockchain anymore. Unless we really stretch the definition of a "transaction" or blockchain......
Cryptocurrency has lost the plot. People are talking about blockchains, that don't have mining, or transactions now apparently.
So you limit the types of transactions in your blockchain to "this thing has been issued to this person/id/hash/whatever" and do not have any transactions of the type "this thing has changed ownership to a new person/id/hash/whatever". A bank account that allows deposits but no withdrawals/transfers, its still a ledger, it just limits the operations you are allowed to do (not the operations you could theoretically do).
When a central authority is in charge of adding transactions to the blockchain, ie: DMV issuing licences, what's the advantage of blockchain over a standard database?
As long as it's done on a public blockchain, validation becomes possible without needing to contact the DMV itself to provide that validation. For example, if you have a California driver's license and I (as a Nevadan) want to verify its validity (say, because I'm running a bar and you don't look 21+), I could check whatever public blockchain to which California posts its ID NFTs, compare that to some reference on the physical ID you're showing me, and make sure the data (namely: name, DOB, etc. - or perhaps a hash of it) matches up; currently that would require either talking to the DMV directly or using some third-party service that does so on my behalf. This becomes even more useful when dealing with international identification, since that tends to involve even more red tape with current systems.
Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be a single central authority adding transactions; a whole bunch of DMVs could very well post to the same blockchain and only trust the validity of ID tokens issued by one another (i.e. with some out-of-band method to associate keys with actual DMVs, much like PGP's "web of trust" concept). This could even pave the way to things like drivers' licenses being partially or fully decentralized, with independent issuing authorities trusting one another based on some external certification process (e.g. "the California DMV has audited Foo Bar Licensing, Inc. and verified that it issues licenses in compliance with the California Vehicle Code, and therefore recognizes FBL-issued licenses as valid").
Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be a single central authority adding transactions; a whole bunch of DMVs could very well post to the same blockchain and only trust the validity of ID tokens issued by one another (i.e. with some out-of-band method to associate keys with actual DMVs, much like PGP's "web of trust" concept). This could even pave the way to things like drivers' licenses being partially or fully decentralized, with independent issuing authorities trusting one another based on some external certification process (e.g. "the California DMV has audited Foo Bar Licensing, Inc. and verified that it issues licenses in compliance with the California Vehicle Code, and therefore recognizes FBL-issued licenses as valid").
> some out-of-band method
> some external certification process
Or just skip the extra complexity and have it all handled by a central authority?
Yes, you can use a blockchain to implement it how you describe, but I still don't buy that it has any real advantages. Also, who would run the blockchain?
> a whole bunch of DMVs could very well post to the same blockchain and only trust the validity of ID tokens issued by one another
> with independent issuing authorities trusting one another
If they are the only ones who can issue tokens and they have to trust each other anyway, why does it need to be a blockchain anyway instead of some shared database? Or if you want to keep it distributed, a peer-to-peer distributed hash table or other peer-to-peer database of ID tokens that only the DMV's have write access to. No need for a blockchain.
> if you have a California driver's license and I (as a Nevadan) want to verify its validity
If all the states share a blockchain, then they could just as easily share a database and web interface that you can look up. If they don't share a blockchain, then I don't see how its any different from each having their own system. I mean, even if its a blockchain, how well it works is then up to each state and if there's a centrally mandated blockchain they should be using, then there could also be a centrally mandated database they could be using. It just moves the goal posts around, it doen't in itself solve it. The person checking (bar staff in your example) still need a website or app that they can input the data to derive the hash (as not to leak personal data) and check the hash against the blockchain, this could just as easily work against a central or state database and how well it works, in either case, is still very much dependent on each state.
It seems overly complicated to build this on or as a blockchain.
> some external certification process
Or just skip the extra complexity and have it all handled by a central authority?
Yes, you can use a blockchain to implement it how you describe, but I still don't buy that it has any real advantages. Also, who would run the blockchain?
> a whole bunch of DMVs could very well post to the same blockchain and only trust the validity of ID tokens issued by one another
> with independent issuing authorities trusting one another
If they are the only ones who can issue tokens and they have to trust each other anyway, why does it need to be a blockchain anyway instead of some shared database? Or if you want to keep it distributed, a peer-to-peer distributed hash table or other peer-to-peer database of ID tokens that only the DMV's have write access to. No need for a blockchain.
> if you have a California driver's license and I (as a Nevadan) want to verify its validity
If all the states share a blockchain, then they could just as easily share a database and web interface that you can look up. If they don't share a blockchain, then I don't see how its any different from each having their own system. I mean, even if its a blockchain, how well it works is then up to each state and if there's a centrally mandated blockchain they should be using, then there could also be a centrally mandated database they could be using. It just moves the goal posts around, it doen't in itself solve it. The person checking (bar staff in your example) still need a website or app that they can input the data to derive the hash (as not to leak personal data) and check the hash against the blockchain, this could just as easily work against a central or state database and how well it works, in either case, is still very much dependent on each state.
It seems overly complicated to build this on or as a blockchain.
> Or just skip the extra complexity and have it all handled by a central authority?
Then every agency would have to trust some central authority. Maybe doable for interstate queries (with the associated federal bloat, but that's hardly anything new), but once you go international that becomes a lot harder.
> Also, who would run the blockchain?
Who runs Bitcoin? Ethereum? Cardano? Dogecoin?
> If they are the only ones who can issue tokens and they have to trust each other anyway, why does it need to be a blockchain anyway instead of some shared database?
The amount of trust required for "I'm reasonably sure this agency issued this driver's license" is far lower than the trust required for "I'm okay with this agency having control over my agency's records".
> Or if you want to keep it distributed, a peer-to-peer distributed hash table or other peer-to-peer database of ID tokens that only the DMV's have write access to.
A.k.a. a blockchain. You don't even need to restrict write access; DMVs can readily ignore transactions by non-DMV entities.
> If all the states share a blockchain, then they could just as easily share a database and web interface that you can look up.
That ain't anywhere near as easy, both politically and technically. This is already something they struggle do to, and distributed ledgers make that struggle entirely unnecessary.
> if there's a centrally mandated blockchain they should be using
There wouldn't need to be a mandate. States are perfectly capable of making agreements with one another, and could opt into a public blockchain at their leisure. CCW reciprocity is a good example of this; states have on their own come to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states, and a blockchain would be a natural fit for recording and authenticating said permits under that dynamic.
Even assuming the need for a mandate, it's a hell of a lot easier for the federal government to say "hey, all states need to use this public blockchain per this standard" than for the federal government to roll out a whole central database that's scalable enough to handle queries nationwide and say "hey, all states need to use this central database".
> The person checking (bar staff in your example) still need a website or app that they can input the data to derive the hash (as not to leak personal data) and check the hash against the blockchain, this could just as easily work against a central or state database
Yes, and that would - again - require either:
1. a central authority that each state's agency trusts to be the record of truth, or:
2. 50 separate databases with 50 separate APIs.
A public blockchain absolves the need for either; agencies can maintain their licensing data autonomously (and, for that matter, data pertaining to those licenses; e.g. recording traffic citations, additional endorsements, etc., even for licenses issued by other agencies) without needing to deal with all that infrastructure.
Then every agency would have to trust some central authority. Maybe doable for interstate queries (with the associated federal bloat, but that's hardly anything new), but once you go international that becomes a lot harder.
> Also, who would run the blockchain?
Who runs Bitcoin? Ethereum? Cardano? Dogecoin?
> If they are the only ones who can issue tokens and they have to trust each other anyway, why does it need to be a blockchain anyway instead of some shared database?
The amount of trust required for "I'm reasonably sure this agency issued this driver's license" is far lower than the trust required for "I'm okay with this agency having control over my agency's records".
> Or if you want to keep it distributed, a peer-to-peer distributed hash table or other peer-to-peer database of ID tokens that only the DMV's have write access to.
A.k.a. a blockchain. You don't even need to restrict write access; DMVs can readily ignore transactions by non-DMV entities.
> If all the states share a blockchain, then they could just as easily share a database and web interface that you can look up.
That ain't anywhere near as easy, both politically and technically. This is already something they struggle do to, and distributed ledgers make that struggle entirely unnecessary.
> if there's a centrally mandated blockchain they should be using
There wouldn't need to be a mandate. States are perfectly capable of making agreements with one another, and could opt into a public blockchain at their leisure. CCW reciprocity is a good example of this; states have on their own come to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states, and a blockchain would be a natural fit for recording and authenticating said permits under that dynamic.
Even assuming the need for a mandate, it's a hell of a lot easier for the federal government to say "hey, all states need to use this public blockchain per this standard" than for the federal government to roll out a whole central database that's scalable enough to handle queries nationwide and say "hey, all states need to use this central database".
> The person checking (bar staff in your example) still need a website or app that they can input the data to derive the hash (as not to leak personal data) and check the hash against the blockchain, this could just as easily work against a central or state database
Yes, and that would - again - require either:
1. a central authority that each state's agency trusts to be the record of truth, or:
2. 50 separate databases with 50 separate APIs.
A public blockchain absolves the need for either; agencies can maintain their licensing data autonomously (and, for that matter, data pertaining to those licenses; e.g. recording traffic citations, additional endorsements, etc., even for licenses issued by other agencies) without needing to deal with all that infrastructure.
> Then every agency would have to trust some central authority.
They already have to do that! The central authority has to issue the licenses in the first place. Unless you are suggesting some absurd, decentralized driver's license issuing? Even that is begging the question though, as there has to be some centralized process to decide who is allowed to issue driver's licenses.
> A.k.a. a blockchain. You don't even need to restrict write access; DMVs can readily ignore transactions by non-DMV entities.
Alright, you are really stretching the definition of blockchain. Like, lets say someone just mirrors the database. So there is a web interface, and someone else copied the whole thing down.
Does that now count as a "blockchain" lol? Having more that 1 copies, of a mysql database, is a blockchain now?
They already have to do that! The central authority has to issue the licenses in the first place. Unless you are suggesting some absurd, decentralized driver's license issuing? Even that is begging the question though, as there has to be some centralized process to decide who is allowed to issue driver's licenses.
> A.k.a. a blockchain. You don't even need to restrict write access; DMVs can readily ignore transactions by non-DMV entities.
Alright, you are really stretching the definition of blockchain. Like, lets say someone just mirrors the database. So there is a web interface, and someone else copied the whole thing down.
Does that now count as a "blockchain" lol? Having more that 1 copies, of a mysql database, is a blockchain now?
This is such an insightful comments!
Allow me to use your example if I want to explain the main advantage of Blockchain derivative technology. Most of people seem to mix up Blockchain and Bitcoin, and think that Blockchain is equivalent to Bitcoin.
Allow me to use your example if I want to explain the main advantage of Blockchain derivative technology. Most of people seem to mix up Blockchain and Bitcoin, and think that Blockchain is equivalent to Bitcoin.
Oh, I agree. See my other comment on this page, I said the exact thing you did! Most cases where blockchain is usable, alternatives are still simpler, unless you actually need it to be distributed and zero trust, blockchain probably doesn't make sense.
I was just pointing out how it can be done or how it might make sense, if you needed it for something where blockchain did actually make sense, but in the case of drivers licenses, I don't think it does.
I was just pointing out how it can be done or how it might make sense, if you needed it for something where blockchain did actually make sense, but in the case of drivers licenses, I don't think it does.
To me it's the other way around.
The blockchain space is just starting out and people try new things. But many can only see the crypto currency use-case.
