29 ms·

Telegram quietly snuck its blockchain past regulators

203 points by elies 7y ago

_Understated_ 7y ago
I'm conflicted about electronic, non-regulated payment systems. On one hand (not to be an anarchist or anything) I like the idea of government having less control of things (up to a point) and that we could potentially have lots of choice of currencies although that could be a problem in itself if you have to "hold" lots of currencies. On the other hand, the reality will be one or two mega-currencies, FB, Amazon, Google etc. will be eventually used for everything. And the last thing I want is Google telling me one day that I have violated their TOS and all my currency belongs to them. Especially if I pay for a ton of stuff in it and there is no recourse due to using AI. If I had to pick a side, I think I'd stick with centralised gov. in this case! Edit: Changed a word or two
- nobodyshere 7y ago
  Don’t hold all eggs in one bin.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- tim333 7y ago
  FB, Amazon, Google etc currencies don't seem to be happening. I think it will be government currencies or something like Bitcoin.
  - Aozi 7y ago
    Well Facebook is pushing out Libra. Amazon has its own Managed Blockchain for currencies https://aws.amazon.com/managed-blockchain/ https://aws.amazon.com/managed-blockchain/ as well as a ledger https://aws.amazon.com/qldb/ https://aws.amazon.com/qldb/ along with a POW https://cointelegraph.com/news/amazon-patent-casts-light-on-plans-to-create-proof-of-work-blockchain-analog https://cointelegraph.com/news/amazon-patent-casts-light-on-... so I wouldn't exactly be surprised if they push out their own coin. I don't think Google has made any big moves in crypto. Though if Amazon/FB really start pushing for their own coins I doubt Google wouldn't try something to compete on that market.
    - tim333 7y ago
      Ah yeah I didn't put that well. I was more thinking that they will not be big compared to fiat or bitcoin. They are a bit neither one thing or another. Bitcoin is fully unregulated so you can use it in ways that governments would ban if they could, fiat is pretty much regulated (apart from cash in hand), but Libra etc combine the inconvenience of crypto with being subject to regulation.
    - helpPeople 7y ago
      Technology is not the same as adoption. Bitcoin is big because it's adopted and decentralized. The same fears about Facebook is why their currency will not be trusted. I don't trust Amazon, but I do trust Bitcoin.
- deif 7y ago
  I think electronic non-regulated centralized payment systems are worrying. However if they are de-centralized there are less things to worry about. As long as the community is verifiably in control of the validators/nodes then a central authority cannot impose and block your account.
  - pavlov 7y ago
    Unfortunately any such community tends to start out with starry-eyed tech idealists but converges towards a teeming hive of the least scrupulous market manipulators, pump'n'dump bot army generals, ICO fraudsters, etc. And of course at the fringes of the community with no power are the retail investors who bought the thing during a bubble peak 10x higher and now spend their days harassing critics on Twitter because all the promises of the technology are coming true Real Soon Now.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    communities only stay in control through active intervention by some strong enough authority. This is the problem with the 'law of the jungle' logic of crypto currency, not having any authority doesn't imply that the system doesn't move towards centralisation, it simply builds out informal hierarchies, and those are usually a lot worse than formal and legitimised ones because they are based on resource concentration and have nothing to reign them in. Well functioning markets are constructed and reconstructed through social interaction and institutions, they don't predate them. That they simply exist in harmony and tend towards some magical happy state is essentially religious thinking. The Tyranny of Structurelessness (https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) is a great and pretty timeless piece on why decentralisation does not lead to some sort of greater freedom or community control.
    - jkepler 7y ago
      Could that one not have rules without rulers, if the protocol and incentives are properly structured?
      - 7y ago
- sschueller 7y ago
  I am glad there is crypto because cash is dying and complete government control over all your assets is becoming a real possibility. Cashless is convenient but also very dangerous for a free society. Fiat is great, if cash exists.
  - mavhc 7y ago
    Government can just declare your cash worthless, or devalue it though. The trick is that government is actually people, so make sure it's the right people
    - logicchains 7y ago
      >so make sure it's the right people I'm sure Putin would like to see you try. Sometimes a political solution is not possible (e.g. Russia, China), so a technological solution is the only option.
    - foshbosh7779 7y ago
      > Government can just declare your cash worthless, or devalue it though. That's the entire point of crypto, the government has nothing to do with it. Bitcoin was being used for years before any laws came out.
      - criley2 7y ago
        Mostly by criminals in money laundering and attempting to use the internet as a black market. Oh and investors buying to hold and watch it drop lol. I can't help but wonder whether or not people realize that everything from fascist dictators to literal jihadist terrorists desperately want government-less crypto currency to finally unlock their finances from western sanction, so they can super-charge their activity (be it oppressing their people, committing terror attacks, invading their neighbors, etc). There's a very real political cost to uncontrollable finance systems, and that cost is bourne in violence and suffering. That's before we begin to discuss unregulated black markets that thrive on unregulated currencies. How many kids are being hospitalized or dying because of black market vaping products they bought online?
- kache_ 7y ago
  Their use case is primarily obfuscating movement of money. Crypto isn't exactly useful day to day, and it'll take some time and ingenuity to be able to achieve the convenience of modern payment systems in a decentralized, distributed manner. Right now, that's the only use case which warrants crypto over fiat currency is if you ever want to send large sums of money and not leave a trail.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    Not only. Remittances to less developed countries, chaotic national currency, undeveloped banking, etc. Half of Africa uses e-money, and crypto is a good replacement.
- bogle 7y ago
