4 ms·

Disclaimer: I work on a decentralized cryptocurrency For the HN'ers who want to jump in and evangelize cryptocurrencies: Libra is not a cryptocurrency. It is

Disclaimer: I work on a decentralized cryptocurrency For the HN'ers who want to jump in and evangelize cryptocurrencies: Libra is not a cryptocurrency. It is a Facebook-controlled private currency intended to circumvent the international banking system. Facebook, here, is in every way a financial institution. Please don't let them fool you. The "decentralized" "byzantine-fault tolerant" "cryptocurrency" aspect is just tacked on as a marketing ploy.

eloff 7y ago
Cryptocurrencies are tulips, that is investment vehicles of the greater fool style. They only have value if you can find a greater fool to sell it to. By and large they're not useful as a currency. Libra could be. It's also managed at somewhat arms length from Facebook in that it's run by the Libra foundation. I say somewhat because Facebook intends to integrate it into WhatsApp and Messenger. I don't see a technical or organizational reason Libra can't be a crytocurrency - and the very first successful one.
- Vervious 7y ago
  I agree that fiat only has value if a government, or some other group with capital backs it. Cryptocurrency is distinct from "digital currency" in that it's decentralized, and not managed by a large actor. Sure, they may be doomed to fail. Libra is NOT a decentralized currency, and thus does not deserve any support from Bitcoin/cryptocurrency people. I 100% agree with you, just want to make the distinction between "cryptocurrency" and "digital money". Libra is Snapchat Cash + Facebook's own currency and we shouldn't try to defend it, when it is obviously trying to circumvent government regulation. Now, it sounds like you don't think digital, private currencies/securities should be regulated. That's a more interesting conversation. Recall how the 1907 financial panics (and the Great Gatsby era) led the U.S. to government-regulated central banking in the first place.
  - eloff 7y ago
    I didn't say anything about fiat currencies. I think we should also make a distinction between crytocurrency and digital money, since the latter has utility. Bitcoin is not decentralized either. It is in theory, but it requires mining which centralized naturally due to efficiencies of scale. It also requires exchanges to convert to and from fiat, and those are completely centralized private companies. Libra in practice seems to be less centralized than bitcoin in practice. People make arguments from theory, but those are not relevant to the systems in practice in the real world.
lawn 7y ago
They also write in their whitepaper that Libra isn't permissionless[1]. Decentralization in a cryptocurrency is only a means to an end, an end that should be permissionless. [1]: https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-blockchain.pdf https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-bl...
- Vervious 7y ago
  Exactly, Libra is a permissioned protocol. With a very vague roadmap for decentralization that I think we should interpret as a marketing ploy / foot-in-the-door-to-avoid-regulation.
randartie 7y ago
> It is a facebook-controlled private currency Can you clarify? Isn't the currency going to be owned by a consortium of various global businesses [1]? Are you unaware of that? [1]https://libra.org/en-US/association/#founding_members https://libra.org/en-US/association/#founding_members
- Vervious 7y ago
  Yes, I simplified a bit. But remember, they are each paying facebook at least $10 million, who for now controls the development. I would be very surprised, if somehow Facebook maneuvered themselves out of a position of power over the Libra Reserve. Even if the private currency is controlled equally by these companies, I am still fear-struck. Do I want these companies to be setting global economic policy? That implies financial regulation that is even less democratic than it is now!

eloff 7y ago

Cryptocurrencies are tulips, that is investment vehicles of the greater fool style. They only have value if you can find a greater fool to sell it to. By and large they're not useful as a currency. Libra could be. It's also managed at somewhat arms length from Facebook in that it's run by the Libra foundation. I say somewhat because Facebook intends to integrate it into WhatsApp and Messenger. I don't see a technical or organizational reason Libra can't be a crytocurrency - and the very first successful one.

Vervious 7y ago
I agree that fiat only has value if a government, or some other group with capital backs it. Cryptocurrency is distinct from "digital currency" in that it's decentralized, and not managed by a large actor. Sure, they may be doomed to fail. Libra is NOT a decentralized currency, and thus does not deserve any support from Bitcoin/cryptocurrency people. I 100% agree with you, just want to make the distinction between "cryptocurrency" and "digital money". Libra is Snapchat Cash + Facebook's own currency and we shouldn't try to defend it, when it is obviously trying to circumvent government regulation. Now, it sounds like you don't think digital, private currencies/securities should be regulated. That's a more interesting conversation. Recall how the 1907 financial panics (and the Great Gatsby era) led the U.S. to government-regulated central banking in the first place.
- eloff 7y ago
  I didn't say anything about fiat currencies. I think we should also make a distinction between crytocurrency and digital money, since the latter has utility. Bitcoin is not decentralized either. It is in theory, but it requires mining which centralized naturally due to efficiencies of scale. It also requires exchanges to convert to and from fiat, and those are completely centralized private companies. Libra in practice seems to be less centralized than bitcoin in practice. People make arguments from theory, but those are not relevant to the systems in practice in the real world.

lawn 7y ago

They also write in their whitepaper that Libra isn't permissionless[1]. Decentralization in a cryptocurrency is only a means to an end, an end that should be permissionless. [1]: https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-blockchain.pdf https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-bl...

Vervious 7y ago
Exactly, Libra is a permissioned protocol. With a very vague roadmap for decentralization that I think we should interpret as a marketing ploy / foot-in-the-door-to-avoid-regulation.

randartie 7y ago

> It is a facebook-controlled private currency Can you clarify? Isn't the currency going to be owned by a consortium of various global businesses [1]? Are you unaware of that? [1]https://libra.org/en-US/association/#founding_members https://libra.org/en-US/association/#founding_members

Vervious 7y ago
Yes, I simplified a bit. But remember, they are each paying facebook at least $10 million, who for now controls the development. I would be very surprised, if somehow Facebook maneuvered themselves out of a position of power over the Libra Reserve. Even if the private currency is controlled equally by these companies, I am still fear-struck. Do I want these companies to be setting global economic policy? That implies financial regulation that is even less democratic than it is now!