4 ms·

The problem is how to make a sound cash instrument backed by cryptocurrencies. It matters because cash is the dominant form of payment worldwide. Section 4.1 g

The problem is how to make a sound cash instrument backed by cryptocurrencies. It matters because cash is the dominant form of payment worldwide. Section 4.1 goes into how to manufacture these so we're not the sole entity. Manufacturers of mining equipment set an...ok...precedent here. I think we can do better in this space which is why we're trying to minimize trust in these black boxes and move to open silicon with ARX - section 5.1. [1] [1] https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmRNRCocj4PwKMXrd1jeUGw7ASQSuEk7BDJu5KsGuWBXAX https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmRNRCocj4PwKMXrd1jeUGw7ASQSuEk7BDJu5Ks...

james_s_tayler 7y ago
>The problem is how to make a sound cash instrument backed by cryptocurrencies. It matters because cash is the dominant form of payment worldwide In what way is cash failing that it needs to be replaced by your type of cash? The "it's decentralized and doesn't rely on a state level actor" argument has been thoroughly lost at this point.
- darawk 7y ago
  Cash is controlled by a central authority. Governments can print as much or as little of it as they want. Kong does not have this property.
  - james_s_tayler 7y ago
    Not having that property so far hasn't proved to be useful in the real world.
    - darawk 7y ago
      This is pretty clearly false. People use things with this property to hedge inflation risk all the time (e.g. gold).
      - james_s_tayler 7y ago
        Those things arent currencies. And it seems people have solutions to hedge against inflation already. That use case isn't the point. Point is it being not tied to a state level actor is only useful if you can use it to get out from underneath the control of an oppressive regime by not being beholden to it's financial system. So far we haven't seen a crypto succeed at that. So... so what if it has that property? Doesn't seem to be useful in practice. In theory yes, but not in practice.
        darawk 7y ago
        > Those things arent currencies. And it seems people have solutions to hedge against inflation already. That use case isn't the point. The point is that there is a use-case for decentralized assets. > Point is it being not tied to a state level actor is only useful if you can use it to get out from underneath the control of an oppressive regime by not being beholden to it's financial system. Or if you don't want the value of your money inflated away by central bank policy. > So far we haven't seen a crypto succeed at that. So... so what if it has that property? Doesn't seem to be useful in practice. In theory yes, but not in practice. Yes, that's true. Although you could argue Bitcoin has succeeded, just not as a currency. It has succeeded as an asset class. But the question of why crypto hasn't succeeded as a currency is what Kong appears to be attempting to solve. Their answer to that question is that it doesn't have some of the nice properties of physical cash, so they made one that does. I'm not sure I think that this will change much, but I don't think the fact that cryptos haven't displaced national currencies yet is evidence that they don't solve any problems. They do solve important problems, they just create other ones, and those things don't yet balance in their favor.
        james_s_tayler 7y ago
        They solve imaginary problems and already solved problems, but poorly.
        darawk 7y ago
        If you think inflation is an imaginary problem, sure. But literally all of finance would disagree with you.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - CosmicShadow 7y ago
    Isn't that what you want, Macroeconomics 101? Control inflation, interest, growth by creating or limiting the currency floating around your system? I mean yeah you could roll this out to places that perhaps didn't understand this and/or fucked up real bad like Zimbabwe, but otherwise who cares? If you can't trust your government so bad that your cash no longer works, you've got bigger problems and whatever system you build via the Internet is probably going to also be blocked and/or the infrastructure will be in tatters.
    - darawk 7y ago
      Some people believe that government control of the money supply is a form of theft. It's certainly a form of indirect taxation (via inflation), and it forces you to rely on the responsibility of your government. Some people believe that eliminating the need to rely on the responsibility of other humans is a terminal good.
      - UncleMeat 7y ago
        And some people believe that wifi causes cancer. A startup selling wifi repelling clothes to prevent cancer would be rightfully criticized.
        darawk 7y ago
        That's s strange comparison. Wifi <-> cancer is an empirical question. The question I articulated was a values question. They're not really comparable.
      - CosmicShadow 7y ago
        I don't know if even sci-fi could imagine 7 billion people not needing to rely on anyone even remotely fathomable. If you don't want to rely on anyone, become a hermit somewhere in the deep woods. I guess if your government is a royal family taxing you to line their own pockets that would seem like theft, but otherwise seems hard to believe it could be true, but people will believe anything. The world is complex, the economy is complex, and stopping a country's economy from tumbling out of control with all the internal and external variables is non-trivial.
- asdf21 7y ago
  Engineers are generally more trustworthy than governments.

