5 ms·

Decentralized transactions are distinct from decentralized issuance. Decentralized issuance doesn't matter to most people in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. They

by Permit 8y ago

Decentralized transactions are distinct from decentralized issuance. Decentralized issuance doesn't matter to most people in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. They have been happy to participate in ICOs where coins are issued from a central authority. That said, I haven't yet heard anything on how transactions are actually verified (ie. Proof of work vs Proof of Stake) Edit: It appears to be an Ethereum-based token: https://support.usdc.circle.com/hc/en-us/articles/360015471331-Circle-USDC-Fee-Schedule https://support.usdc.circle.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600154713...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Decentralized transactions are distinct from decentralized issuance Dollars can be transacted, online and offline, through a variety of means ranging from at the Federal Reserve to totally de-centralised.
- AboutTheWhisles 8y ago
  But they can't be used over the internet without permission. It could be argued that this requires permission as well since there will be 'know your customer' laws that surround buying and selling them, but to what extent they will require permission might remain to be seen.
- Permit 8y ago
  Yes, but once I have acquired dollars and wish to send them to you I must involve a third party. Not involving that third party would be the sell here. I have no position in any cryptocurrency and am not trying to argue that USDC is better than USD. I'm just saying that stablecoins achieve most of the goals of a decentralized currency yet despite this they are not appealing to today's cryptocurrency community.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > once I have acquired dollars and wish to send them to you I must involve a third party Cash. (There is no way to send electronic dollars without involving a third party, though more money is laundered using dollars and euros than cryptocurrencies. I'd argue leaving a permanent, public record of transactions is a poor price to pay for decentralized electronic transmission, particularly given the centralized issuer and guarantor problem.)
    - jabits 8y ago
      Ok, here’s a twenty in the palm of my hand...take it...oh wait...
      - bduerst 8y ago
        Mail it. And if you're going to split hairs by saying DHL, USPS, and FedEx are considered third parties, then so are Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs who provide you the means to transact.
        mateuszf 8y ago
        Comcast, Verizon, etc. can't intercept your Bitcoins, but DHL, USPS can intercept your cash.
        bduerst 8y ago
        Which is a problem 99.99% of people don't have.
    - dwild 8y ago
      > There is no way to send electronic dollars without involving a third party Yeah but that third party is everywhere, available to all (US isn't the only country in the world you know?) and isn't aware you are using his service for sharing cryptocurrencies or simply reading Hacker News. The current third parties for transferring money, well they all fail one or multiple of theses while cryptocurrencies dosen't.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        Cryptocurrencies have an advantage over electronic U.S. dollars in decentralized electronic transmission. I don't think that's a big deal, but the advantage exists. Stablecoins, on the other hand, have zero advantages over U.S. dollars. Backer goes bust, someone steals the dollars, someone freezes their accounts, et cetera and your currency is worthless. A trusted third party rests at the centre who is less regulated and guaranteed than a bank. (I'm sceptical that these schemes will pass AML muster. Using a stablecoin over U.S. dollars makes sense if you're (a) incompetent or (b) laundering money.)
  - willpiers 8y ago
    stablecoins achieve many of the original goals of bitcoin, but not any of the most important goals. the important goals are censorship resistance, and fixed monetary policy. Nothing in the crypto space addresses these goals better than Bitcoin.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    >once I have acquired dollars and wish to send them to you I must involve a third party. Isn’t that the same as bitcoin and every other cryptocurrency? You need a cryptowallet (third party); a device (third party); and internet access (third party).
jstanley 8y ago
> Decentralized issuance doesn't matter to most people in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Decentralised anything doesn't (yet!) matter to most people in the world who use money, but it does matter to people it matters to. Just because you don't care about decentralised issuance doesn't mean nobody cares.
paulmd 8y ago
If a centralized authority can blacklist addresses, it is not actually decentralized. Or rather, it's "decentralized transactions" in the same sense that Paypal users are decentralized when they initiate transactions. You ask, and Paypal decides whether to send the money. In this case, you ask, and CENTRE decides whether to include the transaction in the blocks they mine. Same thing, But With Blockchain™. Of course, it's illegal to operate as an unlicensed money transmitter, and trading bearer bonds does not change that, so if it was truly decentralized they would be going to jail once the SEC got around to paying them a visit. People have been trying to get around such laws for ages and the law takes a very dim view of it.

by Permit 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Decentralized transactions are distinct from decentralized issuance Dollars can be transacted, online and offline, through a variety of means ranging from at the Federal Reserve to totally de-centralised.

