8 ms·

> Blockchains have been around for 10 years now and every year they cause bigger problems without actually solving any. Being able to transfer value between tw

by xur17 8y ago

> Blockchains have been around for 10 years now and every year they cause bigger problems without actually solving any. Being able to transfer value between two parties without having to trust anyone has value. We can argue about how much value, but it's non-zero.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> without having to trust anyone has value There is a lot of trust involved in a cryptocurrency transfer. You have to trust your technical competence to securely mount your wallet. You have to trust the wallet you're sending money to is the wallet it's supposed to go to. You have to trust the person you're sending money todo what you're paying them to. You have to trust the network to maintain the value and convertibility of the currency you're sending and receiving. Et cetera, et cetera In practice, nobody wants to do these things. So we see centralization at exchanges. Precisely in the way people not wanting to handle cash use banks.
- darawk 8y ago
  > There is a lot of trust involved in a cryptocurrency transfer. You have to trust your technical competence to have securely mounted your wallet. You have to trust the wallet you're sending money to is the wallet it's supposed to go to. You have to trust the person you're sending money to will do what you're paying them to do. You have to trust the network to maintain the value of the currency you're sending and receiving. Et cetera, et cetera That's clearly not the point. The transfer itself does not require trust. That's the value.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > The transfer itself does not require trust Cash transfers and barters are trustless. Wires are trustless (in being reasonably irrevocable) in a manner similar to cryptocurrencies (i.e. if we ignore the plumbing). Cryptocurrencies solve for trust in the most reliable part of the trust chain while exacerbating every other element of transaction risk.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > Cash transfers and barters are trustless Yes, but they require physical presence. > Wires are trustless (in being reasonably irrevocable) in a manner similar to cryptocurrencies (i.e. if we ignore the plumbing). Irrevocability is not the same as trustlessness. Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise. > Cryptocurrencies solve for trust in the most reliable part of the trust chain while exacerbating every other element of transaction risk. I think I agree with this statement literally. The question is what price are we paying for that reliability? And does blockchain offer an alternative tradeoff that we might like better?
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise The frequency of each of coins being stolen from wallets, being lost by exchanges or pilfered by ICO frauds is far, far higher than anything happening at proper banks. Blockchains are a neat technology which should have never been marketed as a currency.
        darawk 8y ago
        > The frequency of each of coins being stolen from wallets, being lost by exchanges or pilfered by ICO frauds is far, far higher than anything happening at proper banks. What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Generally speaking, if my things get stolen, "it was stolen by X and not Y" is not a value-adding rebuttal. It is actually counterproductive if X (e.g., a cryptocurrency thief) is harder to gain recourse against than Y (e.g. an FDIC-insured bank).
        8y ago
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > The transfer itself does not require trust. That's the value. Don't you need to trust nodes that they'll pass down and/or include process your transaction, and that they'll do so in a timely fashion? Which seems just like trusting that, say, your bank or the Mastercard servers will process your transaction properly? Not to mention the more mundane aspects like the fact that you still need to trust that your ISP won't cut off your access to the network, etc... To me the value seems to be that nobody can forge a transaction based on your currency (or whatever it is you have), not the idea that you somehow don't need to trust anyone when you do transfer value.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > Don't you need to trust nodes that they'll pass down and/or include process your transaction, and that they'll do so in a timely fashion? Yes, but their incentives are structured to align with yours in that scenario. You are trusting them to act in their own interest.
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        Isn't that the same with credit cards, wires, etc.? They make money from your transactions too.
        darawk 8y ago
        That's true, but the degrees of freedom are different. The node processing your transaction cannot steal your money in crypto. It can only choose not to broadcast your transaction, and they are also in perfect competition with all the other nodes. Which means that if one node chooses not to process your tx, another will soon.
        mehrdadn 8y ago
        > That's true, but the degrees of freedom are different. The node processing your transaction cannot steal your money in crypto. It can only choose not to broadcast your transaction, and they are also in perfect competition with all the other nodes. Which means that if one node chooses not to process your tx, another will soon. Hence we circle back to exactly what I said in the last line of my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17493508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17493508
- m-i-l 8y ago
  > There is a lot of trust involved in a cryptocurrency transfer. You have to trust your technical competence to securely mount your wallet. You have to trust the wallet you're sending money to is the wallet it's supposed to go to. You have to trust the person you're sending money todo what you're paying them to. You have to trust the network to maintain the value and convertibility of the currency you're sending and receiving. Good point. Although I would draw a different conclusion. Your point assumes this new technology is for direct human consumption. For me decentralisation, smart contracts and "the internet of money", along with AI, will allow autonomous agents operate and interact without human intervention. That will be transformative.
lreeves 8y ago
That's not really accurate though. Only in a perfect, unhackable world would you not have to trust anyone. People have their local wallets attacked and stolen through an incredibly diverse set of attacks, people fell for "mental wallet" concepts that were then easily stolen, and people have lost an enormous amount of value by trusting storage mechanisms and memory for passwords and wallets. Then on the flipside at least what, 80% of exchanges now have had compromises? Do you think this technology has really moved the bar forward around trust as a concept?
hk__2 8y ago
> Being able to transfer value between two parties without having to trust anyone has value. The value of a currency is based on nothing more than trust. It’s because people trust a (crypto)currency that it has a value; trust is the very thing that makes a dollar bill having more value than a random piece of paper.
yc-kraln 8y ago
This is wrong. The trust is still centralized, but on the developers of the platform/crypto chain/smart contract, rather than on an institution. This has the incredible downside that if something goes wrong, I have no recourse.