The blockchain space is just starting out and people try new things. But many can only see the crypto currency use-case.
blockchains are databases.
transactions change the state of the database. they aren't limited to trading-related transactions.
transactions change the state of the database. they aren't limited to trading-related transactions.
Creating an NFT is a transaction.
Permission to an API service maybe, the rest of the examples create more problems than they solve.
How come?
Just think about all cases of fake liceses? This could be verified rather easily with an NFT while faking it would be quite hard.
Just think about all cases of fake liceses? This could be verified rather easily with an NFT while faking it would be quite hard.
How? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
Since drivers licenses are linked to individuals, and cannot be traded, the traffic cop that's checking your license will need to compare it to your government issued ID. Then they look it up to see that its valid and linked to you as a person.
How is doing this as an NFT (or other blockchain thing) any better than having a government database they look up?
This is a big problem I have with most blockchain tech: yes, it can be built on a blockchain, but it doesn't need it and alternatives tend to be simpler and cheaper.
I'm overall pro cryptocurrency and blockchain, but if we want people to still take it seriously in twenty years time, we need the use cases to actually make sense. I don't see how NFT's make sense here, unless I'm missing something.
Since drivers licenses are linked to individuals, and cannot be traded, the traffic cop that's checking your license will need to compare it to your government issued ID. Then they look it up to see that its valid and linked to you as a person.
How is doing this as an NFT (or other blockchain thing) any better than having a government database they look up?
This is a big problem I have with most blockchain tech: yes, it can be built on a blockchain, but it doesn't need it and alternatives tend to be simpler and cheaper.
I'm overall pro cryptocurrency and blockchain, but if we want people to still take it seriously in twenty years time, we need the use cases to actually make sense. I don't see how NFT's make sense here, unless I'm missing something.
> How is doing this as an NFT (or other blockchain thing) any better than having a government database they look up?
If it's an out-of-state (or worse: international) ID, then the traffic cop (or, speaking from experience, some clerical worker back at the station) would need to deal with some bespoke interface for some external government database - and thus be at the mercy of that external agency. Such interfaces do exist, but they're clunky and antiquated, and it's pretty difficult to get authorization to connect to it. Even for intrastate lookups, a centralized database entails a bunch of infrastructure that's rarely publicly-accessible.
With a (public) blockchain, this becomes a heck of a lot easier and more accessible, since anyone from anywhere can query it with a common and publicly-known interface. Likewise, any agency can post to it without necessarily needing prior authorization and without needing to be at the mercy of other agencies; while there's obviously still a need for agencies to communicate with one another to exchange public keys (and therefore recognize/trust each others' blockchain transactions), that's much less complicated than coordinating a bunch of ad-hoc API connections.
If it's an out-of-state (or worse: international) ID, then the traffic cop (or, speaking from experience, some clerical worker back at the station) would need to deal with some bespoke interface for some external government database - and thus be at the mercy of that external agency. Such interfaces do exist, but they're clunky and antiquated, and it's pretty difficult to get authorization to connect to it. Even for intrastate lookups, a centralized database entails a bunch of infrastructure that's rarely publicly-accessible.
With a (public) blockchain, this becomes a heck of a lot easier and more accessible, since anyone from anywhere can query it with a common and publicly-known interface. Likewise, any agency can post to it without necessarily needing prior authorization and without needing to be at the mercy of other agencies; while there's obviously still a need for agencies to communicate with one another to exchange public keys (and therefore recognize/trust each others' blockchain transactions), that's much less complicated than coordinating a bunch of ad-hoc API connections.
> With a (public) blockchain, this becomes a heck of a lot easier and more accessible
Only if you assume that every country will actually collaborate and use the same blockchain. Much more likely, in my opinion, is that each country will have its own incompatible blockchain and the end result won't be any different than what you described.
I mean, I get what you're saying and its more likely that an international standard would come into use if no individual country has control over it, but I still think its unlikely.
Only if you assume that every country will actually collaborate and use the same blockchain. Much more likely, in my opinion, is that each country will have its own incompatible blockchain and the end result won't be any different than what you described.
I mean, I get what you're saying and its more likely that an international standard would come into use if no individual country has control over it, but I still think its unlikely.
Which is a fair assessment. I guess what I'm getting at is that at least with a public blockchain such collaboration is actually possible (without every agency needing to trust some centralized provider - which might very well be technically and politically impossible when dealing with international agencies).
You think that a cop is going to download some custom app (that somebody would build… for some reason) so they can have a preferred interface for their id lookup and police departments are going to approve of this and state governments are going to prefer this so much that they’d choose to implement licensing records using a more complex system that they have less control over?
> You think that a cop is going to download some custom app (that somebody would build… for some reason)
It would more likely be something rolled out by the agency itself. That somebody could accordingly be the agency (preferably just a rebadged and customized version of some FOSS application) and "some reason" would be "not having to duplicate a bunch of effort just to maintain an ID database".
> using a more complex system that they have less control over
I think you're underestimating the complexity of building 50 separate databases and the connections between them, as well as overestimating the control an agency would have over 49 of those databases. And that's just for interstate lookups, never mind international.
Point being: in the grand scheme of things, a blockchain-based approach would be far simpler and offer more control.
It would more likely be something rolled out by the agency itself. That somebody could accordingly be the agency (preferably just a rebadged and customized version of some FOSS application) and "some reason" would be "not having to duplicate a bunch of effort just to maintain an ID database".
> using a more complex system that they have less control over
I think you're underestimating the complexity of building 50 separate databases and the connections between them, as well as overestimating the control an agency would have over 49 of those databases. And that's just for interstate lookups, never mind international.
Point being: in the grand scheme of things, a blockchain-based approach would be far simpler and offer more control.
> It would more likely be something rolled out by the agency itself.
I don't know police agencies well at all, but I suspect that if a local police force was deciding between "use the state system" and "use some frontend we built ourselves or needed to license ourselves and has no reason to have any tech support", they are going to choose "use the state system".
Or heck, just use a federal system.
I don't know police agencies well at all, but I suspect that if a local police force was deciding between "use the state system" and "use some frontend we built ourselves or needed to license ourselves and has no reason to have any tech support", they are going to choose "use the state system".
Or heck, just use a federal system.
To be fair, I don't know either what of the possible use-cases are actually good use-cases.
But having a globally available, decentralized, and transparent database for some of these "certificats" could be a good thing.
But having a globally available, decentralized, and transparent database for some of these "certificats" could be a good thing.
Why would a state issuing licenses want to use a distributed system to issue licenses? Licenses aren’t tradable so the defi attributes of nfts aren’t useful here.
What would you verify with an NFT? "the government created this NFT"? Also known as "a digital signature", if you leave off all the blockchain bits?
It’s a made up class of asset that’s entirely made for money laundering. That’s it, now you’re an expert in NFTs.
There isn't much to get. It is a collectible and now, for a variety of reasons, all sorts of collectibles are gaining value. I have a pet theory that after art market got heavily regulated with AML laws, a lot of it moved to NFT, where it is very much free game for anyone with money to stake.
I think it's something you can make for free, and sell for money. I don't think anyone "gets" the whole thing; I'd be shocked if anyone selling these things was also a collector. You either get the money or you give the money.
They don't look stupid, they are stupid outside of their blockchain. There's no way to force a proof of ownership between NFT and physical item.
It's not just ugly gifs. It's digital art, your online game items, concert tickets, supermarket vouchers and so on.
Quote from statista: "In 2020, global gaming audiences spent an approximate 54 billion U.S. dollars on additional in-game content". But the players don't own their purchases. You don't play the game anymore, servers go down or you get banned and all your stuff is gone. Think about that.
Edit: Of course my comment got nothing but down votes again on HN. Was worth a try anyway.
Quote from statista: "In 2020, global gaming audiences spent an approximate 54 billion U.S. dollars on additional in-game content". But the players don't own their purchases. You don't play the game anymore, servers go down or you get banned and all your stuff is gone. Think about that.
Edit: Of course my comment got nothing but down votes again on HN. Was worth a try anyway.
But it’s not. It’s a token on a blockchain with some metadata. You’d actually need a separate legally binding contract to link it to actual ownership, and at that point you could have just made up the legal contract without any blockchain or token…
With your example, if the game goes down, an NFT of the in-game purchase isn’t going to be very useful. What’s the difference between having a token or not of the content if there are still no servers for the game either way? Maybe the NFT still points to a screenshot? Great…
With your example, if the game goes down, an NFT of the in-game purchase isn’t going to be very useful. What’s the difference between having a token or not of the content if there are still no servers for the game either way? Maybe the NFT still points to a screenshot? Great…
> You’d actually need a separate legally binding contract to link it to actual ownership
Why? The blockchain already does this. All you need to do is hold the private key to the wallet.
Why? The blockchain already does this. All you need to do is hold the private key to the wallet.
Imagine an indie game developer creating an open-world game where you can use your Sims furniture, Warcraft sword, Stardew Valley animals and so on.
I don't quite understand your first point. Edit: the NFT is verifiable in your wallet and comes from a verified source
I don't quite understand your first point. Edit: the NFT is verifiable in your wallet and comes from a verified source
Doesn't your indie developer still have to acquire both licenses and assets for all those items, since NFTs (a) don't actually convey a recognizable legal ownership or right of any kind and (b) impose costs proportional to size in bytes, and so can't effectively store the actual data over which they claim ownership?
Good points.
(b) The actual data (jpeg, mp4, 3d mobdel, etc) is usually stored on a system like https://ipfs.io and not on the NFT chain itself.
(a) I think the optimal solution would be that it is in the interest of publishers to have their assets used in other projects. This would give them more value, and the NFT creator usually charges a transaction fee on their assets (every time something is sold on the secondary market, a percentage goes to the creator). Another option would be for the indie developer to assign these items to their own items. For example, AAA studio sword xy is assigned to indie game sword xy. Of course you can't manually assign zillions of NFTs, you would probably do this in tiers and I would imagine there would be services built around that. This would eliminate the IP problem as far as I know, and would just mean that owning NFT xy unlocks a feature/element in the game. This would of course be interesting for official collaborations between publishers.
You listed centralized services, so even with nfts they still can be made useless or revoked/etc.
You mean that your in game items get revoked after you got banned from a game? That's actually a good point. It wouldn't help you to sell these items on a secondary market except you try to scam someone.
At least the items could still bring you value in external games/prokects.
I'm on board if charities* could somehow get in on the action and convince the bored rich to part with their money.
* Real charities, not those billionaire tax avoidance schemes.
* Real charities, not those billionaire tax avoidance schemes.
I'd wager billionaires donate a lot more to charities than they spend on nfts. Look at the Gates Foundation.
You don't need to be a billionaire to count as "bored rich", which I take to mean anyone who has too much money lying around and can't find better uses than shitty computer-generated "art" (note that this doesn't include people who buy these with the sole purpose of flipping them to a greater fool).
There are a surprising number of bored rich people, especially when you consider all the new-found crypto wealth. Most of them probably haven't contributed any of their excess wealth to help the hundreds of millions of people who are still starving, so if NFT is one way to extract some of that, so be it.
There are a surprising number of bored rich people, especially when you consider all the new-found crypto wealth. Most of them probably haven't contributed any of their excess wealth to help the hundreds of millions of people who are still starving, so if NFT is one way to extract some of that, so be it.
>> (note that this doesn't include people who buy these with the sole purpose of flipping them to a greater fool).