  Don't be shy of identifying as an anarchist. You'd be in good company: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchists https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchists
  - WilliamEdward 7y ago
    The fourth result is the Unabomber. Otherwise, good list.
    - bogle 7y ago
      Good grief, Kaczynski is on there. Bjork, however, is fourth in the list and I'm fairly certain she wasn't involved!
    - wavefunction 7y ago
      His bombing campaign of terror was inexcusable and absolutely counterproductive to promoting his views but having read his collected writings he was surely ahead of his time as far as sussing out prevalent and significant ecological and social issues arising from our relationship to technology and the rest of the planet.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    There is a different between libertarianism and anarchism though.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      Right. Libertarians (or at least the consistent ones) are all anarchists, but not all anarchists are libertarians. "Anarchist" is a very broad term spanning the complete range from pacifist voluntaryism to violent agents of chaos. Libertarians tend to be completely non-violent so long as they and their property are unmolested, in stark contrast to certain other notable anarchists.
- me_me_me 7y ago
  I am in the same camp, but I also changed my mindabout decentralized crypto - bitcoin et al. When you look at it close enough you will recognize that they are controlled and influanced exclusively by Whales (individual with enormous amounts of given crypto). Of course that is not a direct control more akin to grey eminence, but it almost 100% opaque. Also there are a lot of different options for FIAT money and as everything on the internet there can be only one/few winners. As you said we would be at mercy of FB, Amazon, Google, or whoever has their hands on BT.
  - blobs 7y ago
    You are right about the Whales. I think regulation should prevent massive mining factories, which would also greatly reduce the risk for a 50% attack. Mining should only be allowed for individuals with a certain maximum hash rate so more people have equal chances. But I'm afraid our politicians are not going to help us with that.
- criley2 7y ago
  If you don't get to vote for the people who control the money supply, it's not a democracy or a republic or anything of the sort. "He who controls the money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the money supply" Rothschild Never let a for-profit entity control the money supply. Last time we tried it, serious suffering was the result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
- lmkg 7y ago
  In speaking with an old friend of mine who is a hard-core libertarian, he told me that he generally prefers the free market over anything else, he does prefer the government run things when a monopoly is inevitable. The reason being, a democratic government is at least in theory still somewhat accountable to the general public while a privately-held monopoly is not. I think that's similar to the feelings you're expressing: centralization isn't great, but if we have centralization anyways, let's use the government. The big question in this case being how centralized do we think things might end up in practice.
- UserIsUnused 7y ago
  at least Goverment is tied to a democracy. Multinational corporation not so much.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - nybble41 7y ago
    Most multinational corporations are democracies, though. They are governed by boards of directors elected by their members (shareholders).
    - shpongled 7y ago
      And companies are in practice more accountable to their constituents than governments
- zarro 7y ago
  Thats fine, the way it will come to pass is some people wont trust crypto and stick with traditional currency. The crypto that will win, will be the one that people adopt to a higher frequency over traditional currency because it will bring them more value over time. Then the ones who will be upset at this will be the ones who benefited from the inefficiencies of the prior monetary system, which by its very nature was prejudiced.
- brnt 7y ago
  The sooner we (in particular Americans) realize less government control equals more corporate control, the sooner we realize that government control is the only way the people can exercise control, which should be its right. Us Europeans have hundreds of years of history showing that small government in not ever to the advantage of the little guy.
- loceng 7y ago
  These systems are all ultimately based on a foundation of trust. If you don' trust your government, its people and processes, then you have a problem regardless of how transactions are happening. This trust of course starts with how secure and safeguarded the democratic process is - and there is a constant war between democracy and bad actors trying to takeover the systems of the richest nations in the world, whether nation states or smaller bad actors indirectly working toward negatively influencing a society through regulatory capture, etc..
- JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
  Your concern about "voilating the TOS" and losing your money is just as likely with government controlled currency. Asset forfeiture over small infractions is well documented.[0] I have never seen an argument against crypto currency that doesn't already apply to the current systems, we just pretend its not the same. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/10/18/the-forfeiture-racket-rolls-on/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/10/18/...
  - koolba 7y ago
    Being excluded from the digital banking system does not preclude me from walking around with a wad of cash. Even the insane concept of asset forfeiture in the USA is on its way out.
    - calebclark 7y ago
      What makes you think asset forfeiture in the USA is on the way out?
      - koolba 7y ago
        Some recent court rulings: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-f...
  - charwalker 7y ago
    Although similar they are not the same. The government must still, in most states, have charges on the books or more to seize anything and there is generally recourse if not suing for your assets back then voting or running for office to change laws. Google is far less likely to ever let you tell them what they can or can't do, even as a regulator. The government is you, fundamentally, while Google is not.
    - nine_k 7y ago
      Market forces work where there is a market. When the nature of the problem is such that rational customer behavior leads to one player taking all, the market deteriorates, and customers lose the benefits of competition. This is a problem that the anti-monopoly laws exist to solve. Another body of law prevents the federal government from seizing all the power, and to keep different branches on power competing without mergers and acquisitions of each other. An anarchist / libertarian approach would work if minting your own interoperable coin was possible and reasonable. With gold coins, it is (was) technically trivial. Digital currency has still to solve this.
