4 ms·

Libra was interesting. With their basket of currencies and easily programmable contracts, it was a semi-unique project in crypto space. Over the months, their

by flixic 6y ago

Libra was interesting. With their basket of currencies and easily programmable contracts, it was a semi-unique project in crypto space. Over the months, their ambition has been cut a lot by regulators. No more basket of currencies, now just US Dollar. At this point I'm not sure there's any benefit to it being on the blockchain either.

joosters 6y ago
Was there ever any benefit to using a blockchain - other than marketing BS, of course? It was always Facebook (or their chosen partners) who controlled the coin, so the blockchain was pointless - there never was any decentralized trust, as I understand it?
- flixic 6y ago
  There were some interesting ideas about decentralized management of "treasury" (and issuing/burning of Libra coins), mostly related to the "basket of currencies" model. I think that will stay even with value only being pegged to the US Dollar, but there is less need for that.
  - 1996 6y ago
    > mostly related to the "basket of currencies" model. I think that will stay even with value only being pegged to the US Dollar, but there is less need for that Indeed, that was their most unique feature. A stablecoin pegged to a basket of fiat (say just USD, CAD, EUR, GBP, JPY, SGD), using traditional crypto tools (burning, pegging) definitely has a place and a bright future ahead. However, there's no need for facebook - defi may be able to do that with smart contracts over wrapped stablecoins (say USDC for the USD, etc.) Hell, even USD, EUR, JPY would still be EXTREMELY valuable and useful.
- hobofan 6y ago
  "Blockchain" in some sense can also be seen as a programming framework where you have a common set of functionality that people know how to work with and can gain a transferable skill set with. Similar to how MVC knowledge is to some degree transferable between Rails and Django. So in that regard I wouldn't immediately dismiss a usage of a blockchain as pointless. Given that PoA chains are usually pretty efficient, there also doesn't seem to be an immediate downside to it.
  - joosters 6y ago
    We normally call that an 'API', no chains of blocks required!
    - hobofan 6y ago
      An API would only be the _interface_, which just like with MVC isn't the same between a lot of different implementations of the same model and doesn't cover additional assumptions, like e.g. having a chain of blocks with a consensus mechanism to decide which chain of blocks to prefer over a diverging chain of blocks. If you want to argue for an alternative to a chain of blocks you could of course do that, but in my personal experience if you consider all the requirements (multi-party, auditable, etc.) the usual argument of "you could just use a normal centralized database" falls apart and you end up with something that in some form or another resembles a blockchain (or something equally complex), so why not use a blockchain?
      - lukeschlather 6y ago
        The standard definition of "blockchain" presumes that there is zero-trust between nodes and that anyone on the Internet can join the network. These properties are probably not what you want for most practical applications. For most practical applications a git repo where you have some set of trusted notaries and at least M of N notaries must sign each commit is probably closer to what you want. (Or something that is similar logically but still does not fit the standard definition of blockchain, which again is trustless.)
        hobofan 6y ago