Hate to burst your bubble, but that is 99.99% of the NFT market. There is maybe 5 people total who bought a NFT for art appreciation reasons, but aside from that rounding error the only reason anyone owns one is as a speculative investment.
Hate to burst your bubble, but that is 99.99% of the NFT market. There is maybe 5 people total who bought a NFT for art appreciation reasons, but aside from that rounding error the only reason anyone owns one is as a speculative investment.
Sure, even in that scenario, if a slice of the MLM money can be used for societal good, it’s still something.
I liked the idea of the moonshot bots https://decrypt.co/79606/moonshot-bots-nfts-gitcoin-ethereum... where the funds raised are used for public goods.
> Real charities, not those billionaire tax avoidance schemes.
No such thing.
No such thing.
Do you even know what you're talking about?
In the US, a billionaire has more money at the end of the day if they just pay taxes on it than if they give it to charity and take the deduction.
The only other way a charity helps a billionaire save on taxes is if they use the charity's assets (e.g. boats, helicopers, real estate) as personal assets. But that's felony tax fraud. A billionaire wouldn't be likely to risk prison for that kind of chump change.
The crooked thing about charities is the people who run them, focus on fundraising, and pay themselves a huge salary. But those people aren't billionaires.
Now, you could rent your real estate to a charity you control at an inflated price, or sell them other services, but I think that's probably an edge case.
In the US, a billionaire has more money at the end of the day if they just pay taxes on it than if they give it to charity and take the deduction.
The only other way a charity helps a billionaire save on taxes is if they use the charity's assets (e.g. boats, helicopers, real estate) as personal assets. But that's felony tax fraud. A billionaire wouldn't be likely to risk prison for that kind of chump change.
The crooked thing about charities is the people who run them, focus on fundraising, and pay themselves a huge salary. But those people aren't billionaires.
Now, you could rent your real estate to a charity you control at an inflated price, or sell them other services, but I think that's probably an edge case.
Yeah, charities aren't full tax avoidance for the rich. It's more of a dick swinging contest amongst the wealthy with some tax breaks to take some of the sting away. At least some good may come from these contests though. Even if 90% of the funds go to pay charity management salaries it's better than nothing.
That's way too cynical. That's out of touch with reality. Lots of really rich people give to charity and don't talk about it.
Talking about almost all charities, the billionaire element is irrelevant. Google "St Judes Executive Salaries"
[deleted]
It isn't about having money, it's about control of that money. Zuckerberg doesn't "have" the money he gives to his foundation, but he still controls it, vs taxes which he wouldn't.
Better Zuckerberg than using the money to send our young men to their deaths in Afghanistan, or pay people to have kids and not work, or to have it siphoned off through fraud by government workers, or wasted by their negligence, or...
I didn't understand NFT storm as well then I made a 10K collection of NFT images with my friend (I wrote the smart contract) in three weeks and earned $3M from that. I made a lot of money and now I'm part of the creator community but I still sometimes ask "Why?"
I understand why people make NFTs (to cash in on the craze), but I still don't understand why anyone buys them (outside of money laundering).
Nice subtle humble brag.
I have a rule, which is that by the time I dream up an idea, plenty of other people have already had the same idea. So, when I proposed selling NFTs of the rehearsals of my band, and told my son about it, he said: "Dad, a million people are already doing that sort of thing."
If you're with Pink Floyd, you could still give it a try.
Is your band famous in any way? Or does it have a cult following of some kind?
If not, who would buy an NFT of your jam sessions? The pioneering garage rock band The Stooges released a remastered edition of 1970's Fun House some years back, and included 2 CDs of rehearsal/studio sessions and outtakes.
They were widely panned for it, with some reviews saying that even the most ardent Iggy Pop fan wouldn't need 5 versions of "TV Eye".
If not, who would buy an NFT of your jam sessions? The pioneering garage rock band The Stooges released a remastered edition of 1970's Fun House some years back, and included 2 CDs of rehearsal/studio sessions and outtakes.
They were widely panned for it, with some reviews saying that even the most ardent Iggy Pop fan wouldn't need 5 versions of "TV Eye".
And yet people are buying NFT's of random crappy JPG avatars by nobodies. I don't know why either!
The problem with NFTs and blockchain is that they purport that anyone can have access to it…the whole decentralized thing.
Except all these NFT stores require an invite from another artist. As someone who loves taking photos but isn’t socially connected because it’s a passion and not a job, it seems very elitist. Maybe it’s that way because I don’t have access to it and my brain is just playing tricks. But it seems like one of those “you aren’t good enough for this” kind of thing. Some of the online stores like Foundation app have become gatekeepers rather than outlets.
Except all these NFT stores require an invite from another artist. As someone who loves taking photos but isn’t socially connected because it’s a passion and not a job, it seems very elitist. Maybe it’s that way because I don’t have access to it and my brain is just playing tricks. But it seems like one of those “you aren’t good enough for this” kind of thing. Some of the online stores like Foundation app have become gatekeepers rather than outlets.
Music artists too. Can't forget them. (speaking as a music artist myself who despises the NFT gimmick)
It lost me when an OpenSea executive tried to manipulate the prices. I'm just happy that he got caught.
I have never used Twitter, I don’t understand NFTs.
Most of the influencers are shilling something, obviously
Most of the influencers are shilling something, obviously
You mean at some point NFT had you?
Well, I found it to be a decent solution to support actual artists (esp. Photographers or folks like eBoy fame) who were already selling their digital art in genuine and honest capacity.
But when some random guy without a story renders a thousand animated dogs from a script and the actual art is how to push it via Reddit bots, my support for artistic value creation has reached its limit.
But when some random guy without a story renders a thousand animated dogs from a script and the actual art is how to push it via Reddit bots, my support for artistic value creation has reached its limit.
I am an artist. Have shown in galleries, museums and rubbed shoulders with all sorts of dealers etc in Manhattan art world. What you see in the nft space is pretty normal.. for every genuine, talented artist there are 1000 copy cats just gaming the market trends. For every genuine, professional art seller/buyer there are 1000 used car salesmen looking to flip hype and bad taste for quick profit, screw over naive and poor artist and the big elephant in the room, money laundering.
The recent Met gala.. socialites and wealth parading the halls hanging Caravaggio and Van Gogh, who died destetute.
The recent Met gala.. socialites and wealth parading the halls hanging Caravaggio and Van Gogh, who died destetute.
What's lacking is an agreed upon mechanism for distinguishing the real artists from the hacks, and the real buyers from the flippers.
Real art is what you agree in your mind is real art.
If you are trying to find something to filter out art that will not skyrocket in prices that's different. You need to find out what people are buying and only buy those. Each subgroup will be buying different types of art so research is required.
Anything is real art. A rock you brought in or a painting made by a computer. As long as you see it as art, special and perhaps get an emotion from it.
If you are trying to find something to filter out art that will not skyrocket in prices that's different. You need to find out what people are buying and only buy those. Each subgroup will be buying different types of art so research is required.
Anything is real art. A rock you brought in or a painting made by a computer. As long as you see it as art, special and perhaps get an emotion from it.
"Art is what you can get away with", to quote Andy Warhol.
I don't get this. The concept hasn't changed since and those genuine artists are still there you supported.
Or things are only cool until they are not mainstream?
Or things are only cool until they are not mainstream?
I think the NFT thing is kinda ridiculous. But then so are plenty of other marketing shenanigans. Maybe it could have worked?
But once it was picked up by the grift/hype/fincrime machine that has eaten cryptocurrencies, it lost all semblance of plausibility to me. It has gone from something like "I bought a small piece of a creator whose work I treasure" to "ZOMG MAKE MONEY FAST".
As an example, take the guy who was big on what he calls investing and I call gambling, who proposed to his girlfriend with an NFT:
https://twitter.com/redditships/status/1432396694608662536?l...
For me it's the same deal with cryptocurrencies in general. Interesting idea, and I want to visit the alternate reality where it was developed gradually and sanely by the sort of curious, well-meaning person that got into it early on. But the sort of value-based innovation I care about got stomped long ago.
But once it was picked up by the grift/hype/fincrime machine that has eaten cryptocurrencies, it lost all semblance of plausibility to me. It has gone from something like "I bought a small piece of a creator whose work I treasure" to "ZOMG MAKE MONEY FAST".
As an example, take the guy who was big on what he calls investing and I call gambling, who proposed to his girlfriend with an NFT:
https://twitter.com/redditships/status/1432396694608662536?l...
For me it's the same deal with cryptocurrencies in general. Interesting idea, and I want to visit the alternate reality where it was developed gradually and sanely by the sort of curious, well-meaning person that got into it early on. But the sort of value-based innovation I care about got stomped long ago.
My interpretation of what they were saying: NFTs are a worthy means of supporting artists but have been tainted by the other breed of artist (the scam artist).
I would extend that by suggesting that NFTs should be a valid means of supporting new artists. The problem arises when people dump garbage into the market to make a quick buck. This will ultimately diminish the long term value of NFTs, meaning there is less value for those who are trying to make a living from their art (and even for those who are trying to make a living investing in art).
I would extend that by suggesting that NFTs should be a valid means of supporting new artists. The problem arises when people dump garbage into the market to make a quick buck. This will ultimately diminish the long term value of NFTs, meaning there is less value for those who are trying to make a living from their art (and even for those who are trying to make a living investing in art).
Honestly I don't think NFTs - as it exists - was ever a good model.
I know there's a hypothetical resale mechanism, but it's fundamentally operating on a lottery system - artists are buying a ticket hoping to hit it big, and that favors a self-destructive mentality.
A Patreon-like system still has an element of luck, but the steady monthly income makes it much easier for an artist to say "this is working, I should keep going" or "I guess I should start looking for a/keep my day job".
I know there's a hypothetical resale mechanism, but it's fundamentally operating on a lottery system - artists are buying a ticket hoping to hit it big, and that favors a self-destructive mentality.
A Patreon-like system still has an element of luck, but the steady monthly income makes it much easier for an artist to say "this is working, I should keep going" or "I guess I should start looking for a/keep my day job".
It wasn't ever meant to be a lottery. It was and remains just a way to sell ownership rights to stuff without physically transferring any stuff. The fact that a speculation market bloomed around it was just a weird circumstance.
Weird circumstance? It seems like an entirely predictable outcome, and as such it seems like it may very well have been the actual point.
Especially since NFTs confer no actual assets or rights in anyway that matters EXCEPT for in an adjacent speculative market.
Especially since NFTs confer no actual assets or rights in anyway that matters EXCEPT for in an adjacent speculative market.
I was pretty torn about crypto, I saw most of what this essay describes but I also did find it as a potential global currency / computer system outside gov't control that could enable more as a result. BTC v. $ has been discussed to death but the BTC case isn't COMPLETE nonsense imo, in a world where trillions are generated out of thin air to prevent debt defaults and everyone supports it.
However once NFTs became a thing and the crypto whales started pimping it I saw the truth. These people have no vision beyond finding some story to get someone else to pay more for their crypto tokens down the line, full stop.
However once NFTs became a thing and the crypto whales started pimping it I saw the truth. These people have no vision beyond finding some story to get someone else to pay more for their crypto tokens down the line, full stop.
Someone sees cryptocurrency as exactly what it is, and at some point in the future we will know who.
But in the interim, lets not compare crypto to some utopian world that doesn't actually exist. In the current world which we inhabit, the many major currencies are either controlled or heavily influenced by people who:
1) Believe prices constantly rising is good for poor people.