- blobs 7y ago
  > On the other hand, the reality will be one or two mega-currencies, FB, Amazon, Google etc. When you stick with the government this statement indeed could become a reality. And that's why non-regulated payment systems are preferred. In the hands of banks, corporations, etc.. cryptocurrencies lose their ideal because these parties will always build their regulating mechanisms in the algorithm, without it they are not interested.
pretfood 7y ago
I think I'd rather have a government with decades of fiscal management, bad or otherwise look after money than an organisation that has absolutely no accountability whatsoever.
- jkepler 7y ago
  What about a protocol regulated by mathematics and well-designed economic game theory, controlled by no one party or group, which only gets stronger security when attacked?
  - Angostura 7y ago
    In a perfect world, it sounds perfect.
    - jkepler 7y ago
      As I see it, governments can raise money three ways: taxes, bond sales, and their monetary printing presses. Bitcoin removes the third option, helping to hold government abuses it check a little bit. It's not a solution for everything, but hopefully it restores money to a function of communicating value rather than being both political control and theft. If Bitcoin works it will also force governments towards greater fiscal responsibility. Bitcoin is not a perfect solution for all problems, but a partial solution in a deeply broken world.
      - Angostura 7y ago
        Governments also have a number of additional regulatory functions in addition to raising funds. Things like seizing the proceeds of crime, preventing fraud etc. Monetary policy is more than just a money raising exercise. There can be good reasons for devaluing a currency. Think for a moment about the implications of a world with a single currency mediated through a block-chain predicated on the idea than no-one can ever get more than 50% of the processing capacity. Think about Angola, China, Sweden and the US sharing that currency
  - 7y ago
alibaba_x 7y ago
Telegram is primarily Russian so it's unlikely they would heed American regulators anyway.
- LudwigNagasena 7y ago
  Telegram is legally British.
- vmednis 7y ago
  How is it Russian in any way? The app has been banned in Russia for more than a year now and the creator/CEO Pavel Durov is in exile from Russia.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    >CEO Pavel Durov is in exile from Russia. Pavel Durov is a Kremlin ally who pretends to be in exile from Russia. The app being sort-of blocked in Russia is just a part of the elaborate PR campaign to legitimize this VK spin-off. https://theoutline.com/post/2348/what-isn-t-telegram-saying-about-its-connections-to-the-kremlin?zd=1&zi=phbuqqnk https://theoutline.com/post/2348/what-isn-t-telegram-saying-... Telegram has shipped blatant backdoors in the past (This one is particularly egregious as there's no way to explain away this MITM feature as a bug) http://habrahabr.ru/post/206900/ http://habrahabr.ru/post/206900/
- adventured 7y ago
  > Telegram is primarily Russian Telegram isn't Russian at all at this point. "Although Telegram was founded by a Russian, Pavel Durov (more on him later), the messaging app rejects any affiliation with Russia." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/world/europe/telegram-iran-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/world/europe/telegram-ira...
- realusername 7y ago
  Seeing how hard Russia tries to ban it and that the founder had to leave the country for his safety, they are probably not sharing anything to Russia.
pjc50 7y ago
> “We do not possess any specific information on TON. That's why we cannot comment on this app.” That's basically it. Marketing of financial services is regulated. TON hasn't been heavily marketed yet. So there's no marketing to criticise. Does anyone have any detail to add? Are the tokens "free floating" or are they supposedly pegged to real money? Are they for a utility purpose or purely for speculation? (I also wonder if they're delaying the launch given the disappointing Bakkt launch and the implosion of Kik)
swsieber 7y ago
"Snuck Past" doesn't matter. They can penalize after the fact.
- cwyers 7y ago
  It's actually probably worse, because if you get caught at the beginning you might stop. If you don't get caught at the beginning you can make things a lot worse.
acjohnson55 7y ago
I worry that this is scope creep for Telegram. I trust them--for now--as a secure messaging service. That's serious enough. But incorporating an entire bespoke payments system puts an even bigger target on Telegram's back and introduces new trust issues. Also, I can't help but compare this to Keybase's affiliated payment system, Stellar. I'm curious what the differences are in the two projects.
- pjc50 7y ago
  That reminds me, apparently I've been airdropped $20 in "lumens" as a keybase customer. Any idea what the point of that is or how I can cash out easily?
  - half-kh-hacker 7y ago
    If you're already on Coinbase, you can cash out there by sending your Lumens over. Otherwise, you can go through one of the Stellar exchange frontends and convert the lumens (there are a few institutions set up to accept lumens and convert them into a token tied to the value of a fiat currency (these tokens are still part of the Stellar network) -> real currency via bank transfer)
- alluro2 7y ago
  I worry that this will be a deciding excuse to paint them as pure terrorist evil and shut them down - "they're not only helping TERRORISTS organize, but now also transfer large amounts of money for their operations"
- em-bee 7y ago
  if you have the opportunity to observe wechat payment in china, it will make a lot more sense. payment in a chat application right now is the best way to bring electronic payments to everyone. because within that chat application you already established trust with your communication partner, and using the same tool to exhange payments thus builds on that trust and reduces the chances for fraud. (it does not eliminate fraud, but when making payments to a known entity, i can trust that the payments go to the right place) this is independent from using a blockchain to do that, or facilitating payments in regular currency. the principal is the same. payments across an existing chat system are simply easier to trust than payments across a new wallet where i have to make sure that the wallet target actually match who i want to send money to.
ddtaylor 7y ago
Good. More competition in the space of currencies and money is exactly what it's needed for hundreds of years.
