7 ms·

> Facebook built this, yes, but they do not have full control Well, the Libra documents are vague about timelines and how/if they plan to move to a "permission

by drcode 7y ago

> Facebook built this, yes, but they do not have full control Well, the Libra documents are vague about timelines and how/if they plan to move to a "permissionless" system- Instead of saying "they do not have full control" you should qualify it to say that "their marketing materials claim that even if it launches with full FB control initially, they state that they hope to eventually transition to lower amounts of control."

carlosdp 7y ago
No, they do not have full control from the start. Even in the current permissioned model. The 28 (will be 100) member companies do (or rather a majority vote of them do). But Facebook itself will not have full control, from the start. This is really important and something the media keeps getting wrong. Facebook isn't dumb, they know no one will trust something they control right now, so they made it so they aren't the ones in control. They likely will be the biggest wallet app though, which is significant. But they still can't single-handedly change the rules of Libra, they need a majority of the Libra Association members to do that.
- dannyr 7y ago
  Oh, you keep saying in your comments that Facebook isn't dumb. I agree. Facebook's leadership is smart. They know what they are doing. They just hope that most of us would be dumb enough to believe them.
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    Don't have to believe them, the governance and cryptoconsensus in the whitepapers is enshrined in law and math, and in addition there are competitors in the Libra Association that would easily decry other members if they tried something to subvert the operation of the currency.
- drcode 7y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you provide a citation? Where does it concretely say that FB will not be in charge of the network when it first launches? The closest I can find is the lawyerly language written here [1] that sounds, on the face of it, purposely misleading: The sentence "In these early years of the network, there are additional roles that need to be performed on behalf of the association" only makes sense if rephrased as "In these early years of the network, there are additional roles that need to be performed BY FACEBOOK on behalf of the association" [1] https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/#the-libra-association https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/#the-libra-association
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    From that very page, second paragraph: "The association is governed by the Libra Association Council, which is comprised of one representative per validator node. Together, they make decisions on the governance of the network and reserve. Initially, this group consists of the Founding Members: businesses, nonprofit and multilateral organizations, and academic institutions from around the world. All decisions are brought to the council, and major policy or technical decisions require the consent of two-thirds of the votes, the same supermajority of the network required in the BFT consensus protocol." Edit: the things they are describing that "need to be done by Facebook" likely means software dev work, done in open-source (it's already open-source), cause they have a ton of well paid people already that know how to do this whereas Visa, for example, might not. They are recognizing that early on, they will be doing a lot of heavy lifting, that's all.
    - drcode 7y ago
      Yes, but in the paragraph I quoted, it clearly implies that the network is already live and that some unnamed entity acting "on behalf of the association" is recruiting the founding members, so there is some time period being referenced in which the network is already live and the founding members have not yet been established. I should point out I'm not necessarily anti-libra, but I just think anyone claiming that we needn't worry because "Swiss Association" seems unreasonably sure of the situation.
- mbesto 7y ago
  > they need a majority of the Libra Association members to do that. Don't you find it odd that all of the member companies either (1) are based in SV and/or (2) have strong ties to SV? You don't think these people would collude with each other "offline" if they needed to?
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    Not odd at all, it's easiest to get them involved cause these people all know each other, obviously. I don't think most of the new 70+ members they add by next year should be in SV, or even in the US necessarily, and it would be dumb if they did that. I don't think collusion is a huge risk: 1. Many of these companies are direct competitors (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Stripe, etc.), you would need the silence of ALL of them in order to get away with some manipulation (cause they can all independently validate) AND 2. They would have to somehow spoof the public Validator API they are planning (which allows us peons to validate the ledger), without anyone noticing. That's quite a caper, I think there are easier ways to make money at that point that are way less risky.
    - mbesto 7y ago