by xur17 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> without having to trust anyone has value There is a lot of trust involved in a cryptocurrency transfer. You have to trust your technical competence to securely mount your wallet. You have to trust the wallet you're sending money to is the wallet it's supposed to go to. You have to trust the person you're sending money todo what you're paying them to. You have to trust the network to maintain the value and convertibility of the currency you're sending and receiving. Et cetera, et cetera In practice, nobody wants to do these things. So we see centralization at exchanges. Precisely in the way people not wanting to handle cash use banks.

darawk 8y ago
> There is a lot of trust involved in a cryptocurrency transfer. You have to trust your technical competence to have securely mounted your wallet. You have to trust the wallet you're sending money to is the wallet it's supposed to go to. You have to trust the person you're sending money to will do what you're paying them to do. You have to trust the network to maintain the value of the currency you're sending and receiving. Et cetera, et cetera That's clearly not the point. The transfer itself does not require trust. That's the value.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > The transfer itself does not require trust Cash transfers and barters are trustless. Wires are trustless (in being reasonably irrevocable) in a manner similar to cryptocurrencies (i.e. if we ignore the plumbing). Cryptocurrencies solve for trust in the most reliable part of the trust chain while exacerbating every other element of transaction risk.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > Cash transfers and barters are trustless Yes, but they require physical presence. > Wires are trustless (in being reasonably irrevocable) in a manner similar to cryptocurrencies (i.e. if we ignore the plumbing). Irrevocability is not the same as trustlessness. Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise. > Cryptocurrencies solve for trust in the most reliable part of the trust chain while exacerbating every other element of transaction risk. I think I agree with this statement literally. The question is what price are we paying for that reliability? And does blockchain offer an alternative tradeoff that we might like better?
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise The frequency of each of coins being stolen from wallets, being lost by exchanges or pilfered by ICO frauds is far, far higher than anything happening at proper banks. Blockchains are a neat technology which should have never been marketed as a currency.
      - darawk 8y ago
        > The frequency of each of coins being stolen from wallets, being lost by exchanges or pilfered by ICO frauds is far, far higher than anything happening at proper banks. What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Generally speaking, if my things get stolen, "it was stolen by X and not Y" is not a value-adding rebuttal. It is actually counterproductive if X (e.g., a cryptocurrency thief) is harder to gain recourse against than Y (e.g. an FDIC-insured bank).
        8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > The transfer itself does not require trust. That's the value. Don't you need to trust nodes that they'll pass down and/or include process your transaction, and that they'll do so in a timely fashion? Which seems just like trusting that, say, your bank or the Mastercard servers will process your transaction properly? Not to mention the more mundane aspects like the fact that you still need to trust that your ISP won't cut off your access to the network, etc... To me the value seems to be that nobody can forge a transaction based on your currency (or whatever it is you have), not the idea that you somehow don't need to trust anyone when you do transfer value.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > Don't you need to trust nodes that they'll pass down and/or include process your transaction, and that they'll do so in a timely fashion? Yes, but their incentives are structured to align with yours in that scenario. You are trusting them to act in their own interest.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      Isn't that the same with credit cards, wires, etc.? They make money from your transactions too.
      - darawk 8y ago
        That's true, but the degrees of freedom are different. The node processing your transaction cannot steal your money in crypto. It can only choose not to broadcast your transaction, and they are also in perfect competition with all the other nodes. Which means that if one node chooses not to process your tx, another will soon.
        mehrdadn 8y ago
        > That's true, but the degrees of freedom are different. The node processing your transaction cannot steal your money in crypto. It can only choose not to broadcast your transaction, and they are also in perfect competition with all the other nodes. Which means that if one node chooses not to process your tx, another will soon. Hence we circle back to exactly what I said in the last line of my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17493508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17493508
m-i-l 8y ago
> There is a lot of trust involved in a cryptocurrency transfer. You have to trust your technical competence to securely mount your wallet. You have to trust the wallet you're sending money to is the wallet it's supposed to go to. You have to trust the person you're sending money todo what you're paying them to. You have to trust the network to maintain the value and convertibility of the currency you're sending and receiving. Good point. Although I would draw a different conclusion. Your point assumes this new technology is for direct human consumption. For me decentralisation, smart contracts and "the internet of money", along with AI, will allow autonomous agents operate and interact without human intervention. That will be transformative.

lreeves 8y ago

That's not really accurate though. Only in a perfect, unhackable world would you not have to trust anyone. People have their local wallets attacked and stolen through an incredibly diverse set of attacks, people fell for "mental wallet" concepts that were then easily stolen, and people have lost an enormous amount of value by trusting storage mechanisms and memory for passwords and wallets. Then on the flipside at least what, 80% of exchanges now have had compromises? Do you think this technology has really moved the bar forward around trust as a concept?

hk__2 8y ago

> Being able to transfer value between two parties without having to trust anyone has value. The value of a currency is based on nothing more than trust. It’s because people trust a (crypto)currency that it has a value; trust is the very thing that makes a dollar bill having more value than a random piece of paper.

yc-kraln 8y ago

This is wrong. The trust is still centralized, but on the developers of the platform/crypto chain/smart contract, rather than on an institution. This has the incredible downside that if something goes wrong, I have no recourse.