4 ms·

1. unrealistic to expect libra to have zero anonymity given current regulations around know your customer/anti-money laundering rules. 2. Libra is actually ope

1. unrealistic to expect libra to have zero anonymity given current regulations around know your customer/anti-money laundering rules. 2. Libra is actually operated by the libra association. Facebook only has a minority voting share in that association. 3. Transaction throughput of libra is 1,000 transactions per second compared to bitcoin's 7 transactions per second. In comparison visa does about 1,400 transactions per second currently. In theory, it would be possible to increase the transactions per second of libra if it gains widespread use.

mullingitover 7y ago
So for (1), not appealing for anyone currently interested in the one killer app for cryptocurrencies. For (2), I look at it this way: A swimming pool can be 99% pure water, but if it's 1% poop I don't want to dip my feet in it. As for (3), Visa can do something like 250k transactions per second. The blockchain aspect of this system unnecessarily hobbles it, and it seems like really the blockchain aspect just tacks on a techy buzzword that offers no compelling features that a purely centralized database can't do better.
- gingabriska 7y ago
  >For (2), I look at it this way: A swimming pool can be 99% pure water, but if it's 1% poop I don't want to dip my feet in it. Not sure how much you swim but 7.14*10^-6% of every swimming pool is per, atleast.
r3bl 7y ago
Ain't gonna touch on your 1st and last points because I don't know enough about that. Regarding your second point, of course they're gonna abstract it. There's no way in hell people would trust it if it were labeled as Facebook Libra. The only way for it to get any momentum is by people being tricked into thinking it's some sort of an independent entity that happens to be supported by Facebook and others. I don't buy it, and neither should anyone else. Even if they make just 5% of the profit that Libra generates... somehow, that's still 5% more than Facebook would receive otherwise. It ain't even released yet, and I already know that I'll go out of my way to avoid ever touching it. I assume most of HN readers will do the same.

mullingitover 7y ago

So for (1), not appealing for anyone currently interested in the one killer app for cryptocurrencies. For (2), I look at it this way: A swimming pool can be 99% pure water, but if it's 1% poop I don't want to dip my feet in it. As for (3), Visa can do something like 250k transactions per second. The blockchain aspect of this system unnecessarily hobbles it, and it seems like really the blockchain aspect just tacks on a techy buzzword that offers no compelling features that a purely centralized database can't do better.

gingabriska 7y ago
>For (2), I look at it this way: A swimming pool can be 99% pure water, but if it's 1% poop I don't want to dip my feet in it. Not sure how much you swim but 7.14*10^-6% of every swimming pool is per, atleast.

r3bl 7y ago

Ain't gonna touch on your 1st and last points because I don't know enough about that. Regarding your second point, of course they're gonna abstract it. There's no way in hell people would trust it if it were labeled as Facebook Libra. The only way for it to get any momentum is by people being tricked into thinking it's some sort of an independent entity that happens to be supported by Facebook and others. I don't buy it, and neither should anyone else. Even if they make just 5% of the profit that Libra generates... somehow, that's still 5% more than Facebook would receive otherwise. It ain't even released yet, and I already know that I'll go out of my way to avoid ever touching it. I assume most of HN readers will do the same.