2) Advocate that governments can spend potentially an infinite amount without consequences because they control a printing press. And looking at the actions of, e.g. the US government, it is easy to suspect that the people who understand the nuance there aren't the ones in control of the money supply.
In such an environment, the crypto folk are reasonable. Even if in a perfect world they would clearly all be scammers.
But in the interim, lets not compare crypto to some utopian world that doesn't actually exist. In the current world which we inhabit, the many major currencies are either controlled or heavily influenced by people who:
1) Believe prices constantly rising is good for poor people.
2) Advocate that governments can spend potentially an infinite amount without consequences because they control a printing press. And looking at the actions of, e.g. the US government, it is easy to suspect that the people who understand the nuance there aren't the ones in control of the money supply.
In such an environment, the crypto folk are reasonable. Even if in a perfect world they would clearly all be scammers.
> 1) Believe prices constantly rising is good for poor people.
I mean, inflation actually does benefit poor people, when wages and prices rise at the same rate. Devaluing savings accounts isn't a big deal if you don't have any savings in the first place. Inflation also makes debt less valuable over time, making it gradually easier to pay off.
The real problem is that (in the US) wages have been stagnant for decades. That's not an issue that cryptocurrency is going to solve.
I mean, inflation actually does benefit poor people, when wages and prices rise at the same rate. Devaluing savings accounts isn't a big deal if you don't have any savings in the first place. Inflation also makes debt less valuable over time, making it gradually easier to pay off.
The real problem is that (in the US) wages have been stagnant for decades. That's not an issue that cryptocurrency is going to solve.
Well, there are a lot of ways of investing your money in ways that track or exceed inflation, so it's not like people without savings are doing well with inflation whereas all those people with savings are getting screwed.
Further though, I would imagine that people who have a little savings but not that much, would end up keeping that in a savings account rather than investing it. As such, the little savings poor people do have would be eaten away by inflation.
Also, like you suggest, wages are not rising with inflation so that just makes things even worse.
Further though, I would imagine that people who have a little savings but not that much, would end up keeping that in a savings account rather than investing it. As such, the little savings poor people do have would be eaten away by inflation.
Also, like you suggest, wages are not rising with inflation so that just makes things even worse.
>1) Believe prices constantly rising is good for poor people.
Inflation isn't meant to cause rising prices. It's a shitty approximation for negative interest rates. What inflation is doing is letting money rust so that it is flexible enough to represent the real world. Logically speaking income earned in 2010 should be losing value because of the opportunity cost of not employing people. Imagine an economy with two people and you decide to spend your money ten years later. The other party has to spend 10 years unemployed. Even though you lost 10 years of potential employment you still insist that your money from 10 years ago is still worth the same amount. Inflation adds enough flexibility to represent this loss and makes the holder of money realize the loss in the real economy, which encourages him to minimize the loss in the real world. With deflation you deny its existence by making the money system rigid and incapable of representing this potential state of the economy.
Say's law postulates that aggregate demand and supply are always in balance in a barter economy. Money as an intermediary allows short term mismatch between the two and deflation allows an almost permanent mismatch. Since inflation erodes past income any surplus is eroded which encourages people to utilize their surplus and let aggregate supply and demand match again.
>2) Advocate that governments can spend potentially an infinite amount without consequences because they control a printing press. And looking at the actions of, e.g. the US government, it is easy to suspect that the people who understand the nuance there aren't the ones in control of the money supply.
Maybe you like to think that other people think like that but reality is quite boring. What people have recognized is that the real world matters, not the financial world. If you see an unemployed person you can hire that person and at the end of the day customers are happy because that person provided goods and services and the worker is happy because he got paid. If granting credit and promising debt lets that person work, then it's better than trusting on some financial bean counter that tells you that employing people and providing goods and services is bad for the economy.
Inflation isn't meant to cause rising prices. It's a shitty approximation for negative interest rates. What inflation is doing is letting money rust so that it is flexible enough to represent the real world. Logically speaking income earned in 2010 should be losing value because of the opportunity cost of not employing people. Imagine an economy with two people and you decide to spend your money ten years later. The other party has to spend 10 years unemployed. Even though you lost 10 years of potential employment you still insist that your money from 10 years ago is still worth the same amount. Inflation adds enough flexibility to represent this loss and makes the holder of money realize the loss in the real economy, which encourages him to minimize the loss in the real world. With deflation you deny its existence by making the money system rigid and incapable of representing this potential state of the economy.
Say's law postulates that aggregate demand and supply are always in balance in a barter economy. Money as an intermediary allows short term mismatch between the two and deflation allows an almost permanent mismatch. Since inflation erodes past income any surplus is eroded which encourages people to utilize their surplus and let aggregate supply and demand match again.
>2) Advocate that governments can spend potentially an infinite amount without consequences because they control a printing press. And looking at the actions of, e.g. the US government, it is easy to suspect that the people who understand the nuance there aren't the ones in control of the money supply.
Maybe you like to think that other people think like that but reality is quite boring. What people have recognized is that the real world matters, not the financial world. If you see an unemployed person you can hire that person and at the end of the day customers are happy because that person provided goods and services and the worker is happy because he got paid. If granting credit and promising debt lets that person work, then it's better than trusting on some financial bean counter that tells you that employing people and providing goods and services is bad for the economy.
Selling a future that hasn't happened is fine. If you saw the initial version of the internet or a cell phone you'd likely dismiss them.
Crypto is rebuilding the same things that already exist but that process has the chance to remove people from a system who used to provide services and replace them with an algorithm. Most people would dimiss a NFT but some of the use cases could be great. If most laws/rules were enforced in code for business transactions would you need to spend as much money on a lawyer in your lifetime? That's the future of money and it's exciting. Will that happen? Maybe not, which is why it is speculative.
The problem is that a large majority of people who are speculative and most crypto assets are highly centralized, which defeat the point of decentralization to remove a few large actors from having control. Plus the scams and idiots in the space that income without labor always attracts.
Crypto is rebuilding the same things that already exist but that process has the chance to remove people from a system who used to provide services and replace them with an algorithm. Most people would dimiss a NFT but some of the use cases could be great. If most laws/rules were enforced in code for business transactions would you need to spend as much money on a lawyer in your lifetime? That's the future of money and it's exciting. Will that happen? Maybe not, which is why it is speculative.
The problem is that a large majority of people who are speculative and most crypto assets are highly centralized, which defeat the point of decentralization to remove a few large actors from having control. Plus the scams and idiots in the space that income without labor always attracts.
This is all pie-in-the-sky theory that has already been used unsuccessfully to exhort the merits of cryptocurrency. Where is the evidence of any of these benefits in practice? Crypto has been around for over a decade, yet its only uses post-Silk Road have been for ransomware and NFTs.
The Internet changed how we communicated and shopped in well under 10 years, and in an era when 56kbps modems were a luxury, and nobody had a computer in their pocket. There is no comparison between the two, much as crypto-maximalists would like for there to be.
The Internet changed how we communicated and shopped in well under 10 years, and in an era when 56kbps modems were a luxury, and nobody had a computer in their pocket. There is no comparison between the two, much as crypto-maximalists would like for there to be.
Cryptocurrency has even become less useful as time has gone on. The utility of the internet and smartphones was immediately apparent. Cryptocurrency fans are always reaching for that analogy, but it's fundamentally flawed.
I'd argue that BBS and compuserve/aol were in the 80s. It took 30 years before everyone had a computer in their pocket and Amazon took off.
A debit card is similar to crypto. Is a debit card any different than cash for an end user? Did it cause big changes in banking? I can show you my account balance with a debit card. It may convince you I have the assets to buy whatever you are selling. I can bring a debit card to another country and exchange it to local currency. The merchant is passing on the 2-5% fee to you so that you can use a debit card. There is a huge organization of people behind that debit card.
A debit card is similar to crypto. Is a debit card any different than cash for an end user? Did it cause big changes in banking? I can show you my account balance with a debit card. It may convince you I have the assets to buy whatever you are selling. I can bring a debit card to another country and exchange it to local currency. The merchant is passing on the 2-5% fee to you so that you can use a debit card. There is a huge organization of people behind that debit card.
Amazon took off well before the smartphone era. Bezos was Time Magazine's Person of the Year in 1999.
I don't understand what you mean re: debit cards. Is it that the transaction processing fee is passed on to the customer? That is already well understood. The issue is that crypto is nowhere near to matching VISA/MC's per-transaction cost.
I don't understand what you mean re: debit cards. Is it that the transaction processing fee is passed on to the customer? That is already well understood. The issue is that crypto is nowhere near to matching VISA/MC's per-transaction cost.
My point was that you need less people for a transaction to happen.
The cost will go down over time.
The cost will go down over time.
> The cost will go down over time.
And the number of transactions will increase over time, adding to the cost. So what does it net out to?
It doesn't look favourable when the bloated payment behemoth can get by charging 2-5%, but crypto transfer fees end up being significantly higher, and prone to surge pricing if too many people are buying Cryptokitties at the same time.
And the number of transactions will increase over time, adding to the cost. So what does it net out to?
It doesn't look favourable when the bloated payment behemoth can get by charging 2-5%, but crypto transfer fees end up being significantly higher, and prone to surge pricing if too many people are buying Cryptokitties at the same time.
The prices on layer 2 like lightning and polygon/matic are pretty reasonable right now. I don't think its far fetched to say that the network capacity will increase with adoption.
I only have a hobby interest in crypto, but even etherum is planning on having side chains that operate independantly.
To me, crypto's biggest risk is a lack of decentralization. The bitcoin network basically votes to adopt bitcoin changes but the etherum developers can force changes on the etherum network. Whats the point of proof of stake if most of the coins are owned by the original developers? Ala Chia. Why not just run a sql database if 51% of the network is owned by a person/entity or a few. Bitcoin is pretty decentralized in ownership unlike every other coin attempting to be a currency but pooling in bitcoin has put too much hashpower into the hands of a few.
Without wide adoption, crypto is not decentralized. There is little point if the various networks retain their oligopoly.
I only have a hobby interest in crypto, but even etherum is planning on having side chains that operate independantly.
To me, crypto's biggest risk is a lack of decentralization. The bitcoin network basically votes to adopt bitcoin changes but the etherum developers can force changes on the etherum network. Whats the point of proof of stake if most of the coins are owned by the original developers? Ala Chia. Why not just run a sql database if 51% of the network is owned by a person/entity or a few. Bitcoin is pretty decentralized in ownership unlike every other coin attempting to be a currency but pooling in bitcoin has put too much hashpower into the hands of a few.
Without wide adoption, crypto is not decentralized. There is little point if the various networks retain their oligopoly.
Wouldn’t most laws need a real-world source of truth and arbitration external to the network? It seems like a lot of work just to arrive at what is essentially centralization once again.
And the people who might have initially dismissed the early internet would likely have not understood it. A lot of NFT detractors are plenty tech-savvy.
And the people who might have initially dismissed the early internet would likely have not understood it. A lot of NFT detractors are plenty tech-savvy.
Any time you deal with physicals things? Yep.
I wouldn't need a lawyer if a digital contract enforced a 2% commission paid to a wallet address.
I would need a lawyer if all transactions weren't paid into that wallet address.
If I use software to play a song and it uses an NFT to make a payment to the owner. I theoretically cut out a lot of middlemen whos value is making sure the correct people are paid. There are tons of edge cases where anyone can argue that this wouldn't work but I think that the system only has to meet a bar where it is potentially better than what we have now.
I wouldn't need a lawyer if a digital contract enforced a 2% commission paid to a wallet address.