- red_trumpet 7y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - ddtaylor 7y ago
    Money creation and currency competition has historically been controlled by very few entities, most of the time governments. Competition takes place in other areas and technologies and ideas have advanced while the innovation in money and currency has been much slower and often stagnated by various societies printing their currency out of existence. As long as people have the power to consent to which currencies they use the availability and competition among them creates a market for competition and innovation.
wiradikusuma 7y ago
Does anyone know where to buy it?
iamsb 7y ago
Yesterday another messenger was in news for going out of business due to blockchain adventures. I just recently stopped using WhatsApp (because FB is evil) and using telegram for comms. I really hope they dont go out of business as well.
repsilat 7y ago
A comment on decentralisation: >> If there is one person who manages the payment system, it is this person who must comply with all the laws and regulations of the regulators, and if there is no central agent, then there is no one to present the requirements to.* Is this correct? Or do all users need to be GDPR compliant? Blockchains rely on lots of people storing the same data, and their interaction constitutes "running the service". Playing Devil's Advocate, I don't see how Bitcoin mining that validates drug-purchase transactions is legally much different to running a TOR exit node -- you're looking the other way while potentially abetting crimes. Morally I think I don't have a problem with it, but I don't think it would be difficult to ban or regulate after the fact.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Running TOR exit node is not illegal. Take this logic far enough: criminals use shoes, so make it illegal.
Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
Coindesk reported that TON is supposedly trading in unauthorised secondary market already[1]. [1]Post seems to have been removed, available on Google Cache - https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.coindesk.com/alive-thriving-and-totally-unauthorized-inside-the-underground-market-for-telegrams-cryptocurrency https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
zarro 7y ago
The whole point of blockchain is for it to be not regulated or controlled by anyone - especially the government. Its control should be decentralized, its transaction history and owners private,and its ledger impossible to manipulate without destroying. He who achieves this will be the currency of the future.
- 0xdeadb00f 7y ago
  > He who achieves this will be the currency of the future. I disagree. The currency of the future is one that is readily available and easy to use. Because generally, regular users don't care about privacy, government control or decentralisation, they care about being able to buy and sell crap easily. A currency that achieves all the stuff you've listed would be the best-case scenario, yes, but I'm not so sure the general public will be accepting of it. [Also, hasn't Monero achieved all this? (I'm not that knowledgeable on crypto)].
fencepost 7y ago
Is Telegram going to find itself with issues similar to Kik's? https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/05/sec-sues-kik-for-running-an-unregistered-initial-coin-offering/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/05/sec-sues-kik-for-running...
jvagner 7y ago
Every retail brick and mortar store needs to have their own delivery services. Every content creator and distribution network needs to have their own closed streaming platform and app and monthly fee schedule. Every tech platform that connects one user to others in any form or fashion needs to have their own blockchain system for the transfer of value. Apparently.. this is where we're headed right now.
- bpt3 7y ago
  It's not where we're headed, it's where we're at right now. There are many, many examples of this behavior in new markets (e.g. railroads, search engines), which is eventually followed by market consensus around a small number of winners and a market consolidation. I don't see any reason the examples you mentioned will be different.
  - jvagner 7y ago
    I've been staying in hotels a bit more, in recent weeks, than I have in a while. So I'm seeing more television. I'm seeing more messaging around this than I usually do. Target advertising their own delivery services was news to me... of course I was familiar with all the food delivery services (UberEats, DoorDash, etc). This will crash, as you say, and some will survive as the Lyfts of the market. But I don't hear a lot about Zipcar anymore...?
    - bpt3 7y ago
      If your conclusion is that there are more delivery services than the market can support, I agree completely. Ultimately, I think the end result will be a stable market with a few competitors, as some of the existing companies fail, some of the bigger chains offering delivery shut down their internal service and outsource the work while others spin out their service to support external customers, etc. Zipcar still exists and seems to be doing fine in my area, with car2go and a couple others as competitors.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  There's a lot of capital, and not as many investment opportunities. So successful companies are trying to differentiate themselves and lock people in by replicating infrastructure. When capital disappears or the economy becomes more dynamic, this will change.
atrilumen 7y ago
I'm building (and betting everything on) 'an app' on Telegram, and this shit makes me nervous. Telegram, please don't crash
crb002 7y ago
Transactional is different. It only needs to have stable value in the short term. If Starbucks says 3 credits for a coffee and they have a liquid market for credits they will use it. Ingress/egress that sweeps into savings many will adopt. FB would be wise to take 10% of profits and sweep them into a credit dividend for users so even the poorest have liquidity in the market.
ilaksh 7y ago
It's not regulated because it's not a popular topic yet. People always try to find rational reasons for why other people care about stuff. The world is not a meritocracy or a rational place. It operates just like a giant high school. No one cares about Telegram's money simply because no one cares. The cool kids haven't started talking about it yet. That's it. It actually is similar to Libra and other projects in lots of ways.
RichardHeart 7y ago
Human beings digitize and exchange with each other everything they can. Movies, music, text, audio, and now money. Less middlemen, less friction and less decay (inflation in the case of currency) is usually better. One should not need to sneak peer to peer communications software and past anyone.

