5 ms·

It is hard to look at the state of today's financial services and say everything is optimal: even in the EU, most of the regulation you mention (free wire trans

It is hard to look at the state of today's financial services and say everything is optimal: even in the EU, most of the regulation you mention (free wire transfers, low-fee credit cards) was a reaction to egregious inefficiencies that a more dynamic and competitive industry would have squashed by itself, without the need for a years-long process of regulation and legislation. There is absolutely a place for disruptive technical experiments like cryptocurrency in a small part of the system, and to have good regulation of the rest of the financial system. It seems to me that the current balance is doing exactly that. Why are people dogmatically assured that technical advances in payments can only be driven by governments, when technical advances in virtually every other IT-adjacent industry have not worked like this?

pavlov 5y ago
> "There is absolutely a place for disruptive technical experiments like cryptocurrency in a small part of the system, and to have good regulation of the rest of the financial system. It seems to me that the current balance is doing exactly that." Sure, I agree in principle. But the crypto science experiment is out of hand. It's providing negligible actual value to the system while consuming more energy than a mid-size European nation. This is an egregious failure. If Bitcoin and Ethereum mining were shut down today, nobody would lose access to any necessary financial service, and we (mankind) would be at least 1% closer to the fossil fuel reduction goals we absolutely must meet. Seems like a no-brainer in the current state of emergency. There are many other things we need to do, but it's distressing that we're not even able to stop this novel waste that didn't exist ten years ago.
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  I agree with you that proof of work is a disaster. The problem is that mining is probably the last part of modern cryptocurrency network that will go away following a full-on regulatory onslaught. What will instead crash first are the newer and less-resilient networks that don't use proof of work: proof-of-authority systems like Cosmos/Polygon, centralized systems like Binance Smart Chain, all the scalable rollup servers. Ongoing transitions like Ethereum's move to proof of stake might also be disrupted. Even if a regulatory approach was ultimately successful in shutting down proof-of-work mining, I think it would take years. Those years could be better spent by devising and encouraging more efficient consensus technologies, like the ones already being launched today.
lottin 5y ago
Nobody suggests that technical advances should be driven by governments. Technical advances are spurred by the prospect of extraordinary profits in competitive markets, and competition is only fair when the same rules apply to every market participant. So regulations need to apply to everyone. Are you arguing that we should give an unfair advantage to some participants over others or to some inefficient technology? Just because you personally have invested in it? This is the very definition of corruption.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  The counter-argument is that DeFi allows for different, better regulation. The blockchain isn't going to take public money to bail itself out and give itself fat bonuses off the backs of the public, unlike some participants who, let's not forget, did so perfectly legally. There needs to be some way for the public at large to show preference for regulatory regimes. Voting isn't as effective as it used to be; which smart contracts I interact with seems like a decent alternative.
  - pavlov 5y ago
    > "DeFi allows for different, better regulation. The blockchain isn't going to take public money to bail itself out and give itself fat bonuses" The stakeholders who control the blockchain will give themselves every crypto holder's money if their interests are threatened in any way. Has everyone forgotten about the 2016 Ethereum DAO scandal?
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      Are you referring to the time someone stole a bunch of money without violating the terms of a smart contract and most of a community moved to a fork where the theft was reversed? If so, I remember it quite vividly - not sure how it supports your claim though. Ethereum classic is still around, and a decent number of purists still use it. I don't share their convictions, but I'm glad they have the option.
      - 5y ago

pavlov 5y ago

> "There is absolutely a place for disruptive technical experiments like cryptocurrency in a small part of the system, and to have good regulation of the rest of the financial system. It seems to me that the current balance is doing exactly that." Sure, I agree in principle. But the crypto science experiment is out of hand. It's providing negligible actual value to the system while consuming more energy than a mid-size European nation. This is an egregious failure. If Bitcoin and Ethereum mining were shut down today, nobody would lose access to any necessary financial service, and we (mankind) would be at least 1% closer to the fossil fuel reduction goals we absolutely must meet. Seems like a no-brainer in the current state of emergency. There are many other things we need to do, but it's distressing that we're not even able to stop this novel waste that didn't exist ten years ago.

matthewdgreen 5y ago
I agree with you that proof of work is a disaster. The problem is that mining is probably the last part of modern cryptocurrency network that will go away following a full-on regulatory onslaught. What will instead crash first are the newer and less-resilient networks that don't use proof of work: proof-of-authority systems like Cosmos/Polygon, centralized systems like Binance Smart Chain, all the scalable rollup servers. Ongoing transitions like Ethereum's move to proof of stake might also be disrupted. Even if a regulatory approach was ultimately successful in shutting down proof-of-work mining, I think it would take years. Those years could be better spent by devising and encouraging more efficient consensus technologies, like the ones already being launched today.

lottin 5y ago

Nobody suggests that technical advances should be driven by governments. Technical advances are spurred by the prospect of extraordinary profits in competitive markets, and competition is only fair when the same rules apply to every market participant. So regulations need to apply to everyone. Are you arguing that we should give an unfair advantage to some participants over others or to some inefficient technology? Just because you personally have invested in it? This is the very definition of corruption.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
The counter-argument is that DeFi allows for different, better regulation. The blockchain isn't going to take public money to bail itself out and give itself fat bonuses off the backs of the public, unlike some participants who, let's not forget, did so perfectly legally. There needs to be some way for the public at large to show preference for regulatory regimes. Voting isn't as effective as it used to be; which smart contracts I interact with seems like a decent alternative.
- pavlov 5y ago
  > "DeFi allows for different, better regulation. The blockchain isn't going to take public money to bail itself out and give itself fat bonuses" The stakeholders who control the blockchain will give themselves every crypto holder's money if their interests are threatened in any way. Has everyone forgotten about the 2016 Ethereum DAO scandal?
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    Are you referring to the time someone stole a bunch of money without violating the terms of a smart contract and most of a community moved to a fork where the theft was reversed? If so, I remember it quite vividly - not sure how it supports your claim though. Ethereum classic is still around, and a decent number of purists still use it. I don't share their convictions, but I'm glad they have the option.
    - 5y ago