I would need a lawyer if all transactions weren't paid into that wallet address.
If I use software to play a song and it uses an NFT to make a payment to the owner. I theoretically cut out a lot of middlemen whos value is making sure the correct people are paid. There are tons of edge cases where anyone can argue that this wouldn't work but I think that the system only has to meet a bar where it is potentially better than what we have now.
You mainly spend money on lawyers when things go wrong (or in anticipation of things going wrong).
In crypto, when things go wrong they just fork the blockchain. YOLO
In crypto, when things go wrong they just fork the blockchain. YOLO
The fomo is real tho.
Everyone imagines "just imagine if I invested when BTC was < $100 just a few years ago. I could be sailing near my own island now.
And with everyone from celebrities to investors constantly promoting it, it is hard not to jump on the craze.
All "doom and gloom" has bounced off the market. I am still expecting a massive crash, but to be honest, if I invested a few years ago I would be sitting at 3-20x my investment.
It is insanely profitable.
Thats the fun part of all this :)
Everyone imagines "just imagine if I invested when BTC was < $100 just a few years ago. I could be sailing near my own island now.
And with everyone from celebrities to investors constantly promoting it, it is hard not to jump on the craze.
All "doom and gloom" has bounced off the market. I am still expecting a massive crash, but to be honest, if I invested a few years ago I would be sitting at 3-20x my investment.
It is insanely profitable.
Thats the fun part of all this :)
>I am still expecting a massive crash
I wonder what you would consider a massive crash in crypto. Because -90% in two or three months is nothing special, just day-to-day business. I would start to worry if it drops below 0.1% though.
I wonder what you would consider a massive crash in crypto. Because -90% in two or three months is nothing special, just day-to-day business. I would start to worry if it drops below 0.1% though.
In the sense that people who can't afford rent buying lottery tickets is "fun".
In absence of real economic growth winning at zero and negative sum games is the only realistic chance at making it in the broadly defined West. The ponzi trend is only going to grow until the whole system collapses under itself. People not playing the game are going to lose the most, as unfair as it is, because rich executives are going to exploit their positions and dump their bags on public companies they control. In more corrupt cases, countries instead of companies. It's only going to grow.
Even so, arguably crypto ponzi games are harmless compared to more socially accepted ways of wealth extraction. Facebook, twitter and other mass social media destroyed society and utilize best ai/ml in existence to steal people's attention, at this point they should be viewed as human hostile ais. The lost potential of years wasted on pointless flamewars and mindless clicking is immeasurable. So many smart people wasting their best years on making ads even more effective instead of creating actual wealth.
In the good timeline there was no bailout in 2007 and the global financial system completely disintegrated, deleting most of fake wealth and unsustainable liabilities in the process, but without long term damage to real productivity.
This is the bad timeline in which wealth extraction dominates until there's nothing left, after which everything stops with no system energy reserves. That's how Soviet Union ended.
Even so, arguably crypto ponzi games are harmless compared to more socially accepted ways of wealth extraction. Facebook, twitter and other mass social media destroyed society and utilize best ai/ml in existence to steal people's attention, at this point they should be viewed as human hostile ais. The lost potential of years wasted on pointless flamewars and mindless clicking is immeasurable. So many smart people wasting their best years on making ads even more effective instead of creating actual wealth.
In the good timeline there was no bailout in 2007 and the global financial system completely disintegrated, deleting most of fake wealth and unsustainable liabilities in the process, but without long term damage to real productivity.
This is the bad timeline in which wealth extraction dominates until there's nothing left, after which everything stops with no system energy reserves. That's how Soviet Union ended.
The rebranding of MySQL as blockchain was a brilliant move for sales. Bit torrent is decentralized and it doesn't use "blockchain". "Blockchain" only works for money and nothing else
I mean, if you look at transaction cost, settle time, user friendliness, and currency risk, it doesn't even work as a medium of exchange, which is the definition of money.
More than a decade on, approximately nobody uses Bitcoin for normal transactions. Compare with Venmo or MPesa, both of which launched around the same time, to se what actual digital money looks like. Both of those do way more transactions than Bitcoin and are much more widely adopted.
More than a decade on, approximately nobody uses Bitcoin for normal transactions. Compare with Venmo or MPesa, both of which launched around the same time, to se what actual digital money looks like. Both of those do way more transactions than Bitcoin and are much more widely adopted.
Hard agree - the only thing bitcoin can reasonably be spent on for most folks is black market goods (usually drugs).
Which is really why bitcoin exists as thing today, in my opinion. It was a way to pay for drugs over the internet.
The rest of the pricing is purely speculation, and it hurts any real utility it might provide.
Which is really why bitcoin exists as thing today, in my opinion. It was a way to pay for drugs over the internet.
The rest of the pricing is purely speculation, and it hurts any real utility it might provide.
For sure. And I think that speculation (with attendant market manipulation) are the main observed purpose of it these days. The total drugs market is large, but I'd be surprised to learn that even 1% passes through all the cryptocurrencies put together. Especially Bitcoin given how traceable it is.
It does seem to be used by people transferring funds internationally, especially from SEA to the USA.
Oh? What percent of international transfers are using it?
No clue. I just know people who do it.
Got it. I mean, I know people who ride unicycles. But for this I'm not interesting so much in "is it possible" as "is it effective and widely adopted".
Agree, anecdotes aren't data. But seeing non-tech-savvy people doing it definitely makes me think it's somewhat common. I posted half with the expectation that someone would chime in with some personal experience on the topic; HN has a pretty diverse group here.
I found a number of guides on the pros and cons of various international money transfers options, and BTC is often included as an option. I also found some recent (and old!) articles about its use as a remittance system in poorer areas of the world[1].
> Other emerging market central banks in Latin America, India, and Southeast Asia, where remittances make up a significant share of the economy, are in a similar bind. Bitcoin transfers surged in emerging markets last year, as the pandemic accelerated the rise of cheaper, more efficient digital remittance services.
[1]https://qz.com/africa/1983610/bitcoin-draws-millions-of-work...
I found a number of guides on the pros and cons of various international money transfers options, and BTC is often included as an option. I also found some recent (and old!) articles about its use as a remittance system in poorer areas of the world[1].
> Other emerging market central banks in Latin America, India, and Southeast Asia, where remittances make up a significant share of the economy, are in a similar bind. Bitcoin transfers surged in emerging markets last year, as the pandemic accelerated the rise of cheaper, more efficient digital remittance services.
[1]https://qz.com/africa/1983610/bitcoin-draws-millions-of-work...
Add Starbucks to that list
Why does the bitcoin blockchain need to be used for normal transactions? Do you not think a neutral payment rail/unit of account between nation state level actor’s could be valuable?
_Anything_ that one could get central banks or nation states to agree to use would be valuable. The LOE the technical system (SWIFT, Bitcoin, whatever) is absolutely infinitesimal compared to negotiating a change of that magnitude.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with third parties offering services on top but you know, the whole cryptocurrency idea is that you don't need them.
Let me refer you back to the original paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
The goal was "a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash". That is, money.
If you are proposing a new goal, a settlement system for couple hundred named organizations with strong relationships, then a) that's not money, and b) the Bitcoin system is socially and technically wrong for that. But if we keep the goalposts in their original location, Bitcoin is clearly a failure when you look at how the competition has done.
The goal was "a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash". That is, money.
If you are proposing a new goal, a settlement system for couple hundred named organizations with strong relationships, then a) that's not money, and b) the Bitcoin system is socially and technically wrong for that. But if we keep the goalposts in their original location, Bitcoin is clearly a failure when you look at how the competition has done.
These nation state level actors would need to convert their Bitcoin into something that they can actually spend. Governments need to pay employees, contractors, and suppliers. These people want actual currency they can spend.
The main alternative would be to issue a Bitcoin backed currency. But then you're just re-creating the gold standard, and all of the problems that go along with that.
The main alternative would be to issue a Bitcoin backed currency. But then you're just re-creating the gold standard, and all of the problems that go along with that.
Bitcoin is a 1.0, a beta version that caught on. Anybody who knows better wouldn't use Bitcoin as money, that's true. They've moved on to Monero.
Wait until you learn how long settlement time really takes and how big fees are in traditional finance. This is hidden from you.
World's most expensive linked-list.
> The rebranding of MySQL as blockchain
Sadly this really is the most nuanced definition of "blockchain" that many people can understand
Sadly this really is the most nuanced definition of "blockchain" that many people can understand
It is the only definition of blockchain that matches it's use. Where they copied the word from, the bitcoin datastructure, is unrelated
> the insistence that cryptocurrency is a boon for all of humanity quickly collapses into the assertion that it will become one
This one annoys me in tech discussions all across the board. Someone justifies some piece of tech as good, others give counter evidence, and then the proponents say that it doesn't actually matter because it will be true some day. Social media is healthier than other media (well, it could be). Self driving cars are safer (well, they will be). Crypto is better for the people (well, it could be). Or my favorite, seen this morning in another thread: bitcoin isn't bad for the environment (well, it could be better, therefore it's fine).
This one annoys me in tech discussions all across the board. Someone justifies some piece of tech as good, others give counter evidence, and then the proponents say that it doesn't actually matter because it will be true some day. Social media is healthier than other media (well, it could be). Self driving cars are safer (well, they will be). Crypto is better for the people (well, it could be). Or my favorite, seen this morning in another thread: bitcoin isn't bad for the environment (well, it could be better, therefore it's fine).
New technology often goes through a phase of wild speculation, touting by liars, and impractical business models that people throw money because they are afraid of missing out. The bubble eventually pops. But people keep improving the tech and it becomes practical and eats the world.
First there was Railroad Mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Mania
After the initial bubble, rail roads changed the world
First there was the dot-com bubble, and then internet changed the world.
Both sides can be right in this debate. Crypto can be a bubble and a scam and it can also change the world.
First there was Railroad Mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Mania
After the initial bubble, rail roads changed the world
First there was the dot-com bubble, and then internet changed the world.
Both sides can be right in this debate. Crypto can be a bubble and a scam and it can also change the world.
This is true. Although the examples you give show survivorship bias. There are many new things, fads and scams that simply fade away.
I don't think that Bitcoin will be a thing in 100 years, but blockchain will still exist in some useful format. Not in the way that it is pushed by some of its proponents though.
I don't think that Bitcoin will be a thing in 100 years, but blockchain will still exist in some useful format. Not in the way that it is pushed by some of its proponents though.
I won't pretend I'm a computer genius or anything, but I feel like I understand tech at least more than the average Joe - at least, I'm the designated IT guy for computer problems faced by anyone I know.
The fact that, despite having it explained multiple times by multiple sources multiple ways, I still can't seem to wrap my head around how crypto functions... Makes me suspicious. It feels like the whole idea is to obfuscate it's functionality to the point it becomes this incomprehensible enigma - by design.
If it's not easy to comprehend, and instead a strange mystery number that moves between even stranger mystery-er numbers, someone is bound to think those numbers must be worth something - otherwise it wouldn't exist, right?
Basically what I'm saying is cryptocurrency sends me into an existential spiral of thoughts about how all value is just perceived and agreed upon and 90% of what we call "the economy" is just fake. Look up fractional reserve banking and join the existential crisis with me!
The fact that, despite having it explained multiple times by multiple sources multiple ways, I still can't seem to wrap my head around how crypto functions... Makes me suspicious. It feels like the whole idea is to obfuscate it's functionality to the point it becomes this incomprehensible enigma - by design.
