4 ms·

Hacker news is extremely anti crypto. I wonder if many folks actually made a peer to peer crypto transaction without an exchange, sat down, and thought about th

Hacker news is extremely anti crypto. I wonder if many folks actually made a peer to peer crypto transaction without an exchange, sat down, and thought about the implications. It didn't click for me until I did it. Once you think about the implications of that it is fucking amazing.We need it. Generate a bank account with code, no bs paperwork or going through bank clerk. Then immediately send store of value to that account, or anyone in the world. Check it on a node(you can host the checker YOURSELF, or anyone you trust) within the hour, and the transaction is set in stone. Irreversible. If I want to give cash to my favorite niece, I don't need to go get permission from a bank. I hand it to her. So why is it so hard to understand that as a citizen of the information age, we all need to have the equivalent option of direct transfers with minimal meddling? Many arguments against cryptocurrencies are weak - they're not unsolvable problems. Slow transaction times arguments could be analogous to slow computer times in the 90s. Better tech and algorithms will patch it. Volatility in the long term can be solved with higher adoption since the supply is tiny relative to the dollar. Or a clever incentive scheme like dai. Security screw ups are due to people not being educated and not having separate devices. Intuitive devices for security have not been made and it will take time. Transaction irreversibly can be solved when stores build on top of the blockchain platforms. Or escrows.Satoshi hints at this on the FIRST page of the bitcoin white paper. Smart contracts requiring good faith from people to run it? Sure, but it's still better and more automated compared to the systems we have now. At the end of the day, robots in the future are not going to interface with multiple shitty bank apis that take 5 business days to settle entrenched by tech debt running shitty Java code. They're going to go through one of new universal platforms that have attributes like Ethereum. So the question is - which horse do we back???

