5 ms·

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.
    - carlosdp 7y ago
      They explicitly encourage crypto exchanges in the materials, actually! They even designed/are developing a smart contract language called Move to facilitate DAO exchanges and the like.
      - gerikson 7y ago
        I missed that! That's very interesting.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    If two individuals cannot send each other currency directly, without one of the member companies blocking it, or requiring an account on a given member site... then I don't see any real advantage against fiat currency.
    - gerikson 7y ago
      Exactly. This will just be a "meta-currency", stable against a basket of government-issued fiat, and with a permissioned transaction system built on top of it. Libra's use of buzzwords like "blockchain" and "decentralized" are just PR.
      - carlosdp 7y ago
        I mean, it is decentralized... The only difference is the member companies are publicized and we know who their CEOs are, whereas the mining pools that account for the grand majority of Bitcoin's hashrate, for example, are virtually nameless to the general public.
        gerikson 7y ago
        The banking system is decentralized too, but the word has a specific meaning in cryptocurrency circles - which I think Libra is invoking. I do agree that currently the Bitcoin mining/transaction system is centralized to a few very large mining pools.
    - carlosdp 7y ago
      Because it's digital. In the west, we have a digital abstraction around our fiat money (credit cards / ACH bank transfers) to send our money easily (sorta). In the emerging markets Libra is primarily targeting (Facebook's fastest growing market), many people have phones and internet (and FB/Whatsapp), but no banking. This doesn't need to beat our fiat, it just needs to beat fiat in Africa. That said, Libra still has many of the benefits of other crypto for general consumers (ie. the grand majority of people who aren't very worried about the government seizing their accounts or freezing transactions): - It's safer than a credit card, since payments happen by sending currency (like cash) rather than forking over bank or credit card credentials to a website (the equivalent of forking over private keys) - Transaction fees are far lower
- gerikson 7y ago
  > I'm questioning why FB and the member parties didn't just support an existing solution/infrastructure. You cannot build a stablecoin on crypto-assets that have limited issuance.

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.
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    They explicitly encourage crypto exchanges in the materials, actually! They even designed/are developing a smart contract language called Move to facilitate DAO exchanges and the like.
    - gerikson 7y ago
      I missed that! That's very interesting.
- tracker1 7y ago
  If two individuals cannot send each other currency directly, without one of the member companies blocking it, or requiring an account on a given member site... then I don't see any real advantage against fiat currency.
  - gerikson 7y ago
    Exactly. This will just be a "meta-currency", stable against a basket of government-issued fiat, and with a permissioned transaction system built on top of it. Libra's use of buzzwords like "blockchain" and "decentralized" are just PR.
    - carlosdp 7y ago
      I mean, it is decentralized... The only difference is the member companies are publicized and we know who their CEOs are, whereas the mining pools that account for the grand majority of Bitcoin's hashrate, for example, are virtually nameless to the general public.
      - gerikson 7y ago
        The banking system is decentralized too, but the word has a specific meaning in cryptocurrency circles - which I think Libra is invoking. I do agree that currently the Bitcoin mining/transaction system is centralized to a few very large mining pools.
  - carlosdp 7y ago
    Because it's digital. In the west, we have a digital abstraction around our fiat money (credit cards / ACH bank transfers) to send our money easily (sorta). In the emerging markets Libra is primarily targeting (Facebook's fastest growing market), many people have phones and internet (and FB/Whatsapp), but no banking. This doesn't need to beat our fiat, it just needs to beat fiat in Africa. That said, Libra still has many of the benefits of other crypto for general consumers (ie. the grand majority of people who aren't very worried about the government seizing their accounts or freezing transactions): - It's safer than a credit card, since payments happen by sending currency (like cash) rather than forking over bank or credit card credentials to a website (the equivalent of forking over private keys) - Transaction fees are far lower
gerikson 7y ago
> I'm questioning why FB and the member parties didn't just support an existing solution/infrastructure. You cannot build a stablecoin on crypto-assets that have limited issuance.