5 ms·

> 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 popu

> 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?)
- xvector 5y ago
  > You still haven't told me why it's interesting or good to decentralise getting a bank account, you're just asserting it. Not being financially censored by the government or banks? Not having to be at their mercy for your money? The benefits seem pretty clear. > and whether there is some background process that takes longer is not really relevant to me or the people I transfer to. Clearly you have never had a low balance and had to wait for your money to settle in your bank. A reality most people deal with every day. > And I should support those things? They are a great argument for KYC/AML in themselves. You asked for a real-world example of crypto being used for goods and services. I gave one. Feel free to let the government decide what you’re allowed to buy and ingest. A lot of people want freedom from that. It goes further - assume a malicious government, as all governments historically fail their citizens - only cash and cryptocurrency will be reasonable exchanges of value. PayPal and Zelle might work for you, today, but to suggest that they’re a viable long- or even medium-term solution for digital currency amongst humanity is ludicrous. > Sure, but you don't keep cash in a file on an easily compromised computer, Neither do you with crypto. The vast majority of your savings would be in a hardware wallet, presumably easier to use by the time crypto is mainstream. > Irreversible transactions are not idiot-proof by nature. The concept is as idiot-proof as cash, which has clearly proven enough for humanity for thousands of years. > doesn't that just scream "bad idea!" to you? Nope. It reduces trust, reliance, and censorship on or by entities that don’t have your best interests at heart. I suppose we simply have different priors. You trust banks and the government. You are okay with forfeiting your financial privacy. I am not.

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?)

xvector 5y ago
> You still haven't told me why it's interesting or good to decentralise getting a bank account, you're just asserting it. Not being financially censored by the government or banks? Not having to be at their mercy for your money? The benefits seem pretty clear. > and whether there is some background process that takes longer is not really relevant to me or the people I transfer to. Clearly you have never had a low balance and had to wait for your money to settle in your bank. A reality most people deal with every day. > And I should support those things? They are a great argument for KYC/AML in themselves. You asked for a real-world example of crypto being used for goods and services. I gave one. Feel free to let the government decide what you’re allowed to buy and ingest. A lot of people want freedom from that. It goes further - assume a malicious government, as all governments historically fail their citizens - only cash and cryptocurrency will be reasonable exchanges of value. PayPal and Zelle might work for you, today, but to suggest that they’re a viable long- or even medium-term solution for digital currency amongst humanity is ludicrous. > Sure, but you don't keep cash in a file on an easily compromised computer, Neither do you with crypto. The vast majority of your savings would be in a hardware wallet, presumably easier to use by the time crypto is mainstream. > Irreversible transactions are not idiot-proof by nature. The concept is as idiot-proof as cash, which has clearly proven enough for humanity for thousands of years. > doesn't that just scream "bad idea!" to you? Nope. It reduces trust, reliance, and censorship on or by entities that don’t have your best interests at heart. I suppose we simply have different priors. You trust banks and the government. You are okay with forfeiting your financial privacy. I am not.