If it's not easy to comprehend, and instead a strange mystery number that moves between even stranger mystery-er numbers, someone is bound to think those numbers must be worth something - otherwise it wouldn't exist, right?
Basically what I'm saying is cryptocurrency sends me into an existential spiral of thoughts about how all value is just perceived and agreed upon and 90% of what we call "the economy" is just fake. Look up fractional reserve banking and join the existential crisis with me!
"I don't understand it, therefore there is something suspicious about it" is a very dangerous way of reasoning.
We burned innocent people because of this not long ago.
Anyways, I find the Bitcoin paper very approachable. You may need to read it a bunch of times until everything clicks into place. But it's all there, in just 8 pages.
We burned innocent people because of this not long ago.
Anyways, I find the Bitcoin paper very approachable. You may need to read it a bunch of times until everything clicks into place. But it's all there, in just 8 pages.
Humans haven't changed. We just like to pretend we have and are superior now. Pick any random person and put them back in the middle ages, they'd be burning witches and screaming of joy at gladiator matches.
Are you comparing my distrust of crypto to the Salem witch trials?
Right...
Anyways, the golden rules of investing is to not invest your money into something you don't understand.
Right...
Anyways, the golden rules of investing is to not invest your money into something you don't understand.
> I still can't seem to wrap my head around how crypto functions... Makes me suspicious. It feels like the whole idea is to obfuscate it's functionality to the point it becomes this incomprehensible enigma - by design.
It's certainly not just obfuscation and smoke+mirrors. It's only as complicated as it has to be and the mathematics behind it are solid. Unfortunately, it is complicated enough that most people won't be able to easily understand it.
It's certainly not just obfuscation and smoke+mirrors. It's only as complicated as it has to be and the mathematics behind it are solid. Unfortunately, it is complicated enough that most people won't be able to easily understand it.
It's really just a very slow, very inefficient and very public, database with an audit log of hashes keeping track of every change made. Everything else is just fluff/hype around that idea.
Honestly, one of the funniest things about our money system is that it keeps changing. Our understanding of money isn't really "finished". We ended up with a promise (also known as debt) based system by "accident" (through slow evolution) and that people have to catch up to this.
https://youtu.be/ZFRVfXeIaek
https://youtu.be/ZFRVfXeIaek
'existential spiral of thoughts about how all value is just perceived and agreed upon'
Yes, you are awakening. Cultures seem to like jewelry and art.
Yes, you are awakening. Cultures seem to like jewelry and art.
The title is 100% true for much of the cryptocurrency sector, but the body of the article is a shameless bad-faith attempt to rationalize an extremely heavy handed government response that would criminalize entire classes of voluntary interactions between consenting adults, and turn the future of the internet into a much darker place with much more government repression.
Only a deep-seated ideological precept, that idealizes the supremacy of the state over all aspects of the lives of private citizens, could motivate such a dismissively mean-spirited article. There isn't an even an attempt by the author to give the subject an objective treatment. Usually this would sit fine with me, as a useful counter-force to the mirror negative that exists in the deluge of crypto hype from profit-motivated speculators, but the advocacy for illiberal laws that would prohibit financial privacy and imprison peaceful individuals makes the article unconscionable.
Only a deep-seated ideological precept, that idealizes the supremacy of the state over all aspects of the lives of private citizens, could motivate such a dismissively mean-spirited article. There isn't an even an attempt by the author to give the subject an objective treatment. Usually this would sit fine with me, as a useful counter-force to the mirror negative that exists in the deluge of crypto hype from profit-motivated speculators, but the advocacy for illiberal laws that would prohibit financial privacy and imprison peaceful individuals makes the article unconscionable.
I was thinking like the headline until I witnessed that a government seized assets of thousands and left them pennyless in a very short time. After coup attempt in Turkey, 1.5 million people are investigated with accusation of being a member of armed terrorist organization (population of Turkey is ~80 million). Lots of people who could run away found their assets were frozen, and eventually legally or illegally seized. All of a sudden they were poor. Were they kept some of their assets in Bitcoin, they could easily move them out of the country. Yes, the state can still go after them but it becomes much more difficult. This alone is sufficient for me to "invest" a percentage of my assets in Bitcoin in case something bad happens. Yes, it is unlikely but anything that makes a state stronger bully should be done.
The fact that Bitcoin is a complete failure as a currency is why it's not practical to keep all of your assets in it even as a targeted person.
Complete failure adopted by a nation state: https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1441846960332361730?s...
Not the win you think it is.
Don't keep all your assets in anything, including blood-fueled fiat. I have bought plenty of things, traded, gifted plenty of crypto, so to me and a lot of ppl around me, it's a currency.
Complete failure.. haha..
> The hucksterish utopian rhetoric and blustering ambient scuzz of the broader cryptocurrency thing as it exists in this moment—the clammy slew of posturing experts, the open mendacity and barely concealed rube-running bad faith, the actual criminality and simple goonery that define its day-to-day—do the idea at the center of it no favors, but that is, more or less, the thing that always happens to any idea once people get ahold of it. Again, this is something that most people understand without really understanding how they understand it. At some point, when you are being lied to all the time and everywhere, you just know when it’s happening.
There are way too many words in that article, yet the author manages to say almost nothing that hasn't been said before. I suggest removing all adverbs and adjectives, then re-writing.
There are way too many words in that article, yet the author manages to say almost nothing that hasn't been said before. I suggest removing all adverbs and adjectives, then re-writing.
I think NFTs are really dumb, a scam, and/or vectors for money laundering. Then again, I think the same thing about multimillion dollar private artwork and politicians' "nonprofits".
I think most cryptocurrencies and tokens are really dumb or a pyramid scheme. Then again, I think the same about multilevel marketing and much of the modern real estate and stock markets.
But I also see the really exciting potential and promise of blockchain tech. People are working on expanding access to capital and systems to countries with unstable currencies. They're working on the future of the corporation beyond capitalism with DAOs. Enabling micropayments for creators. Much more. It's tiring seeing all these articles harping on the downsides without acknowledging or looking into the upsides.
Probably because the system works fine for these authors -- they're somewhere with a stable currency, their 401k is going up, etc. Blockchain is a space where people are actually dreaming of something different and better instead of accepting the status quo. Meanwhile in the U.S. we have a Fed printing trillions of dollars to prop up asset prices, we have wars to support USD hegemony. In other countries their wages inflate away before they can spend them, etc.
I don't know a lot about all this stuff but I really respect the part of the blockchain space which is about broadening access, decentralizing power, and envisioning new systems.
I think most cryptocurrencies and tokens are really dumb or a pyramid scheme. Then again, I think the same about multilevel marketing and much of the modern real estate and stock markets.
But I also see the really exciting potential and promise of blockchain tech. People are working on expanding access to capital and systems to countries with unstable currencies. They're working on the future of the corporation beyond capitalism with DAOs. Enabling micropayments for creators. Much more. It's tiring seeing all these articles harping on the downsides without acknowledging or looking into the upsides.
Probably because the system works fine for these authors -- they're somewhere with a stable currency, their 401k is going up, etc. Blockchain is a space where people are actually dreaming of something different and better instead of accepting the status quo. Meanwhile in the U.S. we have a Fed printing trillions of dollars to prop up asset prices, we have wars to support USD hegemony. In other countries their wages inflate away before they can spend them, etc.
I don't know a lot about all this stuff but I really respect the part of the blockchain space which is about broadening access, decentralizing power, and envisioning new systems.
How long before Amazon starts paying their workers in a BezosBucks cryptocurrency that can only be redeemed at the Amazon company store? https://jacobinmag.com/2021/07/amazon-warehouse-communities-...
Good god what is with their obsession with scrip? Scrip payments have already been banned and it wasn't even a winning strategy for its users! You might as well raise concerns about the Kaiser going militant or the Shogun holding a coup in Japan.
I am seriously sick of people writing execrable impromptu science fiction and presenting it as reality.
I am seriously sick of people writing execrable impromptu science fiction and presenting it as reality.
One thing funny about cryptocurrency is that it's built for highly technical group of audience. But in my peers, a majority of people who get benefit from it are non-tech user.
Think of wallet concept. The wallet literally hold nothing. The fund isn't a file or something that the wallet keep. The wallet is simply server as an interface. The transaction can generate off chain. You can signed the transactionor any message to prove who you are. Read is essentially free but write contract cost gas. How can we explain these to a normal user? Why Solana is so fast and Ethereum is slow?
Now, the highly technical user understand those concept and feel something shady about a certain thing. Then they don't buy it. Meanwhile, othergroup get rich so quick and it makes the world feel like crypto is a ripoff.
Add in the controversal stuff such as Sushi fork Uni, then founder run off with $14m(and later return)...
all of that made crypto looks really bad.
But now let's see what blockchaing give us from a technical perspective. It's a distributed database where you can store data into it, like git, and can prove and trust it's what you write into it.
Example, DNS. DNS is very decentralize but what if your DNS server decided to return something different from the name server. What if we store DNS into blockchain? Write to it cost money but read is essentially free as long as you have a node.
But due to the highly cost of mining, and the craziness of its price, develop on blockchain is costly and it push people away because the people who want to build something on it doesn't have the fun. I, for one, want to do the above DNS idea with Ethereum but choose to go with Solana because Ethereum cost is just so damn high...
Think of wallet concept. The wallet literally hold nothing. The fund isn't a file or something that the wallet keep. The wallet is simply server as an interface. The transaction can generate off chain. You can signed the transactionor any message to prove who you are. Read is essentially free but write contract cost gas. How can we explain these to a normal user? Why Solana is so fast and Ethereum is slow?
Now, the highly technical user understand those concept and feel something shady about a certain thing. Then they don't buy it. Meanwhile, othergroup get rich so quick and it makes the world feel like crypto is a ripoff.
Add in the controversal stuff such as Sushi fork Uni, then founder run off with $14m(and later return)...
all of that made crypto looks really bad.
But now let's see what blockchaing give us from a technical perspective. It's a distributed database where you can store data into it, like git, and can prove and trust it's what you write into it.
Example, DNS. DNS is very decentralize but what if your DNS server decided to return something different from the name server. What if we store DNS into blockchain? Write to it cost money but read is essentially free as long as you have a node.
But due to the highly cost of mining, and the craziness of its price, develop on blockchain is costly and it push people away because the people who want to build something on it doesn't have the fun. I, for one, want to do the above DNS idea with Ethereum but choose to go with Solana because Ethereum cost is just so damn high...
ICANN isn't perfect (not even close, lol) - but I wish a consortium of countries would just create their own crypto. Unfortunately this would probably devolve to what we currently have with individual fiat.
Would anyone even use a not-for-profit backed "crypto"? I don't mean in the blockchain-backed sense, more in the ICANN/gift-cards/points globally distributed sense.
Would anyone even use a not-for-profit backed "crypto"? I don't mean in the blockchain-backed sense, more in the ICANN/gift-cards/points globally distributed sense.
Cryptocurrency was a broken concept from the very start. It assumed that you can build a financial system by engineering "trust" in purely technical terms.
Trust is something between humans. If you cannot find an arrangement of checks and balances that gives people comfort that the "system" is not ripping them off there is no amount of cryptoaccounting that will solve it for you.
The very anonymity of the bitcoin founder(s?) shows this was never an honest-to-goodness project. Its not surprising then that crypto never solved any real economic problem. As in: making any economy a tiny bit healthier, more resilient, less unequal. Not a single one.