203 points by elies 7y ago

I'm conflicted about electronic, non-regulated payment systems. On one hand (not to be an anarchist or anything) I like the idea of government having less control of things (up to a point) and that we could potentially have lots of choice of currencies although that could be a problem in itself if you have to "hold" lots of currencies. On the other hand, the reality will be one or two mega-currencies, FB, Amazon, Google etc. will be eventually used for everything. And the last thing I want is Google telling me one day that I have violated their TOS and all my currency belongs to them. Especially if I pay for a ton of stuff in it and there is no recourse due to using AI. If I had to pick a side, I think I'd stick with centralised gov. in this case! Edit: Changed a word or two

nobodyshere 7y ago
Don’t hold all eggs in one bin.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
tim333 7y ago
FB, Amazon, Google etc currencies don't seem to be happening. I think it will be government currencies or something like Bitcoin.
- Aozi 7y ago
  Well Facebook is pushing out Libra. Amazon has its own Managed Blockchain for currencies https://aws.amazon.com/managed-blockchain/ https://aws.amazon.com/managed-blockchain/ as well as a ledger https://aws.amazon.com/qldb/ https://aws.amazon.com/qldb/ along with a POW https://cointelegraph.com/news/amazon-patent-casts-light-on-plans-to-create-proof-of-work-blockchain-analog https://cointelegraph.com/news/amazon-patent-casts-light-on-... so I wouldn't exactly be surprised if they push out their own coin. I don't think Google has made any big moves in crypto. Though if Amazon/FB really start pushing for their own coins I doubt Google wouldn't try something to compete on that market.
  - tim333 7y ago
    Ah yeah I didn't put that well. I was more thinking that they will not be big compared to fiat or bitcoin. They are a bit neither one thing or another. Bitcoin is fully unregulated so you can use it in ways that governments would ban if they could, fiat is pretty much regulated (apart from cash in hand), but Libra etc combine the inconvenience of crypto with being subject to regulation.
  - helpPeople 7y ago
    Technology is not the same as adoption. Bitcoin is big because it's adopted and decentralized. The same fears about Facebook is why their currency will not be trusted. I don't trust Amazon, but I do trust Bitcoin.
deif 7y ago
I think electronic non-regulated centralized payment systems are worrying. However if they are de-centralized there are less things to worry about. As long as the community is verifiably in control of the validators/nodes then a central authority cannot impose and block your account.
- pavlov 7y ago
  Unfortunately any such community tends to start out with starry-eyed tech idealists but converges towards a teeming hive of the least scrupulous market manipulators, pump'n'dump bot army generals, ICO fraudsters, etc. And of course at the fringes of the community with no power are the retail investors who bought the thing during a bubble peak 10x higher and now spend their days harassing critics on Twitter because all the promises of the technology are coming true Real Soon Now.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  communities only stay in control through active intervention by some strong enough authority. This is the problem with the 'law of the jungle' logic of crypto currency, not having any authority doesn't imply that the system doesn't move towards centralisation, it simply builds out informal hierarchies, and those are usually a lot worse than formal and legitimised ones because they are based on resource concentration and have nothing to reign them in. Well functioning markets are constructed and reconstructed through social interaction and institutions, they don't predate them. That they simply exist in harmony and tend towards some magical happy state is essentially religious thinking. The Tyranny of Structurelessness (https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) is a great and pretty timeless piece on why decentralisation does not lead to some sort of greater freedom or community control.
  - jkepler 7y ago
    Could that one not have rules without rulers, if the protocol and incentives are properly structured?
    - 7y ago
sschueller 7y ago
I am glad there is crypto because cash is dying and complete government control over all your assets is becoming a real possibility. Cashless is convenient but also very dangerous for a free society. Fiat is great, if cash exists.
- mavhc 7y ago
  Government can just declare your cash worthless, or devalue it though. The trick is that government is actually people, so make sure it's the right people
  - logicchains 7y ago
    >so make sure it's the right people I'm sure Putin would like to see you try. Sometimes a political solution is not possible (e.g. Russia, China), so a technological solution is the only option.
  - foshbosh7779 7y ago
    > Government can just declare your cash worthless, or devalue it though. That's the entire point of crypto, the government has nothing to do with it. Bitcoin was being used for years before any laws came out.
    - criley2 7y ago
      Mostly by criminals in money laundering and attempting to use the internet as a black market. Oh and investors buying to hold and watch it drop lol. I can't help but wonder whether or not people realize that everything from fascist dictators to literal jihadist terrorists desperately want government-less crypto currency to finally unlock their finances from western sanction, so they can super-charge their activity (be it oppressing their people, committing terror attacks, invading their neighbors, etc). There's a very real political cost to uncontrollable finance systems, and that cost is bourne in violence and suffering. That's before we begin to discuss unregulated black markets that thrive on unregulated currencies. How many kids are being hospitalized or dying because of black market vaping products they bought online?
kache_ 7y ago
Their use case is primarily obfuscating movement of money. Crypto isn't exactly useful day to day, and it'll take some time and ingenuity to be able to achieve the convenience of modern payment systems in a decentralized, distributed manner. Right now, that's the only use case which warrants crypto over fiat currency is if you ever want to send large sums of money and not leave a trail.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Not only. Remittances to less developed countries, chaotic national currency, undeveloped banking, etc. Half of Africa uses e-money, and crypto is a good replacement.
bogle 7y ago
Don't be shy of identifying as an anarchist. You'd be in good company: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchists https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchists
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  The fourth result is the Unabomber. Otherwise, good list.
  - bogle 7y ago
    Good grief, Kaczynski is on there. Bjork, however, is fourth in the list and I'm fairly certain she wasn't involved!
  - wavefunction 7y ago
