4 ms·

1. Your bank account balance is a number in a database. There are multiple organizations much more powerful than you that have the ability to alter that databas

by dis13 9y ago

1. Your bank account balance is a number in a database. There are multiple organizations much more powerful than you that have the ability to alter that database. Your protection against them is the legal system which is adversarial between you and these giant organizations, and run by government employees. If you’re fine with that, great. If you aren’t and you want to take responsibility into your own hands, try Bitcoin. 2. Blockchain doesn’t make it easier to distribute and process information. Blockchain makes it harder and a lot harder. Blockchain makes it possible to verify a set of rules going back to the genesis block. It makes it possible for you to prove that you own the book, if someone wants to create a book ownership registry smartcontract. I don’t disagree with this element of the article, a lot of people are trying to use blockchain tech to “solve” problems where it offers nothing. But that fact that shock therapy is worse than useless doesn’t mean electricity is a bad vision for the future. To paraphrase Drake: the real will live forever, the fake will be destroyed.

Nursie 9y ago
Not only am I fine with that, I think it's vastly superior to a system where you can lose your entire balance by misplacing a key. Forgetting my PIN doesn't lock up my account forever, if I get scammed by a vendor I can appeal to my bank for a chargeback, and if they lose my money they are on the hook for it. "Be your own bank" sounds bootstrappy and self-reliant, but in reality it's just stupid.
- sparkie 9y ago
  Using cryptocurrency does not forfeit the ability to have a third-party take custody of your funds for you. But because you are useless at looking after things, everybody else should forfeit their right to be custodian of their own funds? The choice should be there for anyone to make. Do I look after my own funds, knowing the risks, or do I let someone else look after them, knowing those risks? Or you know, we now have these things called multisig wallets, which mean that you can have third-parties secure your funds without actually giving them custody of the funds. You can have the best of both worlds by removing the risk of losing everything if you lose your keys, and also eliminate the possibility of a bank/government from stealing your money.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    > But because you are useless at looking after things, everybody else should forfeit their right to be custodian of their own funds? Do what you like, but the vast majority of people should not be doing this, because the risks are vast and the rewards basically zero.
    - sparkie 9y ago
      Right, as I said, the vast majority of people don't need to. Banks aren't going obsolete, but they'll be different in form for a world of people using cryptocurrencies. The way I see it is that existing banks will have to adapt to fit into the cryptocurrency world, or they'll just be replaced by other services that do. They have a huge head start in terms of capital, reach and marketing potential, but so far they've not even left the start line. People with little capital, little experience, and only social media are apparently creating the financial organizations of the future.
umanwizard 9y ago
You've (accidentally) pointed out why cryptocurrencies will never achieve mass adoption: 99.9% of people are perfectly happy to trust that banks and the government will do the right thing most of the time.
- sparkie 9y ago
  99.9% of people where? If you look at the world outside of your little bubble, there are over 3 billion people with little or no access to banking services that the west takes for granted. And do you think people in Venezuela, India, Greece, Zimbabwe, etc trust that their governments will do the right thing?
  - Nursie 9y ago
    The unbanked are not going to be using cryptocurrency, which requires secure access to secure computers, a whole mass of precautions, technical knowledge etc etc. They're not going to be putting what little they have into a wildly fluctuating asset class with poorly enumerated tax liabilities. It's a pipedream of western cryptocurrency enthusiasts, not actually something that's going to be useful on the ground.
    - sparkie 9y ago
      I mentioned Venezuela because people there are using Bitcoin, despite it being illegal, despite it being volatile. Because it's objectively better than what their government is offering. You're really thinking short term if you think that Bitcoin can't spread to the masses of people worldwide. A couple of decades ago, people in rural India for example, didn't even have permanent access to a telephone in their home. Technical advancement has now meant that masses of them have phones, and many of them smartphones. They have completely skipped over the home telephone thing. They certainly are going to use cryptocurrencies if it's the simplest way to transfer money to people, without going through the bank (which they have limited access to). In particular, you have large numbers of people working abroad who send money back home to their families. In the old financial system they usually end up paying big taxes on these transfers (fees which seem small to westerners, but which could feed entire families for a day). Just as these people haven't rushed to get a landline to get a telephone in their home, they're also not going to rush to get a bank account where they're restricted on how and when they can use their money, when a better technology is now available to them. Volatility is and obvious side-effect when demand is changing at such staggering volumes. Some days Bitcoin might get a million new users if it's put out in mainstream media. These fluctuations will probably increase in the near term, as more people become aware and being to adopt cryptocurrencies, but long term, they will die down as adoption rate slows too. It's not going to happen overnight, which is probably where most of the dismissive attitude comes from. People's expectations are too high in what they want to be able to do tomorrow with crypto, but in reality it's going to take several decades to work its way into society.