Nursie 5y ago
> Generate a bank account with code, no bs paperwork or going through bank clerk. Not useful to most people > the transaction is set in stone. Irreversible. An anti-feature. > we all need to have the equivalent option of direct transfers with minimal meddling? We have direct transfers, and nobody has ever stopped one of mine. You're trying to find a revolution in things most people don't care about, at all. Non-solutions for non-problems. > Better tech and algorithms will patch it. Demonstrably untrue - BTC is still king, and the market follows it slavishly. The BTC community (miners, big exchanges and developers, not users) has demonstrated that they aren't interested in change, by continuing to limit transaction throughput, sticking with PoW etc. The users have demonstrated they don't care either, by continuing to support BTC over others. It's speculation and brand recognition, not tech, that people are interested in. > Security screw ups are due to people not being educated Which they never will be en-mass, making a system with irreversible transactions a poor choice for widespread use. Smart contracts are a joke, and have unsolvable problems when it comes to interfacing with anything that happens outside of a blockchain. They are effectively database triggers, not a revolution. At the end of the day, robots in the future are more likely to talk to standardised central bank APIs or standardised retail bank APIs.
- xvector 5y ago
  > Not useful to most people You are missing the point. It decentralizes a centralized system that IS useful to most people. Furthermore, 31% of the world population is unbanked. Maybe “most” people don’t need crypto but a lot of people could use it, should it improve over time. > We have direct transfers, and nobody has ever stopped one of mine. Your “direct transfers” take days to settle. And again, a centralized solution. I can’t understand how someone on HN doesn’t see how decentralizing digital finance is not a big deal. People on HN will understand the need for about decentralized computing, sing songs about it, and self-host what they can - but as soon as it comes to finance it’s “we don’t need that” and “the big players do it for us with their proprietary, KYC solutions.” Do you really not see the need for being able to send someone money electronically without being at the mercy of a big bank? > Demonstrably untrue - BTC is still king, and the market follows it slavishly. The users have demonstrated they don't care either, by continuing to support BTC over others. It's speculation and brand recognition, not tech, that people are interested in. Again, you haven’t done any research. Darknet markets and ransomware alike prefer XMR over BTC and have for some time. > Which they never will be [educated] en-mass Good thing we have developers working on simplifying the technology and making it idiot-proof? > a system with irreversible transactions a poor choice for widespread use. There is a system like this that already has “widespread use” - cash. If you hand someone cash you can’t take it back either. The immutability of the blockchain is a good thing. Businesses are legally required to provide refunds if you pay with cash. It would be no different with crypto. > Smart contracts are a joke, and have unsolvable problems when it comes to interfacing with anything that happens outside of a blockchain Demonstrably incorrect. DAI is an algorithmic stablecoin worth $1 (+/- $0.01) on the Ethereum network with a market cap of over $4.1 billion. It controls its price by understanding the price of Ethereum, which necessarily happens “outside of the blockchain.” It is a trustless way to convert ETH to a USD equivalent, requiring no reserves and no auditing. I don’t know how anyone here can’t look at DAI on ETH and see the power of and potential of cryptocurrency - a decentralized, bank-less, trust-less, reserve-less algorithmic currency exchange that anyone can use pseudonymously. It’s incredible.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > You are missing the point. It decentralizes a centralized system that IS useful to most people. You still haven't told me why it's interesting or good to decentralise getting a bank account, you're just asserting it. > Your “direct transfers” take days to settle. No, they transfer pretty instantly and the funds can be used instantly, and whether there is some background process that takes longer is not really relevant to me or the people I transfer to. > And again, a centralized solution. Again, why should I care? > “the big players do it for us with their proprietary, KYC solutions.” KYC/AML is a good thing. It is good to be able to keep an eye on, and regulate, the flow of cash. It is an important set of tools in combatting all manner of crimes. FYI there is a vibrant fintech startup ecosystem, that works with and within these regs. There are even a number of startup (challenger) banks these days. > Do you really not see the need for being able to send someone electronically without being at the mercy of a big bank? I genuinely, 100%, do not care a single iota, no. Being "at the mercy" of a bank provides me with all manner of insurance, assurance, protection and regulation. > Darknet markets and ransomware And I should support those things? They are a great argument for KYC/AML in themselves. And even so, these are niche compared to the speculative market. > Good thing we have developers working on simplifying the technology and making it idiot-proof? Irreversible transactions are not idiot-proof by nature. > Finally, if you hand someone cash you can’t take it back either. Sure, but you don't keep cash in a file on an easily compromised computer, and you don't keep all of your cash with you all the time, you keep it in a bank where someone else is responsible for custody, can reverse things out etc. > Demonstrably incorrect. DAI is ... Running on a system of 'trusted' oracles, which is not trustless. > a decentralized, bank-less, ..., reserve-less algorithmic currency exchange that anyone can use pseudonymously. It’s incredible. And entirely superfluous to any need I can think of. (Plus, you know, unregulated financial products and services, doesn't that just scream "bad idea!" to you?)

Nursie 5y ago

> Generate a bank account with code, no bs paperwork or going through bank clerk. Not useful to most people > the transaction is set in stone. Irreversible. An anti-feature. > we all need to have the equivalent option of direct transfers with minimal meddling? We have direct transfers, and nobody has ever stopped one of mine. You're trying to find a revolution in things most people don't care about, at all. Non-solutions for non-problems. > Better tech and algorithms will patch it. Demonstrably untrue - BTC is still king, and the market follows it slavishly. The BTC community (miners, big exchanges and developers, not users) has demonstrated that they aren't interested in change, by continuing to limit transaction throughput, sticking with PoW etc. The users have demonstrated they don't care either, by continuing to support BTC over others. It's speculation and brand recognition, not tech, that people are interested in. > Security screw ups are due to people not being educated Which they never will be en-mass, making a system with irreversible transactions a poor choice for widespread use. Smart contracts are a joke, and have unsolvable problems when it comes to interfacing with anything that happens outside of a blockchain. They are effectively database triggers, not a revolution. At the end of the day, robots in the future are more likely to talk to standardised central bank APIs or standardised retail bank APIs.