    His bombing campaign of terror was inexcusable and absolutely counterproductive to promoting his views but having read his collected writings he was surely ahead of his time as far as sussing out prevalent and significant ecological and social issues arising from our relationship to technology and the rest of the planet.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  There is a different between libertarianism and anarchism though.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    Right. Libertarians (or at least the consistent ones) are all anarchists, but not all anarchists are libertarians. "Anarchist" is a very broad term spanning the complete range from pacifist voluntaryism to violent agents of chaos. Libertarians tend to be completely non-violent so long as they and their property are unmolested, in stark contrast to certain other notable anarchists.
me_me_me 7y ago
I am in the same camp, but I also changed my mindabout decentralized crypto - bitcoin et al. When you look at it close enough you will recognize that they are controlled and influanced exclusively by Whales (individual with enormous amounts of given crypto). Of course that is not a direct control more akin to grey eminence, but it almost 100% opaque. Also there are a lot of different options for FIAT money and as everything on the internet there can be only one/few winners. As you said we would be at mercy of FB, Amazon, Google, or whoever has their hands on BT.
- blobs 7y ago
  You are right about the Whales. I think regulation should prevent massive mining factories, which would also greatly reduce the risk for a 50% attack. Mining should only be allowed for individuals with a certain maximum hash rate so more people have equal chances. But I'm afraid our politicians are not going to help us with that.
criley2 7y ago
If you don't get to vote for the people who control the money supply, it's not a democracy or a republic or anything of the sort. "He who controls the money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the money supply" Rothschild Never let a for-profit entity control the money supply. Last time we tried it, serious suffering was the result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
lmkg 7y ago
In speaking with an old friend of mine who is a hard-core libertarian, he told me that he generally prefers the free market over anything else, he does prefer the government run things when a monopoly is inevitable. The reason being, a democratic government is at least in theory still somewhat accountable to the general public while a privately-held monopoly is not. I think that's similar to the feelings you're expressing: centralization isn't great, but if we have centralization anyways, let's use the government. The big question in this case being how centralized do we think things might end up in practice.
UserIsUnused 7y ago
at least Goverment is tied to a democracy. Multinational corporation not so much.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nybble41 7y ago
  Most multinational corporations are democracies, though. They are governed by boards of directors elected by their members (shareholders).
  - shpongled 7y ago
    And companies are in practice more accountable to their constituents than governments
zarro 7y ago
Thats fine, the way it will come to pass is some people wont trust crypto and stick with traditional currency. The crypto that will win, will be the one that people adopt to a higher frequency over traditional currency because it will bring them more value over time. Then the ones who will be upset at this will be the ones who benefited from the inefficiencies of the prior monetary system, which by its very nature was prejudiced.
brnt 7y ago
The sooner we (in particular Americans) realize less government control equals more corporate control, the sooner we realize that government control is the only way the people can exercise control, which should be its right. Us Europeans have hundreds of years of history showing that small government in not ever to the advantage of the little guy.
loceng 7y ago
These systems are all ultimately based on a foundation of trust. If you don' trust your government, its people and processes, then you have a problem regardless of how transactions are happening. This trust of course starts with how secure and safeguarded the democratic process is - and there is a constant war between democracy and bad actors trying to takeover the systems of the richest nations in the world, whether nation states or smaller bad actors indirectly working toward negatively influencing a society through regulatory capture, etc..
JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
Your concern about "voilating the TOS" and losing your money is just as likely with government controlled currency. Asset forfeiture over small infractions is well documented.[0] I have never seen an argument against crypto currency that doesn't already apply to the current systems, we just pretend its not the same. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/10/18/the-forfeiture-racket-rolls-on/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/10/18/...
- koolba 7y ago
  Being excluded from the digital banking system does not preclude me from walking around with a wad of cash. Even the insane concept of asset forfeiture in the USA is on its way out.
  - calebclark 7y ago
    What makes you think asset forfeiture in the USA is on the way out?
    - koolba 7y ago
      Some recent court rulings: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-f...
- charwalker 7y ago
  Although similar they are not the same. The government must still, in most states, have charges on the books or more to seize anything and there is generally recourse if not suing for your assets back then voting or running for office to change laws. Google is far less likely to ever let you tell them what they can or can't do, even as a regulator. The government is you, fundamentally, while Google is not.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    Market forces work where there is a market. When the nature of the problem is such that rational customer behavior leads to one player taking all, the market deteriorates, and customers lose the benefits of competition. This is a problem that the anti-monopoly laws exist to solve. Another body of law prevents the federal government from seizing all the power, and to keep different branches on power competing without mergers and acquisitions of each other. An anarchist / libertarian approach would work if minting your own interoperable coin was possible and reasonable. With gold coins, it is (was) technically trivial. Digital currency has still to solve this.
blobs 7y ago
> On the other hand, the reality will be one or two mega-currencies, FB, Amazon, Google etc. When you stick with the government this statement indeed could become a reality. And that's why non-regulated payment systems are preferred. In the hands of banks, corporations, etc.. cryptocurrencies lose their ideal because these parties will always build their regulating mechanisms in the algorithm, without it they are not interested.

