4 ms·

> 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 cry

by darawk 8y ago

> 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). That's certainly true. But the issues around people losing their coins and having their keys stolen can be solved by better UX and application security. Essentially crypto transmutes the problem domain, from a people problem to an application design problem. It's still a problem. It still needs to be solved, but the domain-transfer allows it to be solved cheaply at scale in a way that the human one can't be. In other words, i'm making the claim that the issues you cited are not essential properties of blockchains, merely transient properties of their present implementations and UX. If you want to make the case that they are in fact central, i'd be happy to listen to that though.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> If you want to make the case that they are in fact central End financial services users repeatedly choose convenience and risk guarantees over self-management. This isn't something which can be papered over with a saucy UI, particularly when the tangible benefit is difficult to describe. ("Decentralization" isn't a benefit, it's an attribute.)
- darawk 8y ago
  > End financial services users repeatedly choose convenience and risk guarantees over self-management. This isn't something which can be papered over with a saucy UI, particularly when the tangible benefit is difficult to describe. ("Decentralization" isn't a benefit, it's an attribute.) Totally agree. In a hypothetical crypto dominated world, most people would still use centralized services to store their money. But they'd have the ability to opt out if and when they choose.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > In a hypothetical crypto dominated world, most people would still use centralized services to store their money. But they'd have the ability to opt out if and when they choose The problem with this vision is those people using centralized services see no benefit. They are better off sticking with the status quo. Cryptocurrencies make sense for people who wish, for philosophically reasons, to control their own money. That vision doesn't require a "crypto dominated world." It does, however, require shrinking the vision from "re-imaginging the financial system" to "solving a need for a small group of devoted people." That's okay, and if that's how crypto were marketed it would (a) be more honest but (b) come with a lower value.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > The problem with this vision is those people using centralized services see no benefit. They are better off sticking with the status quo. Narrowly, yes, that's true. But I think there's a broader context to consider than that. Our current financial system is architected around these financial centers of gravity. Blockchains represent an alternative to that structure. Yes, there will still be intermediary institutions, but they will not have the same fundamental centrality that the current ones do. I think this is an important change, and one that is likely to lead to other changes that will be more directly appreciated by consumers and the broader economy than the philosophical self-sovereign money issues.
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      It's not true that they see no benefit. They will see benefit in: 1) cheaper financial services 2) broader financial services 3) real-time financial services 4) access to financial services regardless of location (or nation) 5) decentralized applications fully integrated with financial services The average Joe doesn't need to control their own private keys in order to gain these benefits. But think of it this way. What would be more difficult, for an organization or company, today? A) start your own bank B) start your own key management service A) make an application that accepts payments as low as $0.01 B) make an application that accepts payments as low as .001 ETH A) create a new protocol layer on top of the banking system B) create a new protocol layer on top of Ethereum --- Today, we rely on perhaps at most a few dozen companies (PayPal, Stripe, VISA, MC, etc) to build interfaces with our banking system. There is no "app store" for banking system financial services. It's hard, hard work to build anything on top of that archaic system. Blockchain makes currency an internet-native construct. Which has profound implications that we are just beginning to see the very earliest examples of.
      - perl4ever 8y ago
        "1) cheaper financial services" If a million people want to deal with each other without any trusted party to intermediate, then they have to keep a million ledgers and agree on a protocol for reconciliation. Once you've conceded over a million-fold factor of inefficiency, being cheaper doesn't seem plausibly within reach. I don't see the details as mattering much; it's the big picture that doesn't make sense.
perl4ever 8y ago
"Essentially crypto transmutes the problem domain, from a people problem to an application design problem." The fact that nobody understands how human institutions work is an advantage, because it prevents malicious actors from subverting them. Whenever someone figures out how institutions work, they destroy them and civilizations fall, so they evolve to be incomprehensible. So "transmuting the problem domain" seems like a bad move to me.
- darawk 8y ago
  We may just have to agree to disagree here. I've never been a fan of security by obscurity, though obviously it does have some use cases. I think we have the opportunity to design secure systems that do not rely on the frailties and biases of human judgment, and I think it's worth exploring.
jonhendry18 8y ago
"But the issues around people losing their coins and having their keys stolen can be solved by better UX and application security" Unless it's an Mt.Gox situation.