        I also prefer zero-trust blockchains, as they are more interesting ideologically and intellectually. I disagree however that the "standard" definition presumes zero-trust. In my opinion the only thing that is presumed is some form of consensus mechanism, which can also be a trusted one like PoA (proof of authority). > git repo where you have some set of trusted notaries and at least M of N notaries There isn't really much difference between a PoA blockchain and what you describe on a data structure level. The main differences here will be the mode of operation (active node vs. passive repository) and builtin support and optimizations for currency transactions. If you were really inclined, you could probably implement a optimized git client/server that could achieve that (and I wouldn't be surprised if someone has done that already). What's the point in doing so tough, if you could just as well use an existing implementation of a PoA blockchain?
- papito 6y ago
  Blockchain has a zinger name, but it's useless when real-world applications are in play. It is slow and energy inefficient. Considering that it got "reset" by the owners once after a divergence, it's not that "decentralized". It has a group that controls it. Secondly, it's definitely not secure in the sense that is advertised. Aside from regular social engineering and old-school hacks to get people's tokens, governments have been successful in tracing transections in investigations. That's how SilkRoad got got, and recently Japan did it as well.
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    Don't opine about things you don't understand. Its not necessarily slow, energy inefficient or trackable. There are solutions to all if these problems which are available today.
  - drewblaisdell 6y ago
    > governments have been successful in tracing transections in investigations. That's how SilkRoad got got Tracing transactions on the BTC public ledger did not lead to the downfall of the Silk Road.
- splintercell 6y ago
  Completely different property rights enforcement (programmable and decentralized). Sure a theft may still have to be resolved via the courts, but it significantly reduces many overheads.
  - hannasanarion 6y ago
    Thefts on the blockchain can't be resovled by the courts, that's the entire point. Billions of dollars worth of bitcoin, eth, and other coins have already been stolen through hacks of exchanges, fraudulent exchanges, and buggy smart contracts, and none of it can ever be returned because the transaction history is immutable and new transactions require digital signatures.
- baby 6y ago
  What would you use instead?
obilgic 6y ago
> Libra was interesting. ..., it was a semi-unique project in crypto space. I think It was mostly interesting, because It had a potential of going real mainstream if FB really pushed it to it's millions of users that are not technical in one way or the other. Technically, there is so many ambitious projects going on in crypto space anyways.
gjulianm 6y ago
> Over the months, their ambition has been cut a lot by regulators. I don't see how this is a surprise. Facebook basically wanted to take monetary sovereignty away from states and give control to private companies. What did they expect? Especially when right now people are noticing the reach Facebook has into our lives and how irresponsibly they're acting with it. Why would any sane person give Facebook any more control over their lives?
x87678r 6y ago
The website still says "The Diem payment system will support single-currency stablecoins (e.g., ≋USD, ≋EUR, and ≋GBP) and a multi-currency coin (≋XDM)." Is that no longer true? I'm not sure if the website is up to date. https://www.diem.com/en-us/vision/ https://www.diem.com/en-us/vision/
mikro2nd 6y ago
Libra was never interesting. A centralised fiat currency run by arguably one of the most unethical, unscrupulous, invasive surveillance capitalists in the world was never going to be interesting, at least not in any technical or socially useful sense. Adding the ever-popular "but blockchain" into the mix still didn't make it a real cryptocurrency, never will. Rebranding it changes nothing.