pretfood 7y ago

I think I'd rather have a government with decades of fiscal management, bad or otherwise look after money than an organisation that has absolutely no accountability whatsoever.

jkepler 7y ago
What about a protocol regulated by mathematics and well-designed economic game theory, controlled by no one party or group, which only gets stronger security when attacked?
- Angostura 7y ago
  In a perfect world, it sounds perfect.
  - jkepler 7y ago
    As I see it, governments can raise money three ways: taxes, bond sales, and their monetary printing presses. Bitcoin removes the third option, helping to hold government abuses it check a little bit. It's not a solution for everything, but hopefully it restores money to a function of communicating value rather than being both political control and theft. If Bitcoin works it will also force governments towards greater fiscal responsibility. Bitcoin is not a perfect solution for all problems, but a partial solution in a deeply broken world.
    - Angostura 7y ago
      Governments also have a number of additional regulatory functions in addition to raising funds. Things like seizing the proceeds of crime, preventing fraud etc. Monetary policy is more than just a money raising exercise. There can be good reasons for devaluing a currency. Think for a moment about the implications of a world with a single currency mediated through a block-chain predicated on the idea than no-one can ever get more than 50% of the processing capacity. Think about Angola, China, Sweden and the US sharing that currency
- 7y ago

alibaba_x 7y ago

Telegram is primarily Russian so it's unlikely they would heed American regulators anyway.

LudwigNagasena 7y ago
Telegram is legally British.
vmednis 7y ago
How is it Russian in any way? The app has been banned in Russia for more than a year now and the creator/CEO Pavel Durov is in exile from Russia.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  >CEO Pavel Durov is in exile from Russia. Pavel Durov is a Kremlin ally who pretends to be in exile from Russia. The app being sort-of blocked in Russia is just a part of the elaborate PR campaign to legitimize this VK spin-off. https://theoutline.com/post/2348/what-isn-t-telegram-saying-about-its-connections-to-the-kremlin?zd=1&zi=phbuqqnk https://theoutline.com/post/2348/what-isn-t-telegram-saying-... Telegram has shipped blatant backdoors in the past (This one is particularly egregious as there's no way to explain away this MITM feature as a bug) http://habrahabr.ru/post/206900/ http://habrahabr.ru/post/206900/
adventured 7y ago
> Telegram is primarily Russian Telegram isn't Russian at all at this point. "Although Telegram was founded by a Russian, Pavel Durov (more on him later), the messaging app rejects any affiliation with Russia." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/world/europe/telegram-iran-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/world/europe/telegram-ira...
realusername 7y ago
Seeing how hard Russia tries to ban it and that the founder had to leave the country for his safety, they are probably not sharing anything to Russia.

pjc50 7y ago

> “We do not possess any specific information on TON. That's why we cannot comment on this app.” That's basically it. Marketing of financial services is regulated. TON hasn't been heavily marketed yet. So there's no marketing to criticise. Does anyone have any detail to add? Are the tokens "free floating" or are they supposedly pegged to real money? Are they for a utility purpose or purely for speculation? (I also wonder if they're delaying the launch given the disappointing Bakkt launch and the implosion of Kik)

swsieber 7y ago

"Snuck Past" doesn't matter. They can penalize after the fact.

cwyers 7y ago
It's actually probably worse, because if you get caught at the beginning you might stop. If you don't get caught at the beginning you can make things a lot worse.

acjohnson55 7y ago

I worry that this is scope creep for Telegram. I trust them--for now--as a secure messaging service. That's serious enough. But incorporating an entire bespoke payments system puts an even bigger target on Telegram's back and introduces new trust issues. Also, I can't help but compare this to Keybase's affiliated payment system, Stellar. I'm curious what the differences are in the two projects.

pjc50 7y ago
That reminds me, apparently I've been airdropped $20 in "lumens" as a keybase customer. Any idea what the point of that is or how I can cash out easily?
- half-kh-hacker 7y ago
  If you're already on Coinbase, you can cash out there by sending your Lumens over. Otherwise, you can go through one of the Stellar exchange frontends and convert the lumens (there are a few institutions set up to accept lumens and convert them into a token tied to the value of a fiat currency (these tokens are still part of the Stellar network) -> real currency via bank transfer)
alluro2 7y ago
I worry that this will be a deciding excuse to paint them as pure terrorist evil and shut them down - "they're not only helping TERRORISTS organize, but now also transfer large amounts of money for their operations"
em-bee 7y ago
if you have the opportunity to observe wechat payment in china, it will make a lot more sense. payment in a chat application right now is the best way to bring electronic payments to everyone. because within that chat application you already established trust with your communication partner, and using the same tool to exhange payments thus builds on that trust and reduces the chances for fraud. (it does not eliminate fraud, but when making payments to a known entity, i can trust that the payments go to the right place) this is independent from using a blockchain to do that, or facilitating payments in regular currency. the principal is the same. payments across an existing chat system are simply easier to trust than payments across a new wallet where i have to make sure that the wallet target actually match who i want to send money to.