      > it's easiest to get them involved cause these people all know each other, obviously. Right and that's precisely the reason drug cartels are so attractive to the people who run them....what's your point? > Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Stripe, etc. Are you serious? If you don't understand how in bed these companies are with each other then I have a bridge to sell you. You've brought up some seriously good points about how Libra is a reaction to WeChat, but IMHO this is a naive perspective into historically how companies work with each other in markets.
    - pvg 7y ago
      Visa and Mastercard settled a price-fixing suit just last year. "They're not going to collude because they're competitors" seems like a very odd argument. Colluding while pretending to compete is the central thing that makes that sort of behaviour illegal.
      - 7y ago
- dannyr 7y ago
  Oh my. What else should Facebook do for you not to trust their word? Do you think Zuckerberg just magically became a trustworthy person?
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    I don't need to trust his word, that's the beauty of doing it this way. I just need to trust Swiss law, market dynamics of competitors, and math. FB isn't dumb, they know they're reputation is in the toilet right now.
    - drcode 7y ago
      Please show us the Swiss law.
    - tfha 7y ago
      It's not set in stone until the network is live. Everything at this point is still in the hands of Facebook. And I doubt that will change.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  "But if you invest a lot of money, you can designate universities or nonprofits to vote for you on this council. So, in effect, the more money you invest, even though you may not have direct power over how the association functions, you can still have enormous influence on the voting blocs of what would in essence be a new international currency. I’m wondering what—" https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/19/big_techs_war_for_your_wallet https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/19/big_techs_war_for_you...
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    Sure, look, I'm not saying the Libra plan is perfect and unable to be corrupted, I'm just saying most of the "critical analysis" I've seen thus far doesn't go this deep into how Libra could actually go wrong. They just say "Facebook controls this and they just want your data" and either conclude that it's stupid and will fail or it's evil and must be stopped, with no other reasoning.
    - tehjoker 7y ago
      I don't think that you need an in depth analysis to understand that Facebook and a consortium of powerful private interests are looking to wrest further control of the world financial system from local control. Corporations are the opposite of democracies, so allowing a group of unaccountable players looking after only their own interests to control the world money system would be a disaster. To the extent the economy is already set up this way, it is already a disaster.
      - carlosdp 7y ago
        By that logic, it's already a disaster, so this doesn't really change things? All it does is allow more people to engage in payments online. Even in that view, it seems like a potential net benefit to the world economy, maybe.
    - CaptainZapp 7y ago
      I argue that it must be stopped in its tracks right now for two reasons: It has potential to undermine the monetary systems of poorer nations, in essence (re-)colonialising them on the currency front It has the potential to destroy decades of efforts in achieving monetary transparency and fighting money laundry on a global scale. Even though some of the more libertarian minded contributors here seem to think that fighting money laundry is a bad thing I can assure you that it's not. In addition I'm a bit flummoxed about the trust you seem to have in Facbook and they doing the right thing. A trust which is absolutely not warranted when I look at the short and dirty history and the constant lies and evasions of this company.
- tracker1 7y ago
  Given recent financial censorship by some of the starting member companies, why should I trust any of them more than FB itself? Why not just use existing bitcoin or etherium?
  - gerikson 7y ago
    Are you asking why you personally should not use Libra in preference to BTC/ETH, or whether the parties in the Libra organisation should use BTC/ETH?
    - tracker1 7y ago
      I'm questioning why FB and the member parties didn't just support an existing solution/infrastructure. The fact is, I don't trust them, and they have proven that I shouldn't. If they aren't actually decentralizing the system, and allowing direct person to person transfers without an account on their system, then that doesn't add anything over fiat currency, except allow them to not pay taxes.
      - carlosdp 7y ago
        It's designed the way it is expressly because of the issues BTC/ETH/etc. have with price stability and regulators. Libra is basically an in-between, it's not fully distributed, but it's not fully centralized. I'm personally in the "rising tide lifts all boats" camp atm; I think Libra will act as a bridge and help explode the rest of the crypto economy by making the fiat -> crytpo acquisition process way quicker and easier. So I guess my answer is, I don't think you should use Libra if you don't trust it, and I'm not asking you to. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of FUD right now about it from people not reading the whitepapers or not caring to be accurate.
        gerikson 7y ago
        Good answer. I doubt however that Libra's terms of service will allow purchase of "real" crypto - just like I doubt they will allow purchase of drugs, porn, or malware.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by drcode 7y ago