But had it stayed a failed financial reform project would have been one thing. It is heartbreaking to witness the amount of fraud, waste of resources and manipulation it unleashed. Its ongoing amoral adoption by the formal financial system as "yet another asset class offering diversification to our customers" is a fitting closure.
The chicken came home to roost.
Trust is something between humans. If you cannot find an arrangement of checks and balances that gives people comfort that the "system" is not ripping them off there is no amount of cryptoaccounting that will solve it for you.
The very anonymity of the bitcoin founder(s?) shows this was never an honest-to-goodness project. Its not surprising then that crypto never solved any real economic problem. As in: making any economy a tiny bit healthier, more resilient, less unequal. Not a single one.
But had it stayed a failed financial reform project would have been one thing. It is heartbreaking to witness the amount of fraud, waste of resources and manipulation it unleashed. Its ongoing amoral adoption by the formal financial system as "yet another asset class offering diversification to our customers" is a fitting closure.
The chicken came home to roost.
In my opinion it feels like Bitcoin was designed by an amateur from a monetary perspective. Imagine if governments actually used it. Inequality would get worse than it already is. People buy it because of the multi level marketing aspect. Someone bought Bitcoin and they tell others to buy it, rinse and repeat.
People will call "nocoiners" jealous because they missed some train after all they didn't buy Bitcoin when it was at $100. Yet they talk about how oppressive the government provided financial system is. Like how getting -0.5% negative interest on savings above $100k is the end for the small saver but having your money go up 10x because you bought it early and having the purchasing power of your labor go down by 10x because you bought too late is the paragon of equality. One year of work buys me less Bitcoin than 3 years ago. I'm getting priced out like with real estate. It's really puzzling to me how this is supposed to lead to a crypto utopia.
People will call "nocoiners" jealous because they missed some train after all they didn't buy Bitcoin when it was at $100. Yet they talk about how oppressive the government provided financial system is. Like how getting -0.5% negative interest on savings above $100k is the end for the small saver but having your money go up 10x because you bought it early and having the purchasing power of your labor go down by 10x because you bought too late is the paragon of equality. One year of work buys me less Bitcoin than 3 years ago. I'm getting priced out like with real estate. It's really puzzling to me how this is supposed to lead to a crypto utopia.
The jealousy argument just reveals the character and knowledge level (and maybe age) of the people who make up the cryptomania movement.
Money is not a "asset class", it is a claim on other people's time and the economic value they can generate with their work and talent. It is only "worth" the value of the community that accepts it as a legitimate tender. If a token dollar is worth something it is because a vast range of people will happily exchange it for something trully valuable.
The economy of a community made up of speculators and extortionists is worth exactly zero (if not negative) and it is a matter of time before this transpires.
The only positive thing to say about bitcoin and friends is that is showed to many more people that monetary system alternatives are in principle possible. Ofcourse some people have been for ages working on complementary currencies and such. Digital and programmable currencies are the future, but they will have to become real economic tools that will fix true problems before they stand a chance against the current system.
Money is not a "asset class", it is a claim on other people's time and the economic value they can generate with their work and talent. It is only "worth" the value of the community that accepts it as a legitimate tender. If a token dollar is worth something it is because a vast range of people will happily exchange it for something trully valuable.
The economy of a community made up of speculators and extortionists is worth exactly zero (if not negative) and it is a matter of time before this transpires.
The only positive thing to say about bitcoin and friends is that is showed to many more people that monetary system alternatives are in principle possible. Ofcourse some people have been for ages working on complementary currencies and such. Digital and programmable currencies are the future, but they will have to become real economic tools that will fix true problems before they stand a chance against the current system.
All I know is that I actually feel in control of my money with crypto and can easily move it around the world. ACH and wire transfers are painful in comparison.
I am not defending existing monetary systems. The cost and difficulty of transfers is in no small measure the result of cartels that the official system is quite happy to let fester because they haven't seen an oligopoly they didn't like.
I'm sorry, it has nothing to do with cartels and everything to do with an incredibly complex banking infrastructure running mostly on fortran and cobol.
I'm sorry, do some research. A few large operators keep the remittances costs high. https://voxeu.org/article/stubbornly-high-cost-remittances
As for fortran and cobol, why change the technology if you are sitting pretty?
As for fortran and cobol, why change the technology if you are sitting pretty?
Did you read your link because it says nothing about high fees due to cartels or kyc or anything else. In fact it say big old banks are the most expensive while new internet services are the cheapest. Remittance is already paid for with crypto and increasing. It’s a perfect application for it.
"It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Perceived Crypto Wealth Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"
This is an article by mainstream economists in official positions who would in general not name names - yet the situation is so egregious they actually do. They state in no clear terms in the abstract and section header that lack of competition (and lack of education) are the reasons.
Increasing competition does not lead us one-to-one to adopting crypto except to tunnel vision minds.
In any case, I have given you the benefit of the doubt for the sake of discussion. There is no report that crypto has made any difference in remittances or any other disadvantaged economic group. If there is such evidence please inform us.
This is an article by mainstream economists in official positions who would in general not name names - yet the situation is so egregious they actually do. They state in no clear terms in the abstract and section header that lack of competition (and lack of education) are the reasons.
Increasing competition does not lead us one-to-one to adopting crypto except to tunnel vision minds.
In any case, I have given you the benefit of the doubt for the sake of discussion. There is no report that crypto has made any difference in remittances or any other disadvantaged economic group. If there is such evidence please inform us.
Bitcoin has nothing to do with all these scams like NFTs and "internet computers" like Ethereum, which are pushed by tech gurus, influencers and marketers. It's time to stop conflating these under the same umbrella. Bitcoiners are not the same people who push these useless things.
Absolutely correct. Bitcoin isn't the domain of NFT grifters, it's the domain of ransomware hostage-takers.
We need to be accurate when discussing the various scams proposed.
We need to be accurate when discussing the various scams proposed.
That's not even remotely true.
What do you mean? Of course it is. How else has ransomware been able to thrive as of late?
The sooner governments abolish fiat to cryptocurrency exchanges and make such transactions illegal, the sooner this clown car of sadness will come to an end.
As much as I'm not a fan of China and the CCP, they are making some good moves in this department recently to eliminate unneeded capital flight. The US should follow in their steps here.
The sooner governments abolish fiat to cryptocurrency exchanges and make such transactions illegal, the sooner this clown car of sadness will come to an end.
As much as I'm not a fan of China and the CCP, they are making some good moves in this department recently to eliminate unneeded capital flight. The US should follow in their steps here.
It happens, but it isn't "the domain" like he meant. There are hundreds of millions Bitcoin users already, and the vast majority of them are not criminals. According to Chainalysis, only 0.34% of total transaction value was criminal in 2020.[0]
[0] https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/2021-crypto-crime-repor...
[0] https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/2021-crypto-crime-repor...
If you think about crypto as a MMOG, people’s behaviors start to make a lot more sense.
Thanks for posting that. I hadn’t seen Jack’s pro-Bitcoin tweet, and seeing it here allowed me to like and share it.
This author obviously has an axe to grind, so I didn’t get much out of his words.
This author obviously has an axe to grind, so I didn’t get much out of his words.
I got about half way through the article, and all I’d read was a bunch of poorly attributed motives the author had invented for the people who participate in cryptocurrency.
Did they actually get around to talking about cryptocurrency at any point?
Did they actually get around to talking about cryptocurrency at any point?
Here's your seemingly month reminder that there is only one cryptocurrency. Bitcoin.
NFTs are epitome of tulip mania. Bitcoin, while it does increase in value due to low supply, is the only secure and actually fair escape hatch to the global monetary system and holds value globally. Proof of Stake, and every single coin below Bitcoin, copied from Bitcoin, are similar to fiat and centralized. Ethereum is the worst of the bunch and is scamming millions.
NFTs are epitome of tulip mania. Bitcoin, while it does increase in value due to low supply, is the only secure and actually fair escape hatch to the global monetary system and holds value globally. Proof of Stake, and every single coin below Bitcoin, copied from Bitcoin, are similar to fiat and centralized. Ethereum is the worst of the bunch and is scamming millions.
For everyone who doesn't follow crypto. OP is obviously a Bitcoin maximalist. For them, the world of crypto begins and ends with Bitcoin.
A fair escape hatch?
Anybody can buy BTC with stablecoins, which are unaudited, and whose creators have openly lied about maintaining a 1:1 ratio between USD and stablecoins in circulation.
Say what you will about fiat, but no bank in the world will let me exchange monopoly money for something I can use to buy a sandwich.
Anybody can buy BTC with stablecoins, which are unaudited, and whose creators have openly lied about maintaining a 1:1 ratio between USD and stablecoins in circulation.
Say what you will about fiat, but no bank in the world will let me exchange monopoly money for something I can use to buy a sandwich.
Let's accept your premise for the sake of argument.
Why do you thinik the contagion from other crypto scams imploding won't bring down BTC? Will people still trust BTC if they lose trust in other crypto?
Why do you thinik the contagion from other crypto scams imploding won't bring down BTC? Will people still trust BTC if they lose trust in other crypto?
Off topic. Did anyone else's AI generated text radar go off on this article? Seems like too many fancy words.
I wonder how many media outlets use GPT-3 to help generate content.
I wonder how many media outlets use GPT-3 to help generate content.
The author does seem to be influenced by the writing style of https://www.pakin.org/complaint, but the arguments he presents are coherent.
Unless specifically encouraged, GPT-3 would probably prefer to use common language.
Actually it's pretty weird. This is a sports blog and content engine. And the author is someone who started this publication. I'm not sure what the motivation/context is at all here.
More like deflector.com.
I'm not going to claim that cryptocurrency is going to change the world for the better, but this is an article almost entirely composed of straw men. Whether you like cryptocurrency or not, if you understand it at all and have actually heard the evangelists' arguments and understood them almost every single point made in this article doesn't really apply.
I'm not going to claim that cryptocurrency is going to change the world for the better, but this is an article almost entirely composed of straw men. Whether you like cryptocurrency or not, if you understand it at all and have actually heard the evangelists' arguments and understood them almost every single point made in this article doesn't really apply.
Not going to say that no one lies about it but I had to transfer a sizable amount of money between two banks at about the same time I did a transaction from my home with BTC that took all but 20 minutes without the need for fax machines.
There are advantages to cryptocurrencies and one can very much want a future where currencies they would use isn't hampered by government.
There are advantages to cryptocurrencies and one can very much want a future where currencies they would use isn't hampered by government.
Transferring huge amounts of money between accounts, specially when you own both is not a problem unless you live in the US. For most of Europe, Asia and even latin america this problem has been solved almost two decades ago. Around the same time the banks on those countries retired their fax machines.
I live in Canada and had bank accounts in France as well where anything above 5 figures is hard to do across institutions. I was able to move 50k in 10 minutes in BTC when 25k CAD was tough to send and required days of wait time despite a certified cheque I paid extra for.
It’s pretty clear from the article that the author thinks markets are intrinsically bad, most entrepreneurs and founders are generally bad, and that economic activity is generally better coordinated and controlled by the state. And it’s pretty clear from the upvotes and comments that many here agree with this viewpoint.
And that’s fine. That’s a completely defensible world view, that many smarter than me have held throughout history. But for heavens sake why are you spending your time on a forum about celebrating startups hosted by a venture capitalist?
And that’s fine. That’s a completely defensible world view, that many smarter than me have held throughout history. But for heavens sake why are you spending your time on a forum about celebrating startups hosted by a venture capitalist?