by dis13 9y ago

Nursie 9y ago

Not only am I fine with that, I think it's vastly superior to a system where you can lose your entire balance by misplacing a key. Forgetting my PIN doesn't lock up my account forever, if I get scammed by a vendor I can appeal to my bank for a chargeback, and if they lose my money they are on the hook for it. "Be your own bank" sounds bootstrappy and self-reliant, but in reality it's just stupid.

sparkie 9y ago
Using cryptocurrency does not forfeit the ability to have a third-party take custody of your funds for you. But because you are useless at looking after things, everybody else should forfeit their right to be custodian of their own funds? The choice should be there for anyone to make. Do I look after my own funds, knowing the risks, or do I let someone else look after them, knowing those risks? Or you know, we now have these things called multisig wallets, which mean that you can have third-parties secure your funds without actually giving them custody of the funds. You can have the best of both worlds by removing the risk of losing everything if you lose your keys, and also eliminate the possibility of a bank/government from stealing your money.
- Nursie 9y ago
  > But because you are useless at looking after things, everybody else should forfeit their right to be custodian of their own funds? Do what you like, but the vast majority of people should not be doing this, because the risks are vast and the rewards basically zero.
  - sparkie 9y ago
    Right, as I said, the vast majority of people don't need to. Banks aren't going obsolete, but they'll be different in form for a world of people using cryptocurrencies. The way I see it is that existing banks will have to adapt to fit into the cryptocurrency world, or they'll just be replaced by other services that do. They have a huge head start in terms of capital, reach and marketing potential, but so far they've not even left the start line. People with little capital, little experience, and only social media are apparently creating the financial organizations of the future.

umanwizard 9y ago

You've (accidentally) pointed out why cryptocurrencies will never achieve mass adoption: 99.9% of people are perfectly happy to trust that banks and the government will do the right thing most of the time.

sparkie 9y ago
99.9% of people where? If you look at the world outside of your little bubble, there are over 3 billion people with little or no access to banking services that the west takes for granted. And do you think people in Venezuela, India, Greece, Zimbabwe, etc trust that their governments will do the right thing?
- Nursie 9y ago
  The unbanked are not going to be using cryptocurrency, which requires secure access to secure computers, a whole mass of precautions, technical knowledge etc etc. They're not going to be putting what little they have into a wildly fluctuating asset class with poorly enumerated tax liabilities. It's a pipedream of western cryptocurrency enthusiasts, not actually something that's going to be useful on the ground.
  - sparkie 9y ago
    I mentioned Venezuela because people there are using Bitcoin, despite it being illegal, despite it being volatile. Because it's objectively better than what their government is offering. You're really thinking short term if you think that Bitcoin can't spread to the masses of people worldwide. A couple of decades ago, people in rural India for example, didn't even have permanent access to a telephone in their home. Technical advancement has now meant that masses of them have phones, and many of them smartphones. They have completely skipped over the home telephone thing. They certainly are going to use cryptocurrencies if it's the simplest way to transfer money to people, without going through the bank (which they have limited access to). In particular, you have large numbers of people working abroad who send money back home to their families. In the old financial system they usually end up paying big taxes on these transfers (fees which seem small to westerners, but which could feed entire families for a day). Just as these people haven't rushed to get a landline to get a telephone in their home, they're also not going to rush to get a bank account where they're restricted on how and when they can use their money, when a better technology is now available to them. Volatility is and obvious side-effect when demand is changing at such staggering volumes. Some days Bitcoin might get a million new users if it's put out in mainstream media. These fluctuations will probably increase in the near term, as more people become aware and being to adopt cryptocurrencies, but long term, they will die down as adoption rate slows too. It's not going to happen overnight, which is probably where most of the dismissive attitude comes from. People's expectations are too high in what they want to be able to do tomorrow with crypto, but in reality it's going to take several decades to work its way into society.