by flixic 6y ago

joosters 6y ago

Was there ever any benefit to using a blockchain - other than marketing BS, of course? It was always Facebook (or their chosen partners) who controlled the coin, so the blockchain was pointless - there never was any decentralized trust, as I understand it?

flixic 6y ago
There were some interesting ideas about decentralized management of "treasury" (and issuing/burning of Libra coins), mostly related to the "basket of currencies" model. I think that will stay even with value only being pegged to the US Dollar, but there is less need for that.
- 1996 6y ago
  > mostly related to the "basket of currencies" model. I think that will stay even with value only being pegged to the US Dollar, but there is less need for that Indeed, that was their most unique feature. A stablecoin pegged to a basket of fiat (say just USD, CAD, EUR, GBP, JPY, SGD), using traditional crypto tools (burning, pegging) definitely has a place and a bright future ahead. However, there's no need for facebook - defi may be able to do that with smart contracts over wrapped stablecoins (say USDC for the USD, etc.) Hell, even USD, EUR, JPY would still be EXTREMELY valuable and useful.
hobofan 6y ago
"Blockchain" in some sense can also be seen as a programming framework where you have a common set of functionality that people know how to work with and can gain a transferable skill set with. Similar to how MVC knowledge is to some degree transferable between Rails and Django. So in that regard I wouldn't immediately dismiss a usage of a blockchain as pointless. Given that PoA chains are usually pretty efficient, there also doesn't seem to be an immediate downside to it.
- joosters 6y ago
  We normally call that an 'API', no chains of blocks required!
  - hobofan 6y ago
    An API would only be the _interface_, which just like with MVC isn't the same between a lot of different implementations of the same model and doesn't cover additional assumptions, like e.g. having a chain of blocks with a consensus mechanism to decide which chain of blocks to prefer over a diverging chain of blocks. If you want to argue for an alternative to a chain of blocks you could of course do that, but in my personal experience if you consider all the requirements (multi-party, auditable, etc.) the usual argument of "you could just use a normal centralized database" falls apart and you end up with something that in some form or another resembles a blockchain (or something equally complex), so why not use a blockchain?
    - lukeschlather 6y ago
      The standard definition of "blockchain" presumes that there is zero-trust between nodes and that anyone on the Internet can join the network. These properties are probably not what you want for most practical applications. For most practical applications a git repo where you have some set of trusted notaries and at least M of N notaries must sign each commit is probably closer to what you want. (Or something that is similar logically but still does not fit the standard definition of blockchain, which again is trustless.)
      - hobofan 6y ago
        I also prefer zero-trust blockchains, as they are more interesting ideologically and intellectually. I disagree however that the "standard" definition presumes zero-trust. In my opinion the only thing that is presumed is some form of consensus mechanism, which can also be a trusted one like PoA (proof of authority). > git repo where you have some set of trusted notaries and at least M of N notaries There isn't really much difference between a PoA blockchain and what you describe on a data structure level. The main differences here will be the mode of operation (active node vs. passive repository) and builtin support and optimizations for currency transactions. If you were really inclined, you could probably implement a optimized git client/server that could achieve that (and I wouldn't be surprised if someone has done that already). What's the point in doing so tough, if you could just as well use an existing implementation of a PoA blockchain?
papito 6y ago
Blockchain has a zinger name, but it's useless when real-world applications are in play. It is slow and energy inefficient. Considering that it got "reset" by the owners once after a divergence, it's not that "decentralized". It has a group that controls it. Secondly, it's definitely not secure in the sense that is advertised. Aside from regular social engineering and old-school hacks to get people's tokens, governments have been successful in tracing transections in investigations. That's how SilkRoad got got, and recently Japan did it as well.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  Don't opine about things you don't understand. Its not necessarily slow, energy inefficient or trackable. There are solutions to all if these problems which are available today.
- drewblaisdell 6y ago
  > governments have been successful in tracing transections in investigations. That's how SilkRoad got got Tracing transactions on the BTC public ledger did not lead to the downfall of the Silk Road.
splintercell 6y ago
Completely different property rights enforcement (programmable and decentralized). Sure a theft may still have to be resolved via the courts, but it significantly reduces many overheads.
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  Thefts on the blockchain can't be resovled by the courts, that's the entire point. Billions of dollars worth of bitcoin, eth, and other coins have already been stolen through hacks of exchanges, fraudulent exchanges, and buggy smart contracts, and none of it can ever be returned because the transaction history is immutable and new transactions require digital signatures.
baby 6y ago
What would you use instead?

obilgic 6y ago

> Libra was interesting. ..., it was a semi-unique project in crypto space. I think It was mostly interesting, because It had a potential of going real mainstream if FB really pushed it to it's millions of users that are not technical in one way or the other. Technically, there is so many ambitious projects going on in crypto space anyways.

gjulianm 6y ago

> Over the months, their ambition has been cut a lot by regulators. I don't see how this is a surprise. Facebook basically wanted to take monetary sovereignty away from states and give control to private companies. What did they expect? Especially when right now people are noticing the reach Facebook has into our lives and how irresponsibly they're acting with it. Why would any sane person give Facebook any more control over their lives?

x87678r 6y ago

The website still says "The Diem payment system will support single-currency stablecoins (e.g., ≋USD, ≋EUR, and ≋GBP) and a multi-currency coin (≋XDM)." Is that no longer true? I'm not sure if the website is up to date. https://www.diem.com/en-us/vision/ https://www.diem.com/en-us/vision/

mikro2nd 6y ago

Libra was never interesting. A centralised fiat currency run by arguably one of the most unethical, unscrupulous, invasive surveillance capitalists in the world was never going to be interesting, at least not in any technical or socially useful sense. Adding the ever-popular "but blockchain" into the mix still didn't make it a real cryptocurrency, never will. Rebranding it changes nothing.