5 ms·

wait a sec. Someone steals my credit card, and if I notice within 2 months, I can get everything back. Another advantage is that it doesn't take several hours

by rtpg 10y ago

wait a sec. Someone steals my credit card, and if I notice within 2 months, I can get everything back. Another advantage is that it doesn't take several hours (and huge amounts of wasted electricity) for a transaction to go through. My bank hasn't been siphoning my funds either. I wouldn't trust any cryptocurrency exchange with holding even 10% of my monthly salary. Sure, governments can get my bank records. But my bank records aren't literally inscribed on a public ledger! I don't have to make a bunch of fake bank accounts to protect my privacy from the random data scientist with the blockchain, because if I use my main account and my identity gets leaked from some random service I used, then now everyone knows who I am. It doesn't matter if they don't care about me. Nobody cares about me. But the incentives are partially aligned: systems with higher trust require less friction. And things like credit cards prove that you can build protections. And "code is law" is not really extendable across society. We have contracts, of course. But almost all contracts include a "Use common sense"-style clause, which is the whole point lawyers and judges exist in the first place. How can you build "force majeur" clauses into code without some third party arbitrator? Of course, having a decentralized backbone is neat. A long time ago, anyone could make gold coins! It wasn't like some evil cabal was like "Oh, we shall unify all the currencies and CONTROL EVERYTHING!" Centralization happened because it was kinda useful. Half of cryptocurrency stories are "techies discover why banks do the things they do". For example: I imagine more and more exchanges will partner up to do off-chain transactions. At one point, a lot of stuff will happen off-chain. Question: what do you think Visa does? I do not see a decentralized currency ever becoming big enough to be a real fraction of economic transactions without it becoming what most of what we have. Competition is good! But I think some cryptocurrency enthusiasts are in for disappointment if they want critical mass

guard-of-terra 10y ago
Someone steals the control of your banking account, they take everything and there's no way of getting those money back. Credit cards are peculiar in this regard.
- rtpg 10y ago
  I am not 100% sure, but my understanding is that the bank is liable for those losses unless they can prove gross negligence on your part. I've heard that legal argument, at least. [0] Though this is not worse from your cryptocurrency. If they get a hold of your private keys, you lose everything. At least in the classical banking system you have some legal recourse. [0]: I might just be thinking of this comedy sketch though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Your private keys have limited attack surface, especially if they're in cold storage. However, your banking account has unlimited attack surface. It's on some remote information system that you do not control and never will. As I already said, I'm not a big believer in "legal recourse", it's as well to be used to take money from you as to return them back.
  - mrb 10y ago
    "they get a hold of your private keys, you lose everything." Hardware wallets solve this (Trezor, Keepkey, etc.) This makes Bitcoin more secure than cash. Most people accept the (imperfect) level of security of cash, so they would be OK with the higher level of security of hw wallets.
    - rtpg 10y ago
      Serious question: if you're using a hardware wallet, can people accept payment from you without worrying about double spends?
      - guard-of-terra 10y ago
        How is it any different compared to software wallet?
    - hueving 10y ago
      They would be okay with higher security, but not higher risk of it breaking. Cash doesn't rely on advanced circuitry so I don't have to risk losing $50,000 because of some static electricity.
nickodell 10y ago
>And "code is law" is not really extendable across society. We have contracts, of course. But almost all contracts include a "Use common sense"-style clause, which is the whole point lawyers and judges exist in the first place. I would characterize the development of law and contracts as something meant to protect parties from common sense. If all we needed was common sense, every contract would just say (a la Raikoth) >In all situations, the parties will take the normatively correct action. ...and nothing else. Law is essentially shaping common sense into something predictable and useful. So, why wouldn't it be possible to take something deterministic, and shape that into something predictable and useful? It doesn't need to be perfect - it just needs to be better than what already exists.
mrb 10y ago
"Someone steals my credit card, and if I notice within 2 months, I can get everything back." No. You may still be liable for $500 if you fail to report it within 48 HOURS: http://consumer.findlaw.com/credit-banking-finance/are-you-liable-for-unauthorized-credit-card-charges.html http://consumer.findlaw.com/credit-banking-finance/are-you-l... "Another advantage is that it doesn't take several hours" You hold a common misconception of how transactions work. Bitcoin transactions are transmitted/notified instantly (like credit cards). Transactions will be confirmed and spendable by the recipient within 10min on average (with CCs it takes 1-3 days until the merchant gets the money). Finally transactions are considered irreversible/definitely non-fraudulent after 6 blocks or 60min on average (with CCs it takes 60 days since charge backs are possible for 60 days). So if you compares apples to apples, Bitcoin is always faster than credit cards. "huge amounts of wasted electricity" This is not wasteful: http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/
- rtpg 10y ago
  that argument about bitcoin mining not being wasteful just shows it's not wasteful compared to other decentralized, trustless currencies. It still loses out to traditional payment methods. "It will only use 1% of the world's electricity consumption". We can only do that for 100 things. Does "decentralisation of currency" belong in the top 100 things to devote electricity generation to? EDIT: do you have a link to a fuller explanation about transaction speeds? I do not understand how transfers can happen so quickly without introducing a risk of double spend
  - mrb 10y ago
    Why would the argument be only valid when compared to other decentralized, trustless currencies? The benefits indirectly extracted from Bitcoin mining ($1B invested in 729 companies, thousands of jobs created, etc) exist precisely because Bitcoin has advantages over other traditional payment systems. "Does "decentralisation of currency" belong in the top 100 things to devote electricity generation to?" I think so. If (big if) Bitcoin ever becomes so successful that 1% of the energy is spent on it, think about the massive scale of positive social and economic changes it means it will have brought: freeing people from economic censorship and persecution, reducing international payment friction hence increasing economic trade, etc. But I think neither you nor I can envision the scale of such potential social and economic changes. It is like asking a random person from the 1890s how much do they think automobiles will change the world, and almost nobody would have predicted automobiles are a major enabler of the economic expansion of the 20th century. Transaction speeds: zero-conf txs are at risk of a double-spend, but in practice this happens extremely rarely.