ddtaylor 7y ago

Good. More competition in the space of currencies and money is exactly what it's needed for hundreds of years.

red_trumpet 7y ago
Care to elaborate?
- ddtaylor 7y ago
  Money creation and currency competition has historically been controlled by very few entities, most of the time governments. Competition takes place in other areas and technologies and ideas have advanced while the innovation in money and currency has been much slower and often stagnated by various societies printing their currency out of existence. As long as people have the power to consent to which currencies they use the availability and competition among them creates a market for competition and innovation.

wiradikusuma 7y ago

Does anyone know where to buy it?

iamsb 7y ago

Yesterday another messenger was in news for going out of business due to blockchain adventures. I just recently stopped using WhatsApp (because FB is evil) and using telegram for comms. I really hope they dont go out of business as well.

repsilat 7y ago

A comment on decentralisation: >> If there is one person who manages the payment system, it is this person who must comply with all the laws and regulations of the regulators, and if there is no central agent, then there is no one to present the requirements to.* Is this correct? Or do all users need to be GDPR compliant? Blockchains rely on lots of people storing the same data, and their interaction constitutes "running the service". Playing Devil's Advocate, I don't see how Bitcoin mining that validates drug-purchase transactions is legally much different to running a TOR exit node -- you're looking the other way while potentially abetting crimes. Morally I think I don't have a problem with it, but I don't think it would be difficult to ban or regulate after the fact.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago
Running TOR exit node is not illegal. Take this logic far enough: criminals use shoes, so make it illegal.

Abishek_Muthian 7y ago

Coindesk reported that TON is supposedly trading in unauthorised secondary market already[1]. [1]Post seems to have been removed, available on Google Cache - https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.coindesk.com/alive-thriving-and-totally-unauthorized-inside-the-underground-market-for-telegrams-cryptocurrency https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...

zarro 7y ago

The whole point of blockchain is for it to be not regulated or controlled by anyone - especially the government. Its control should be decentralized, its transaction history and owners private,and its ledger impossible to manipulate without destroying. He who achieves this will be the currency of the future.

0xdeadb00f 7y ago
> He who achieves this will be the currency of the future. I disagree. The currency of the future is one that is readily available and easy to use. Because generally, regular users don't care about privacy, government control or decentralisation, they care about being able to buy and sell crap easily. A currency that achieves all the stuff you've listed would be the best-case scenario, yes, but I'm not so sure the general public will be accepting of it. [Also, hasn't Monero achieved all this? (I'm not that knowledgeable on crypto)].

fencepost 7y ago

Is Telegram going to find itself with issues similar to Kik's? https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/05/sec-sues-kik-for-running-an-unregistered-initial-coin-offering/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/05/sec-sues-kik-for-running...

jvagner 7y ago

Every retail brick and mortar store needs to have their own delivery services. Every content creator and distribution network needs to have their own closed streaming platform and app and monthly fee schedule. Every tech platform that connects one user to others in any form or fashion needs to have their own blockchain system for the transfer of value. Apparently.. this is where we're headed right now.

bpt3 7y ago
It's not where we're headed, it's where we're at right now. There are many, many examples of this behavior in new markets (e.g. railroads, search engines), which is eventually followed by market consensus around a small number of winners and a market consolidation. I don't see any reason the examples you mentioned will be different.
- jvagner 7y ago
  I've been staying in hotels a bit more, in recent weeks, than I have in a while. So I'm seeing more television. I'm seeing more messaging around this than I usually do. Target advertising their own delivery services was news to me... of course I was familiar with all the food delivery services (UberEats, DoorDash, etc). This will crash, as you say, and some will survive as the Lyfts of the market. But I don't hear a lot about Zipcar anymore...?
  - bpt3 7y ago
    If your conclusion is that there are more delivery services than the market can support, I agree completely. Ultimately, I think the end result will be a stable market with a few competitors, as some of the existing companies fail, some of the bigger chains offering delivery shut down their internal service and outsource the work while others spin out their service to support external customers, etc. Zipcar still exists and seems to be doing fine in my area, with car2go and a couple others as competitors.
marcosdumay 7y ago
There's a lot of capital, and not as many investment opportunities. So successful companies are trying to differentiate themselves and lock people in by replicating infrastructure. When capital disappears or the economy becomes more dynamic, this will change.

atrilumen 7y ago

I'm building (and betting everything on) 'an app' on Telegram, and this shit makes me nervous. Telegram, please don't crash

crb002 7y ago

Transactional is different. It only needs to have stable value in the short term. If Starbucks says 3 credits for a coffee and they have a liquid market for credits they will use it. Ingress/egress that sweeps into savings many will adopt. FB would be wise to take 10% of profits and sweep them into a credit dividend for users so even the poorest have liquidity in the market.

ilaksh 7y ago

It's not regulated because it's not a popular topic yet. People always try to find rational reasons for why other people care about stuff. The world is not a meritocracy or a rational place. It operates just like a giant high school. No one cares about Telegram's money simply because no one cares. The cool kids haven't started talking about it yet. That's it. It actually is similar to Libra and other projects in lots of ways.

RichardHeart 7y ago

Human beings digitize and exchange with each other everything they can. Movies, music, text, audio, and now money. Less middlemen, less friction and less decay (inflation in the case of currency) is usually better. One should not need to sneak peer to peer communications software and past anyone.