by darawk 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> If you want to make the case that they are in fact central End financial services users repeatedly choose convenience and risk guarantees over self-management. This isn't something which can be papered over with a saucy UI, particularly when the tangible benefit is difficult to describe. ("Decentralization" isn't a benefit, it's an attribute.)

darawk 8y ago
> End financial services users repeatedly choose convenience and risk guarantees over self-management. This isn't something which can be papered over with a saucy UI, particularly when the tangible benefit is difficult to describe. ("Decentralization" isn't a benefit, it's an attribute.) Totally agree. In a hypothetical crypto dominated world, most people would still use centralized services to store their money. But they'd have the ability to opt out if and when they choose.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > In a hypothetical crypto dominated world, most people would still use centralized services to store their money. But they'd have the ability to opt out if and when they choose The problem with this vision is those people using centralized services see no benefit. They are better off sticking with the status quo. Cryptocurrencies make sense for people who wish, for philosophically reasons, to control their own money. That vision doesn't require a "crypto dominated world." It does, however, require shrinking the vision from "re-imaginging the financial system" to "solving a need for a small group of devoted people." That's okay, and if that's how crypto were marketed it would (a) be more honest but (b) come with a lower value.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > The problem with this vision is those people using centralized services see no benefit. They are better off sticking with the status quo. Narrowly, yes, that's true. But I think there's a broader context to consider than that. Our current financial system is architected around these financial centers of gravity. Blockchains represent an alternative to that structure. Yes, there will still be intermediary institutions, but they will not have the same fundamental centrality that the current ones do. I think this is an important change, and one that is likely to lead to other changes that will be more directly appreciated by consumers and the broader economy than the philosophical self-sovereign money issues.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    It's not true that they see no benefit. They will see benefit in: 1) cheaper financial services 2) broader financial services 3) real-time financial services 4) access to financial services regardless of location (or nation) 5) decentralized applications fully integrated with financial services The average Joe doesn't need to control their own private keys in order to gain these benefits. But think of it this way. What would be more difficult, for an organization or company, today? A) start your own bank B) start your own key management service A) make an application that accepts payments as low as $0.01 B) make an application that accepts payments as low as .001 ETH A) create a new protocol layer on top of the banking system B) create a new protocol layer on top of Ethereum --- Today, we rely on perhaps at most a few dozen companies (PayPal, Stripe, VISA, MC, etc) to build interfaces with our banking system. There is no "app store" for banking system financial services. It's hard, hard work to build anything on top of that archaic system. Blockchain makes currency an internet-native construct. Which has profound implications that we are just beginning to see the very earliest examples of.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      "1) cheaper financial services" If a million people want to deal with each other without any trusted party to intermediate, then they have to keep a million ledgers and agree on a protocol for reconciliation. Once you've conceded over a million-fold factor of inefficiency, being cheaper doesn't seem plausibly within reach. I don't see the details as mattering much; it's the big picture that doesn't make sense.

perl4ever 8y ago

"Essentially crypto transmutes the problem domain, from a people problem to an application design problem." The fact that nobody understands how human institutions work is an advantage, because it prevents malicious actors from subverting them. Whenever someone figures out how institutions work, they destroy them and civilizations fall, so they evolve to be incomprehensible. So "transmuting the problem domain" seems like a bad move to me.

darawk 8y ago
We may just have to agree to disagree here. I've never been a fan of security by obscurity, though obviously it does have some use cases. I think we have the opportunity to design secure systems that do not rely on the frailties and biases of human judgment, and I think it's worth exploring.

jonhendry18 8y ago

"But the issues around people losing their coins and having their keys stolen can be solved by better UX and application security" Unless it's an Mt.Gox situation.