3 ms·

"So long as the cryptocurrency hasn't gone already. If it has.. well whoops, bye bye money." This was the comment I replied to. It says money and I'm talking a

"So long as the cryptocurrency hasn't gone already. If it has.. well whoops, bye bye money." This was the comment I replied to. It says money and I'm talking about money. Bank cards represent account holdership, not money. Losing a card entitles you to get a new one for a small charge. Your bank held funds are protected by law, and you can expect somewhere between 75% and 100% of your assets being covered from fraud.

Nursie 8y ago
In response to your stuff about chargebacks and lost phones. Let me retread the steps - You said - "Your card being stolen has nothing to do with chargebacks. Your mobile could be stolen with your cryptowallet inside and you could do a remote wipe of the device." You do this in order to try to establish cryptocurrency as being as secure in that situation as a credit card, i.e. theft resilient. I pointed out that if the cryptocurrency was already used, unlike with a credit card, you're unlikely ever to be able to recover the money. Then you started handwaving about cash. This appears to me to be a disingenuous move of the goalposts.
- decentralised 8y ago
  I see your point but I disagree.. I'm comfortable with what I wrote though. Bank cards don't represent money and the management framework that allows for chargebacks is unrelated to the card itself, it's law. I've clarified what I think is a consistent view, and no goalposts are being moved when I point out that cryptocurrencies == money but bank cards != money.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    That's all good and well, but you've lost sight of the consumer's motivations. Consumers want to know that they will be made whole if something really bad happens. They're not really interested in the fine distinctions between possession of the currency and possession of the account that contains the currency. They want their money back if someone hacks their account, if their card is stolen, if the bank goes under, or if the merchant doesn't ship the right product as promised. If bitcoin does not offer these features, I cannot imagine it ever taking off as a currency (as compared to a speculative instrument, which is what it is now).
    - decentralised 8y ago
      I partially agree with you here. The thing is, Bitcoin or Ethereum are technologies and the protections and guarantees the "masses" will look for are not provided at protocol level, this is where entrepreneurs step up and offer services based off these technologies.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        You're just moving the problem. Why would a bank built on top of bitcoin be better or more valuable to a bank built on top of the existing system?
        decentralised 8y ago
        Well for starters it would have protocol level access to the biggest digital market currently in existence. The tokens launched by blockchain native companies will form a token-economy of their own. Also importantly, there are functions a bank can provide that you don't need however there's no way of you avoiding paying for it somehow. A crypto based bank could very well be a legal custodian for key material, an identity provider and a lender... it could also be a mashup of several services/protocols that do each of those functions.
        village-idiot 8y ago
        The financial aspect is frankly insane. Banks have no problem transferring money today, none. Adding in a wildly unstable asset to “improve” a working system is a classic case of technologists thinking of tech first, real world second. Backing banks in a different currency than you actually purchase goods in is like declaring that all transfers must be accomplished in Yen. Why should I expose my rent payment to an exchange rate? One might argue that we’d just use bitcoin as our currency, but that’s just begging the question. Why should consumers want to switch away from their regular currency? There’s also no compelling reason why identity providing should: 1. Be done by your bank. 2. Use the same technology as your currency. Long story short: listing a bunch of things you can technically accomplish with bitcoin is emphatically not the same as providing reasons why bitcoin should take over. It’s a bit like hand stand walking; it’s an impressive trick, but just because you can do it doesn’t mean it should become your regular mode of locomotion.

Nursie 8y ago

In response to your stuff about chargebacks and lost phones. Let me retread the steps - You said - "Your card being stolen has nothing to do with chargebacks. Your mobile could be stolen with your cryptowallet inside and you could do a remote wipe of the device." You do this in order to try to establish cryptocurrency as being as secure in that situation as a credit card, i.e. theft resilient. I pointed out that if the cryptocurrency was already used, unlike with a credit card, you're unlikely ever to be able to recover the money. Then you started handwaving about cash. This appears to me to be a disingenuous move of the goalposts.

decentralised 8y ago
I see your point but I disagree.. I'm comfortable with what I wrote though. Bank cards don't represent money and the management framework that allows for chargebacks is unrelated to the card itself, it's law. I've clarified what I think is a consistent view, and no goalposts are being moved when I point out that cryptocurrencies == money but bank cards != money.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  That's all good and well, but you've lost sight of the consumer's motivations. Consumers want to know that they will be made whole if something really bad happens. They're not really interested in the fine distinctions between possession of the currency and possession of the account that contains the currency. They want their money back if someone hacks their account, if their card is stolen, if the bank goes under, or if the merchant doesn't ship the right product as promised. If bitcoin does not offer these features, I cannot imagine it ever taking off as a currency (as compared to a speculative instrument, which is what it is now).
  - decentralised 8y ago
    I partially agree with you here. The thing is, Bitcoin or Ethereum are technologies and the protections and guarantees the "masses" will look for are not provided at protocol level, this is where entrepreneurs step up and offer services based off these technologies.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      You're just moving the problem. Why would a bank built on top of bitcoin be better or more valuable to a bank built on top of the existing system?
      - decentralised 8y ago
        Well for starters it would have protocol level access to the biggest digital market currently in existence. The tokens launched by blockchain native companies will form a token-economy of their own. Also importantly, there are functions a bank can provide that you don't need however there's no way of you avoiding paying for it somehow. A crypto based bank could very well be a legal custodian for key material, an identity provider and a lender... it could also be a mashup of several services/protocols that do each of those functions.
        village-idiot 8y ago
        The financial aspect is frankly insane. Banks have no problem transferring money today, none. Adding in a wildly unstable asset to “improve” a working system is a classic case of technologists thinking of tech first, real world second. Backing banks in a different currency than you actually purchase goods in is like declaring that all transfers must be accomplished in Yen. Why should I expose my rent payment to an exchange rate? One might argue that we’d just use bitcoin as our currency, but that’s just begging the question. Why should consumers want to switch away from their regular currency? There’s also no compelling reason why identity providing should: 1. Be done by your bank. 2. Use the same technology as your currency. Long story short: listing a bunch of things you can technically accomplish with bitcoin is emphatically not the same as providing reasons why bitcoin should take over. It’s a bit like hand stand walking; it’s an impressive trick, but just because you can do it doesn’t mean it should become your regular mode of locomotion.