james_s_tayler 7y ago

>The problem is how to make a sound cash instrument backed by cryptocurrencies. It matters because cash is the dominant form of payment worldwide In what way is cash failing that it needs to be replaced by your type of cash? The "it's decentralized and doesn't rely on a state level actor" argument has been thoroughly lost at this point.

darawk 7y ago
Cash is controlled by a central authority. Governments can print as much or as little of it as they want. Kong does not have this property.
- james_s_tayler 7y ago
  Not having that property so far hasn't proved to be useful in the real world.
  - darawk 7y ago
    This is pretty clearly false. People use things with this property to hedge inflation risk all the time (e.g. gold).
    - james_s_tayler 7y ago
      Those things arent currencies. And it seems people have solutions to hedge against inflation already. That use case isn't the point. Point is it being not tied to a state level actor is only useful if you can use it to get out from underneath the control of an oppressive regime by not being beholden to it's financial system. So far we haven't seen a crypto succeed at that. So... so what if it has that property? Doesn't seem to be useful in practice. In theory yes, but not in practice.
      - darawk 7y ago
        > Those things arent currencies. And it seems people have solutions to hedge against inflation already. That use case isn't the point. The point is that there is a use-case for decentralized assets. > Point is it being not tied to a state level actor is only useful if you can use it to get out from underneath the control of an oppressive regime by not being beholden to it's financial system. Or if you don't want the value of your money inflated away by central bank policy. > So far we haven't seen a crypto succeed at that. So... so what if it has that property? Doesn't seem to be useful in practice. In theory yes, but not in practice. Yes, that's true. Although you could argue Bitcoin has succeeded, just not as a currency. It has succeeded as an asset class. But the question of why crypto hasn't succeeded as a currency is what Kong appears to be attempting to solve. Their answer to that question is that it doesn't have some of the nice properties of physical cash, so they made one that does. I'm not sure I think that this will change much, but I don't think the fact that cryptos haven't displaced national currencies yet is evidence that they don't solve any problems. They do solve important problems, they just create other ones, and those things don't yet balance in their favor.
        james_s_tayler 7y ago
        They solve imaginary problems and already solved problems, but poorly.
        darawk 7y ago
        If you think inflation is an imaginary problem, sure. But literally all of finance would disagree with you.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- CosmicShadow 7y ago
  Isn't that what you want, Macroeconomics 101? Control inflation, interest, growth by creating or limiting the currency floating around your system? I mean yeah you could roll this out to places that perhaps didn't understand this and/or fucked up real bad like Zimbabwe, but otherwise who cares? If you can't trust your government so bad that your cash no longer works, you've got bigger problems and whatever system you build via the Internet is probably going to also be blocked and/or the infrastructure will be in tatters.
  - darawk 7y ago
    Some people believe that government control of the money supply is a form of theft. It's certainly a form of indirect taxation (via inflation), and it forces you to rely on the responsibility of your government. Some people believe that eliminating the need to rely on the responsibility of other humans is a terminal good.
    - UncleMeat 7y ago
      And some people believe that wifi causes cancer. A startup selling wifi repelling clothes to prevent cancer would be rightfully criticized.
      - darawk 7y ago
        That's s strange comparison. Wifi <-> cancer is an empirical question. The question I articulated was a values question. They're not really comparable.
    - CosmicShadow 7y ago
      I don't know if even sci-fi could imagine 7 billion people not needing to rely on anyone even remotely fathomable. If you don't want to rely on anyone, become a hermit somewhere in the deep woods. I guess if your government is a royal family taxing you to line their own pockets that would seem like theft, but otherwise seems hard to believe it could be true, but people will believe anything. The world is complex, the economy is complex, and stopping a country's economy from tumbling out of control with all the internal and external variables is non-trivial.
asdf21 7y ago
Engineers are generally more trustworthy than governments.