> Let's assume Facebook solves scaling ... > Move has not been battle-tested yet so I would at > least let it get finished and deployed before claiming ... > >

> Let's assume Facebook solves scaling ... > Move has not been battle-tested yet so I would at > least let it get finished and deployed before claiming ... > > Libra’s cryptography engineering is unsound. ... > Facebook, like many other companies, can pay for audits > and formal verification of crypto libraries. As Libra > will not be production-ready for years (it isn't live > today!), I think we can give Facebook the benefit of > the doubt on this. That's a lot of benefit of the doubt! There are situations in which such generosity is warranted, but this is not one of them. "Move fast and break the financial system" is a philosophy we've seen play out before. It's bad. (I find particularly strange the idea that we should give them the benefit of the doubt because they're a huge rich company.) > > Libra has no transaction privacy. ... > This means the same level of anonymity as > provided by Bitcoin. Diehls' point regarding privacy is not that pseudonimity is inherently bad. It seemed to be that pseudonymous networks (like Libra or Blockchain) do not satisfy US or EU legal requirements. > I want to conclude by saying that blockchain and > cryptocurrency are knee-jerk hated by Hacker News, Ad-hominem arguments are unhelpful.