carlosdp 7y ago

No, they do not have full control from the start. Even in the current permissioned model. The 28 (will be 100) member companies do (or rather a majority vote of them do). But Facebook itself will not have full control, from the start. This is really important and something the media keeps getting wrong. Facebook isn't dumb, they know no one will trust something they control right now, so they made it so they aren't the ones in control. They likely will be the biggest wallet app though, which is significant. But they still can't single-handedly change the rules of Libra, they need a majority of the Libra Association members to do that.

dannyr 7y ago
Oh, you keep saying in your comments that Facebook isn't dumb. I agree. Facebook's leadership is smart. They know what they are doing. They just hope that most of us would be dumb enough to believe them.
- carlosdp 7y ago
  Don't have to believe them, the governance and cryptoconsensus in the whitepapers is enshrined in law and math, and in addition there are competitors in the Libra Association that would easily decry other members if they tried something to subvert the operation of the currency.
drcode 7y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you provide a citation? Where does it concretely say that FB will not be in charge of the network when it first launches? The closest I can find is the lawyerly language written here [1] that sounds, on the face of it, purposely misleading: The sentence "In these early years of the network, there are additional roles that need to be performed on behalf of the association" only makes sense if rephrased as "In these early years of the network, there are additional roles that need to be performed BY FACEBOOK on behalf of the association" [1] https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/#the-libra-association https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/#the-libra-association
- carlosdp 7y ago
  From that very page, second paragraph: "The association is governed by the Libra Association Council, which is comprised of one representative per validator node. Together, they make decisions on the governance of the network and reserve. Initially, this group consists of the Founding Members: businesses, nonprofit and multilateral organizations, and academic institutions from around the world. All decisions are brought to the council, and major policy or technical decisions require the consent of two-thirds of the votes, the same supermajority of the network required in the BFT consensus protocol." Edit: the things they are describing that "need to be done by Facebook" likely means software dev work, done in open-source (it's already open-source), cause they have a ton of well paid people already that know how to do this whereas Visa, for example, might not. They are recognizing that early on, they will be doing a lot of heavy lifting, that's all.
  - drcode 7y ago
    Yes, but in the paragraph I quoted, it clearly implies that the network is already live and that some unnamed entity acting "on behalf of the association" is recruiting the founding members, so there is some time period being referenced in which the network is already live and the founding members have not yet been established. I should point out I'm not necessarily anti-libra, but I just think anyone claiming that we needn't worry because "Swiss Association" seems unreasonably sure of the situation.
mbesto 7y ago
> they need a majority of the Libra Association members to do that. Don't you find it odd that all of the member companies either (1) are based in SV and/or (2) have strong ties to SV? You don't think these people would collude with each other "offline" if they needed to?
- carlosdp 7y ago
  Not odd at all, it's easiest to get them involved cause these people all know each other, obviously. I don't think most of the new 70+ members they add by next year should be in SV, or even in the US necessarily, and it would be dumb if they did that. I don't think collusion is a huge risk: 1. Many of these companies are direct competitors (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Stripe, etc.), you would need the silence of ALL of them in order to get away with some manipulation (cause they can all independently validate) AND 2. They would have to somehow spoof the public Validator API they are planning (which allows us peons to validate the ledger), without anyone noticing. That's quite a caper, I think there are easier ways to make money at that point that are way less risky.
  - mbesto 7y ago
    > it's easiest to get them involved cause these people all know each other, obviously. Right and that's precisely the reason drug cartels are so attractive to the people who run them....what's your point? > Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Stripe, etc. Are you serious? If you don't understand how in bed these companies are with each other then I have a bridge to sell you. You've brought up some seriously good points about how Libra is a reaction to WeChat, but IMHO this is a naive perspective into historically how companies work with each other in markets.