by rtpg 10y ago

guard-of-terra 10y ago

Someone steals the control of your banking account, they take everything and there's no way of getting those money back. Credit cards are peculiar in this regard.

rtpg 10y ago
I am not 100% sure, but my understanding is that the bank is liable for those losses unless they can prove gross negligence on your part. I've heard that legal argument, at least. [0] Though this is not worse from your cryptocurrency. If they get a hold of your private keys, you lose everything. At least in the classical banking system you have some legal recourse. [0]: I might just be thinking of this comedy sketch though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  Your private keys have limited attack surface, especially if they're in cold storage. However, your banking account has unlimited attack surface. It's on some remote information system that you do not control and never will. As I already said, I'm not a big believer in "legal recourse", it's as well to be used to take money from you as to return them back.
- mrb 10y ago
  "they get a hold of your private keys, you lose everything." Hardware wallets solve this (Trezor, Keepkey, etc.) This makes Bitcoin more secure than cash. Most people accept the (imperfect) level of security of cash, so they would be OK with the higher level of security of hw wallets.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    Serious question: if you're using a hardware wallet, can people accept payment from you without worrying about double spends?
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      How is it any different compared to software wallet?
  - hueving 10y ago
    They would be okay with higher security, but not higher risk of it breaking. Cash doesn't rely on advanced circuitry so I don't have to risk losing $50,000 because of some static electricity.

nickodell 10y ago

>And "code is law" is not really extendable across society. We have contracts, of course. But almost all contracts include a "Use common sense"-style clause, which is the whole point lawyers and judges exist in the first place. I would characterize the development of law and contracts as something meant to protect parties from common sense. If all we needed was common sense, every contract would just say (a la Raikoth) >In all situations, the parties will take the normatively correct action. ...and nothing else. Law is essentially shaping common sense into something predictable and useful. So, why wouldn't it be possible to take something deterministic, and shape that into something predictable and useful? It doesn't need to be perfect - it just needs to be better than what already exists.

mrb 10y ago

"Someone steals my credit card, and if I notice within 2 months, I can get everything back." No. You may still be liable for $500 if you fail to report it within 48 HOURS: http://consumer.findlaw.com/credit-banking-finance/are-you-liable-for-unauthorized-credit-card-charges.html http://consumer.findlaw.com/credit-banking-finance/are-you-l... "Another advantage is that it doesn't take several hours" You hold a common misconception of how transactions work. Bitcoin transactions are transmitted/notified instantly (like credit cards). Transactions will be confirmed and spendable by the recipient within 10min on average (with CCs it takes 1-3 days until the merchant gets the money). Finally transactions are considered irreversible/definitely non-fraudulent after 6 blocks or 60min on average (with CCs it takes 60 days since charge backs are possible for 60 days). So if you compares apples to apples, Bitcoin is always faster than credit cards. "huge amounts of wasted electricity" This is not wasteful: http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/

rtpg 10y ago
that argument about bitcoin mining not being wasteful just shows it's not wasteful compared to other decentralized, trustless currencies. It still loses out to traditional payment methods. "It will only use 1% of the world's electricity consumption". We can only do that for 100 things. Does "decentralisation of currency" belong in the top 100 things to devote electricity generation to? EDIT: do you have a link to a fuller explanation about transaction speeds? I do not understand how transfers can happen so quickly without introducing a risk of double spend
- mrb 10y ago
  Why would the argument be only valid when compared to other decentralized, trustless currencies? The benefits indirectly extracted from Bitcoin mining ($1B invested in 729 companies, thousands of jobs created, etc) exist precisely because Bitcoin has advantages over other traditional payment systems. "Does "decentralisation of currency" belong in the top 100 things to devote electricity generation to?" I think so. If (big if) Bitcoin ever becomes so successful that 1% of the energy is spent on it, think about the massive scale of positive social and economic changes it means it will have brought: freeing people from economic censorship and persecution, reducing international payment friction hence increasing economic trade, etc. But I think neither you nor I can envision the scale of such potential social and economic changes. It is like asking a random person from the 1890s how much do they think automobiles will change the world, and almost nobody would have predicted automobiles are a major enabler of the economic expansion of the 20th century. Transaction speeds: zero-conf txs are at risk of a double-spend, but in practice this happens extremely rarely.