It's only "bad" if you believe in democracy and equality. Markets are great for those who benefit from them. I just don't see cryptos benefiting the majority of mankind. They pretty much reinforce or retain existing power structures.
We are currently transitioning from the part where they laugh at you, to the part where they fight you.
The article mentions launderers and dirty tricksters, who we haven’t collectively stopped laughing at, yet to effectively fight.
Nah, I'm still in the bemused stage. They may actually succeed in making crypto a normal thing adopted by society. At which point I'll transition to my usual next stage. Being resigned to yet another bad technology solution to what is fundamentally a people problem.
I think you can sub in the word Money or Currency in this headline and it would still ring true or perhaps even more true
> Neither, strictly speaking, is anything that a normal person would really need to know or care about unless that normal person is the victim of a ransomware scam, or wants to buy drugs on the internet...
Ah right... because normal people never donate to journalists. Never pay for online subscriptions, never buy hardware off newegg. Just because the author has no exerience using cryptocurrency he assumes everyone is like him and repeats the FUD.
Ah right... because normal people never donate to journalists. Never pay for online subscriptions, never buy hardware off newegg. Just because the author has no exerience using cryptocurrency he assumes everyone is like him and repeats the FUD.
> never donate to journalists
Not really, unless you count patreon.
> Never pay for online subscriptions, never buy hardware off newegg
Credit cards or paypal. Both of which have a better refund system.
Not really, unless you count patreon.
> Never pay for online subscriptions, never buy hardware off newegg
Credit cards or paypal. Both of which have a better refund system.
Normal people do not have, use, or understand cryptocurrencies. If you think they do all that means is you live in a very specific bubble.
Normal people do all that with money and credit cards and debit cards and bank transfers, which works faster and better and are much easier to use and much more convenient. The existing framework is a much better way to do all the things you mentioned. What do you have for which the existing framework isn't better, and how often do "normal" people do that?
Keep in mind that Bitcoin is vulnerable to cracking by quantum computers some time in the next couple decades.
This is kind of overstated. From what I remember, it only makes addresses vulnerable after you spend from them, and in all likelihood the network would migrate to a resistant algorithm.
Q4 is set to be an amazing crypto run because all I see is lots of last minute FUD right now on all media channels, and of course from China. The OG FUD source has blown its final wad and banned all crypto “for real this time.” Let’s hope the USA isn’t as backwards thinking and sees that banning crypto is removing yourself from the new world economy.
Surely you DO want the USA to ban crypto? I'm assured that crypto bans make the price go sky high and then the whales can cash out into dollars.
Not necessarily, but to be honest I haven't seen a single cryptocurrency that made sense so far.
I wrote about how misleading the crypto ecosystem is a while ago here: https://henvic.dev/posts/bitcoin/
I wrote about how misleading the crypto ecosystem is a while ago here: https://henvic.dev/posts/bitcoin/
This is as boring and ignorant an article as I've seen in 10 years of participating in blockchain.
Please, if you're going to hate on bitcoin, try to bring something new or interesting to the convo.
The good criticisms of blockchain are old and boring. It's slow, it uses a lot of energy, not being regulated is bad actually, reversible transactions are good, etc.
If you take every long-refuted criticism of Bitcoin along with cherrypicked examples of cringe celebrities endorsing it, and you combine that with misinformed neo-Marxism and an unquestioning acceptance of government officials, you get this article.
If your average sports writer actually wanted to understand the space, they could read something with real data: https://nydig.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/NYDIG-Bitcoin-N...
If your average sports writer actually wanted to understand the space, they could read something with real data: https://nydig.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/NYDIG-Bitcoin-N...
> Since 1920, at least 55 hyperinflation events have taken place, destroying savings and creating economic hardship... Bitcoin offers the world an alternative – a sound monetary system outside the control of governments and central banks.
The paper you linked doesn't exactly get off to a good start, considering there are ~1600-2200 dead/worthless cryptocurrencies (see below) and Bitcoin itself is incredibly volatile. It's somewhat absurd to claim Bitcoin is the stable alternative to fiat currencies, or the solution to cases of currency collapse. The rest of the summary is just speculation on how the carbon footprint of Bitcoin might be reasonable in the future. Would you mind pointing out the parts that you feel refute the article's criticisms?
https://www.coinopsy.com/dead-coins/ https://deadcoins.com/
The paper you linked doesn't exactly get off to a good start, considering there are ~1600-2200 dead/worthless cryptocurrencies (see below) and Bitcoin itself is incredibly volatile. It's somewhat absurd to claim Bitcoin is the stable alternative to fiat currencies, or the solution to cases of currency collapse. The rest of the summary is just speculation on how the carbon footprint of Bitcoin might be reasonable in the future. Would you mind pointing out the parts that you feel refute the article's criticisms?
https://www.coinopsy.com/dead-coins/ https://deadcoins.com/
BTC specifically has seen it's volatility drastically reduced. It's not hard to find several stocks with a much higher volatility in the last month, particularly the last week.
Many other cryptocurrencies still experience extreme volatility on par with BTC's early history.
Many other cryptocurrencies still experience extreme volatility on par with BTC's early history.
> Bitcoin itself is incredibly volatile.
Largely in the right direction.
Largely in the right direction.
Good point, but you have to consider that if we're talking about a scenario in which it's being used in the place of a national currency, the bigger picture matters less. If your paycheck can lose 20% of it's value in a few days you may not have the option to wait for it to possibly regain that value. Even ignoring the short term issues, I'm not convinced Bitcoin is any more protected from becoming totally worthless than any given fiat currency. I just can't see the scenario in which it solves or even helps the issue of hyperinflation in a way that fiat currency couldn't.
What this article does is let me take a mental not to take anything too seriously from this source that pops up in the future.
[deleted]
Regarding an interesting counter-example to blockchain hype, check out Omnichains:
https://www.omnichains.com/
They initially argued that they could provide an unrivaled form of transparency because they kept all the data on the blockchain. But now I'm working for a customer of their's, and I realize there is no blockchain. I believe they now run a standard service backed up by a standard SQL database.
But look at their marketing:
"Omnichain has earned the prestigious recognition for its innovative solution that is helping brands and retailers create more transparent, connected supply chains and drive intelligent process automation."
Or check out this blog post:
"Lack of visibility is not a new problem. Supply chains have long dealt with fragmented management systems and data siloes—barriers that limit transparency, efficiency, and collaboration between stakeholders. The pandemic only magnified these challenges.
...Moving forward, end-to-end visibility solutions—made possible by technologies like blockchain—will be instrumental in helping businesses proactively identify risks and pivot accordingly. So going back to suppliers, manufacturers can use blockchain to connect and share data with their suppliers. With accurate, real-time visibility into available resources upstream, they can quickly identify alternate sources if needed, and ultimately prevent costly production delays."
I have the impression this company started off hoping to use the blockchain to create a more transparent supply chain. I also have the impression they have pivoted away from that vision.
And that's fine, of course. I'm not criticizing them. A startup starts with one hypothesis, tests it, and then pivots when that first hypothesis fails. This is good management.
But I think, in a small way, it indicates what is happening with those startups that got started when blockchain hype was at its peak. Two or three years ago you could get money from investors by promising to revolutionize an industry by using the blockchain. And now it's turning out that the blockchain is less useful than was supposed for creating new kinds of transparency.
As it turns out, supply chain transparency is limited by each companies unwillingness to share it weaknesses, it's lack of cash flow, it's lack of inventory, and it's slow shipping times. Blockchain can not fix any of those things.
And as I've said elsewhere, with these industrial applications of blockchain, I've yet to see a service that could not have been done more easily with a standard framework (Ruby On Rails or Django or Symfony or NodeJS) sitting in front of a standard SQL database.
A final point: this is my first time working on a big retail/warehouse project, and I am absolutely shocked at the primitive technology that is currently in use. Most of these companies lack APIs, which, in the year 2021, I find shocking. For our warehouse, for instance, there is no way to do an API call to find how much of a particular item is still in inventory. And this clearly limits how much the blockchain is able to change anything.
And this is especially wild: I've spoken to the good folks at Omnichains, and they tell me that they do not have an API. Rather, they can send us a CSV file at regular times, but that is it. In the year 2021!
Just amazing.
https://www.omnichains.com/
They initially argued that they could provide an unrivaled form of transparency because they kept all the data on the blockchain. But now I'm working for a customer of their's, and I realize there is no blockchain. I believe they now run a standard service backed up by a standard SQL database.
But look at their marketing:
"Omnichain has earned the prestigious recognition for its innovative solution that is helping brands and retailers create more transparent, connected supply chains and drive intelligent process automation."
Or check out this blog post:
"Lack of visibility is not a new problem. Supply chains have long dealt with fragmented management systems and data siloes—barriers that limit transparency, efficiency, and collaboration between stakeholders. The pandemic only magnified these challenges.
...Moving forward, end-to-end visibility solutions—made possible by technologies like blockchain—will be instrumental in helping businesses proactively identify risks and pivot accordingly. So going back to suppliers, manufacturers can use blockchain to connect and share data with their suppliers. With accurate, real-time visibility into available resources upstream, they can quickly identify alternate sources if needed, and ultimately prevent costly production delays."
I have the impression this company started off hoping to use the blockchain to create a more transparent supply chain. I also have the impression they have pivoted away from that vision.
And that's fine, of course. I'm not criticizing them. A startup starts with one hypothesis, tests it, and then pivots when that first hypothesis fails. This is good management.
But I think, in a small way, it indicates what is happening with those startups that got started when blockchain hype was at its peak. Two or three years ago you could get money from investors by promising to revolutionize an industry by using the blockchain. And now it's turning out that the blockchain is less useful than was supposed for creating new kinds of transparency.
As it turns out, supply chain transparency is limited by each companies unwillingness to share it weaknesses, it's lack of cash flow, it's lack of inventory, and it's slow shipping times. Blockchain can not fix any of those things.
And as I've said elsewhere, with these industrial applications of blockchain, I've yet to see a service that could not have been done more easily with a standard framework (Ruby On Rails or Django or Symfony or NodeJS) sitting in front of a standard SQL database.
A final point: this is my first time working on a big retail/warehouse project, and I am absolutely shocked at the primitive technology that is currently in use. Most of these companies lack APIs, which, in the year 2021, I find shocking. For our warehouse, for instance, there is no way to do an API call to find how much of a particular item is still in inventory. And this clearly limits how much the blockchain is able to change anything.
And this is especially wild: I've spoken to the good folks at Omnichains, and they tell me that they do not have an API. Rather, they can send us a CSV file at regular times, but that is it. In the year 2021!
Just amazing.
[deleted]
NFTs aren't money, or currency and just because they can be created on some blockchains doesn't make them so.
I also don't see a genuine effort from the author to really understand why proponents think that this technology will positively change the world. You might not agree with them, but at least then rebut their arguments instead of creating straw men.
Bitcoin is open source, the original founder is nowhere to be found, there were no VCs involved in its creation or in the distribution of the coins and the entire network is run out in the open. The Bitcoin network is a commons.
The permissionless, decentralized, p2p and stateless aspect of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin is as revolutionary as it was 12 years ago, and in these 12 years "normal" (i.e. non-rich) people had access to them as much as anyone else. Heck, 10 years ago there were faucets that would hand out 5 bitcoins if you solved a captcha.
The people who are today involved in the creation and distribution of fiat money have incredible power, a power which is largely hidden from view, but which actually drives and shapes a lot of what we see. Of course these people won't take an open source competitor lying down.