  - pvg 7y ago
    Visa and Mastercard settled a price-fixing suit just last year. "They're not going to collude because they're competitors" seems like a very odd argument. Colluding while pretending to compete is the central thing that makes that sort of behaviour illegal.
    - 7y ago
dannyr 7y ago
Oh my. What else should Facebook do for you not to trust their word? Do you think Zuckerberg just magically became a trustworthy person?
- carlosdp 7y ago
  I don't need to trust his word, that's the beauty of doing it this way. I just need to trust Swiss law, market dynamics of competitors, and math. FB isn't dumb, they know they're reputation is in the toilet right now.
  - drcode 7y ago
    Please show us the Swiss law.
  - tfha 7y ago
    It's not set in stone until the network is live. Everything at this point is still in the hands of Facebook. And I doubt that will change.
tehjoker 7y ago
"But if you invest a lot of money, you can designate universities or nonprofits to vote for you on this council. So, in effect, the more money you invest, even though you may not have direct power over how the association functions, you can still have enormous influence on the voting blocs of what would in essence be a new international currency. I’m wondering what—" https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/19/big_techs_war_for_your_wallet https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/19/big_techs_war_for_you...
- carlosdp 7y ago
  Sure, look, I'm not saying the Libra plan is perfect and unable to be corrupted, I'm just saying most of the "critical analysis" I've seen thus far doesn't go this deep into how Libra could actually go wrong. They just say "Facebook controls this and they just want your data" and either conclude that it's stupid and will fail or it's evil and must be stopped, with no other reasoning.
  - tehjoker 7y ago
    I don't think that you need an in depth analysis to understand that Facebook and a consortium of powerful private interests are looking to wrest further control of the world financial system from local control. Corporations are the opposite of democracies, so allowing a group of unaccountable players looking after only their own interests to control the world money system would be a disaster. To the extent the economy is already set up this way, it is already a disaster.
    - carlosdp 7y ago
      By that logic, it's already a disaster, so this doesn't really change things? All it does is allow more people to engage in payments online. Even in that view, it seems like a potential net benefit to the world economy, maybe.
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    I argue that it must be stopped in its tracks right now for two reasons: It has potential to undermine the monetary systems of poorer nations, in essence (re-)colonialising them on the currency front It has the potential to destroy decades of efforts in achieving monetary transparency and fighting money laundry on a global scale. Even though some of the more libertarian minded contributors here seem to think that fighting money laundry is a bad thing I can assure you that it's not. In addition I'm a bit flummoxed about the trust you seem to have in Facbook and they doing the right thing. A trust which is absolutely not warranted when I look at the short and dirty history and the constant lies and evasions of this company.
tracker1 7y ago
Given recent financial censorship by some of the starting member companies, why should I trust any of them more than FB itself? Why not just use existing bitcoin or etherium?
- gerikson 7y ago
  Are you asking why you personally should not use Libra in preference to BTC/ETH, or whether the parties in the Libra organisation should use BTC/ETH?
  - tracker1 7y ago
    I'm questioning why FB and the member parties didn't just support an existing solution/infrastructure. The fact is, I don't trust them, and they have proven that I shouldn't. If they aren't actually decentralizing the system, and allowing direct person to person transfers without an account on their system, then that doesn't add anything over fiat currency, except allow them to not pay taxes.
    - carlosdp 7y ago
      It's designed the way it is expressly because of the issues BTC/ETH/etc. have with price stability and regulators. Libra is basically an in-between, it's not fully distributed, but it's not fully centralized. I'm personally in the "rising tide lifts all boats" camp atm; I think Libra will act as a bridge and help explode the rest of the crypto economy by making the fiat -> crytpo acquisition process way quicker and easier. So I guess my answer is, I don't think you should use Libra if you don't trust it, and I'm not asking you to. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of FUD right now about it from people not reading the whitepapers or not caring to be accurate.
      - gerikson 7y ago
        Good answer. I doubt however that Libra's terms of service will allow purchase of "real" crypto - just like I doubt they will allow purchase of drugs, porn, or malware.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]