4 ms·

The intention of cryptocurrency is the public ledger ("blockchain"). Rather than relying on Reddit, for instance, to determine who owns what, everyone can chec

The intention of cryptocurrency is the public ledger ("blockchain"). Rather than relying on Reddit, for instance, to determine who owns what, everyone can check the blockchain to see for themselves. The public ledger means that Reddit doesn't (in theory) control the ledger. Reddit couldn't go in and delete coins or give coins without payment. Reddit could have a large stash of coins though and be willing to buy and sell coins though. Libra though is kind of really weird. It is a "decentralized" system but really the decentralization is just putting it in the hands of a small group. That isn't totally a bad thing, but it definitely isn't a great thing. Look at 51% attacks, that is why having a small group of large holders is a really bad idea. On the other side though, the large holders are well-known so at least everyone would know for sure who is pushing around the network.

supermatt 7y ago
> The public ledger means that Reddit doesn't (in theory) control the ledger. Reddit couldn't go in and delete coins or give coins without payment. Actually, there would be nothing stopping them giving coins without payment. The ledger cant record that payment was received in order to mint some coins, it would just record that coins were minted. Thats what scary about this whole situation. They could mint extra "funds", and as long as user deposits are greater than what they "spend", you would never know.
- mikekchar 7y ago
  I'm going to preface this with the statement that I know nothing of the technical implementation of Libra. I'd be grateful if someone who does know would comment to see how it compares to what I'm about to say. I was perplexed as anyone about the use of blockchain for Libra, but seeing this thread I can imagine a scenario where it makes a ton of sense. If they are simply using a markov chain to create a ledger that makes public all transactions in a provable way, then this actually seems like a good idea to me. If you give FB $10 and expect to get X Libra back, you need your bank's help to prove that you gave FB $10, but you don't need anything to prove that FB did or did not give you X Libra (assuming you agree to identify yourself as the recipient of the transaction). In fact, I don't think we actually need proof that FB is receiving funds for its Libra, because FB has tonnes of cash (almost literally). You can think of the receipt of Libra as a bond rather than as cash. You can then trade that bond for things or other cash. Because of the aforementioned tonnes of cash, this bond quite rightly should be highly rated -- in fact, I suspect it would be rated higher than many government bonds. This may worry governments. I'm not sure -- incredibly liquid bonds would essentially be cash and could undermine weak currencies. You can imagine that if you are in trouble with hyper inflation, anybody who can will grab Libra because it will be easy to get and very, very liquid. This could sink your currency pretty quickly. On the plus side (and I can't believe I'm actually saying this), this is practically exactly what I wanted when BTC was first released. Of course it is crap that it will be run by a single entity... but if it's liquid enough and if they don't start charging ridiculous fees it would be awesome as a payment method for online purchases.
  - chris_wot 7y ago
    Should be more highly rated than government bonds... wait, what? In no way would you ever say that a government is less secure than Facebook. I predict that not only aren’t governments worried, but they will crack down hard on Facebook. In fact, if it ever happens I will personally write to the Australian Consumer Competition Council and ask them to make sure they don’t try third line forcing (forcing people to only pay with Libra-bucks or what they are called). EBay and PayPal tried that, and got smacked down very quickly.
    - mikekchar 7y ago
      Some government bonds. For example Argentina's government bonds are currently rated B/B2.
starman100 7y ago
But, to the actual end users, Libra is no different than, say, writing a check. It doesn't matter to me how the banks themselves shuffle their funds back and forth when I give a check to someone.

supermatt 7y ago

> The public ledger means that Reddit doesn't (in theory) control the ledger. Reddit couldn't go in and delete coins or give coins without payment. Actually, there would be nothing stopping them giving coins without payment. The ledger cant record that payment was received in order to mint some coins, it would just record that coins were minted. Thats what scary about this whole situation. They could mint extra "funds", and as long as user deposits are greater than what they "spend", you would never know.

mikekchar 7y ago
I'm going to preface this with the statement that I know nothing of the technical implementation of Libra. I'd be grateful if someone who does know would comment to see how it compares to what I'm about to say. I was perplexed as anyone about the use of blockchain for Libra, but seeing this thread I can imagine a scenario where it makes a ton of sense. If they are simply using a markov chain to create a ledger that makes public all transactions in a provable way, then this actually seems like a good idea to me. If you give FB $10 and expect to get X Libra back, you need your bank's help to prove that you gave FB $10, but you don't need anything to prove that FB did or did not give you X Libra (assuming you agree to identify yourself as the recipient of the transaction). In fact, I don't think we actually need proof that FB is receiving funds for its Libra, because FB has tonnes of cash (almost literally). You can think of the receipt of Libra as a bond rather than as cash. You can then trade that bond for things or other cash. Because of the aforementioned tonnes of cash, this bond quite rightly should be highly rated -- in fact, I suspect it would be rated higher than many government bonds. This may worry governments. I'm not sure -- incredibly liquid bonds would essentially be cash and could undermine weak currencies. You can imagine that if you are in trouble with hyper inflation, anybody who can will grab Libra because it will be easy to get and very, very liquid. This could sink your currency pretty quickly. On the plus side (and I can't believe I'm actually saying this), this is practically exactly what I wanted when BTC was first released. Of course it is crap that it will be run by a single entity... but if it's liquid enough and if they don't start charging ridiculous fees it would be awesome as a payment method for online purchases.
- chris_wot 7y ago
  Should be more highly rated than government bonds... wait, what? In no way would you ever say that a government is less secure than Facebook. I predict that not only aren’t governments worried, but they will crack down hard on Facebook. In fact, if it ever happens I will personally write to the Australian Consumer Competition Council and ask them to make sure they don’t try third line forcing (forcing people to only pay with Libra-bucks or what they are called). EBay and PayPal tried that, and got smacked down very quickly.
  - mikekchar 7y ago
    Some government bonds. For example Argentina's government bonds are currently rated B/B2.

starman100 7y ago

But, to the actual end users, Libra is no different than, say, writing a check. It doesn't matter to me how the banks themselves shuffle their funds back and forth when I give a check to someone.