AboutTheWhisles 8y ago
But they can't be used over the internet without permission. It could be argued that this requires permission as well since there will be 'know your customer' laws that surround buying and selling them, but to what extent they will require permission might remain to be seen.
Permit 8y ago
Yes, but once I have acquired dollars and wish to send them to you I must involve a third party. Not involving that third party would be the sell here. I have no position in any cryptocurrency and am not trying to argue that USDC is better than USD. I'm just saying that stablecoins achieve most of the goals of a decentralized currency yet despite this they are not appealing to today's cryptocurrency community.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > once I have acquired dollars and wish to send them to you I must involve a third party Cash. (There is no way to send electronic dollars without involving a third party, though more money is laundered using dollars and euros than cryptocurrencies. I'd argue leaving a permanent, public record of transactions is a poor price to pay for decentralized electronic transmission, particularly given the centralized issuer and guarantor problem.)
  - jabits 8y ago
    Ok, here’s a twenty in the palm of my hand...take it...oh wait...
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Mail it. And if you're going to split hairs by saying DHL, USPS, and FedEx are considered third parties, then so are Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs who provide you the means to transact.
      - mateuszf 8y ago
        Comcast, Verizon, etc. can't intercept your Bitcoins, but DHL, USPS can intercept your cash.
        bduerst 8y ago
        Which is a problem 99.99% of people don't have.
  - dwild 8y ago
    > There is no way to send electronic dollars without involving a third party Yeah but that third party is everywhere, available to all (US isn't the only country in the world you know?) and isn't aware you are using his service for sharing cryptocurrencies or simply reading Hacker News. The current third parties for transferring money, well they all fail one or multiple of theses while cryptocurrencies dosen't.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      Cryptocurrencies have an advantage over electronic U.S. dollars in decentralized electronic transmission. I don't think that's a big deal, but the advantage exists. Stablecoins, on the other hand, have zero advantages over U.S. dollars. Backer goes bust, someone steals the dollars, someone freezes their accounts, et cetera and your currency is worthless. A trusted third party rests at the centre who is less regulated and guaranteed than a bank. (I'm sceptical that these schemes will pass AML muster. Using a stablecoin over U.S. dollars makes sense if you're (a) incompetent or (b) laundering money.)
- willpiers 8y ago
  stablecoins achieve many of the original goals of bitcoin, but not any of the most important goals. the important goals are censorship resistance, and fixed monetary policy. Nothing in the crypto space addresses these goals better than Bitcoin.
- will_brown 8y ago
  >once I have acquired dollars and wish to send them to you I must involve a third party. Isn’t that the same as bitcoin and every other cryptocurrency? You need a cryptowallet (third party); a device (third party); and internet access (third party).

jstanley 8y ago

> Decentralized issuance doesn't matter to most people in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Decentralised anything doesn't (yet!) matter to most people in the world who use money, but it does matter to people it matters to. Just because you don't care about decentralised issuance doesn't mean nobody cares.

paulmd 8y ago

If a centralized authority can blacklist addresses, it is not actually decentralized. Or rather, it's "decentralized transactions" in the same sense that Paypal users are decentralized when they initiate transactions. You ask, and Paypal decides whether to send the money. In this case, you ask, and CENTRE decides whether to include the transaction in the blocks they mine. Same thing, But With Blockchain™. Of course, it's illegal to operate as an unlicensed money transmitter, and trading bearer bonds does not change that, so if it was truly decentralized they would be going to jail once the SEC got around to paying them a visit. People have been trying to get around such laws for ages and the law takes a very dim view of it.