xvector 5y ago
> Not useful to most people You are missing the point. It decentralizes a centralized system that IS useful to most people. Furthermore, 31% of the world population is unbanked. Maybe “most” people don’t need crypto but a lot of people could use it, should it improve over time. > We have direct transfers, and nobody has ever stopped one of mine. Your “direct transfers” take days to settle. And again, a centralized solution. I can’t understand how someone on HN doesn’t see how decentralizing digital finance is not a big deal. People on HN will understand the need for about decentralized computing, sing songs about it, and self-host what they can - but as soon as it comes to finance it’s “we don’t need that” and “the big players do it for us with their proprietary, KYC solutions.” Do you really not see the need for being able to send someone money electronically without being at the mercy of a big bank? > Demonstrably untrue - BTC is still king, and the market follows it slavishly. The users have demonstrated they don't care either, by continuing to support BTC over others. It's speculation and brand recognition, not tech, that people are interested in. Again, you haven’t done any research. Darknet markets and ransomware alike prefer XMR over BTC and have for some time. > Which they never will be [educated] en-mass Good thing we have developers working on simplifying the technology and making it idiot-proof? > a system with irreversible transactions a poor choice for widespread use. There is a system like this that already has “widespread use” - cash. If you hand someone cash you can’t take it back either. The immutability of the blockchain is a good thing. Businesses are legally required to provide refunds if you pay with cash. It would be no different with crypto. > Smart contracts are a joke, and have unsolvable problems when it comes to interfacing with anything that happens outside of a blockchain Demonstrably incorrect. DAI is an algorithmic stablecoin worth $1 (+/- $0.01) on the Ethereum network with a market cap of over $4.1 billion. It controls its price by understanding the price of Ethereum, which necessarily happens “outside of the blockchain.” It is a trustless way to convert ETH to a USD equivalent, requiring no reserves and no auditing. I don’t know how anyone here can’t look at DAI on ETH and see the power of and potential of cryptocurrency - a decentralized, bank-less, trust-less, reserve-less algorithmic currency exchange that anyone can use pseudonymously. It’s incredible.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > You are missing the point. It decentralizes a centralized system that IS useful to most people. You still haven't told me why it's interesting or good to decentralise getting a bank account, you're just asserting it. > Your “direct transfers” take days to settle. No, they transfer pretty instantly and the funds can be used instantly, and whether there is some background process that takes longer is not really relevant to me or the people I transfer to. > And again, a centralized solution. Again, why should I care? > “the big players do it for us with their proprietary, KYC solutions.” KYC/AML is a good thing. It is good to be able to keep an eye on, and regulate, the flow of cash. It is an important set of tools in combatting all manner of crimes. FYI there is a vibrant fintech startup ecosystem, that works with and within these regs. There are even a number of startup (challenger) banks these days. > Do you really not see the need for being able to send someone electronically without being at the mercy of a big bank? I genuinely, 100%, do not care a single iota, no. Being "at the mercy" of a bank provides me with all manner of insurance, assurance, protection and regulation. > Darknet markets and ransomware And I should support those things? They are a great argument for KYC/AML in themselves. And even so, these are niche compared to the speculative market. > Good thing we have developers working on simplifying the technology and making it idiot-proof? Irreversible transactions are not idiot-proof by nature. > Finally, if you hand someone cash you can’t take it back either. Sure, but you don't keep cash in a file on an easily compromised computer, and you don't keep all of your cash with you all the time, you keep it in a bank where someone else is responsible for custody, can reverse things out etc. > Demonstrably incorrect. DAI is ... Running on a system of 'trusted' oracles, which is not trustless. > a decentralized, bank-less, ..., reserve-less algorithmic currency exchange that anyone can use pseudonymously. It’s incredible. And entirely superfluous to any need I can think of. (Plus, you know, unregulated financial products and services, doesn't that just scream "bad idea!" to you?)