6 ms·
We need to get specific. There is no web3. People aren't going to just take everything from the crypto ecosystem and instead we need to talk about what is good
by outside1234 5y ago
We need to get specific. There is no web3. People aren't going to just take everything from the crypto ecosystem and instead we need to talk about what is good and what is terrible.
Crypto currencies are terrible - or at least I have heard of no reason why people need them outside of ponzi scheming, ransomwaring, or your drug deal - especially since they are NOT cheaper to do transactions in and are NOT anonymous and are definitely NOT (yet) even close to green.
That said, things like distributed file storage (IPFS) and distributed identity are really interesting. We really do need solutions around how we prevent China, Russia, and other governments from basically brainwashing folks through turning off any part of the internet they don't like. I'm all-in on that part.
- leppr 5y agoFilecoin is a cryptocurrency that is used to incentivize IPFS pinning in a decentralized way. There, you have a reason.
- holoduke 5y agoBuy why is called coin? Why not distributed Blockchain file container or something.
- detaro 5y agoBecause it's a currency to pay for storage?
- acdha 5y agoOkay, what advantages does being a coin give it over a Stripe button? At some point you need to buy real hardware so anything useful involves at least a couple of blockchain transaction fees on top of whatever the actual cost is.
- leppr 5y agoUncensorability, mostly. Stripe is an American company. Why should Iranians be bared from participating in the decentralized web?
- acdha 5y agoBlockchains are easily censored. It sounds like you want cash. Things to think about: how does this prevent embargos? If you’re in the US, any means of doing business with someone on the watchlist is a legal hazard. If you’re in a country which doesn’t follow that, you have other options. Changing the tech doesn’t change the law. As for alleged censor-resistance, consider what happens when major exchanges are required to follow the laws. Coins become tainted once they’ve been used for illegal transactions, reducing both the number of potential buyers dramatically and how much they’re willing to pay. Miners in countries party to international agreements may even refuse to process them. The fact that the first transaction couldn’t be blocked doesn’t mean everyone’s just giving up.
- leppr 5y agoThey aren't. Try to find a single case of censorship in Bitcoin or Ethereum to substantiate your claim.
- bccdee 5y agoHere's one example. This guy was arrested for laundering money using Bitcoin. He was arrested for his transactions on the Bitcoin network. If you consider payments as the sort of thing that can be censored, then this certainly counts as censorship. https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/press-releases/darknet-vendor-arrested-distribution-and-money-laundering-charges https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-c...
- Throwaway197401 5y agoThat's not what we are talking about. We are talking about being able to cancel the activity "onChain" which you can't.
- jeofken 5y agoThe most valuable part of Bitcoin is being able to carry a fortune unafraid of theft either from a petty criminal or an employee of the government. Like weapons a very powerful technology that escaped Pandora’s box.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- overcast 5y agoI'm sorry, but are you really suggesting that millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin has not been lost to theft or seized by the government since its inception?
- jeofken 5y agoNo, I’m not suggesting that
- ivalm 5y agoTraditionally, theft occurs with a sharp object at your neck. I don't think bitcoin protects against that. Not to mention that more mundane theft/government seizure/etc has already happened.
- jeofken 5y agoWhile there are no absolutes (but this one) there are no other way to, by remembering 12 words, carry millions with you. My point is simply that this application makes it valuable - regardless of any value judgement one may wish to make
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jopsen 5y ago> We really do need solutions around how we prevent China, Russia.... Technology won't defeat policy. We can't code our way out of laws that govern information, whether that be copyright law or censorship laws. We can probably have obtuse systems like TOR... So long as they remain obtuse :)
- outside1234 5y agoWhat if "Web4" made it impossible to turn off a specific portion of content without turning all of Web4 off. That would put policy people in a dilemma wouldn't it?
- bccdee 5y agoWhy on Earth would politicians sign on to that? China, for instance, would just go "Ok we're blocking web4 entirely then. Communicate with us over censorable protocols or not at all." Technology shapes policy, but policy is always the one calling the shots.
- mr_toad 5y agoIf it came down to a choice between allowing cp, and/or widespread copyright violation, then they might do just that. Some autocrats would happily shut down the internet because someone hurt their feelings.
- azangru 5y agoThat would be cool; but it would go against not just China and Russia, but against any government. Can't turn off Isis beheadings, pedophiles, scammers, bullies, copyright infringers, ideological intolerables (who can be homophobes in some countries and homosexuals in others), and the list goes on and on. Judging by the prevailing sentiment of modern societies, they wouldn't like this. And governments most certainly won't.
- jopsen 5y ago> What if "Web4" made it impossible to turn off a specific portion of content without turning all of Web4 off. I'm joking a bit.. but my first thought is: ad companies would love it, if I couldn't turn off ads.
- 22c 5y ago> especially since they are NOT cheaper to do transactions in and are NOT anonymous and are definitely NOT (yet) even close to green If you take the bad parts of every cryptocurrency and made them into one single bad cryptocurrency, then yes, you would be correct, but all of these things are better in certain cryptocurrencies than traditional financial systems. Cryptocurrency doesn't mean only Bitcoin or Ethereum.
- IncRnd 5y agoTrading in Monopoly money would also solve some problems. I'm still not going to use it.
- sunshinekitty 5y ago> especially since they are NOT cheaper to do transactions in and are NOT anonymous and are definitely NOT (yet) even close to green citation needed As a whole I agree with your statement objectively, but this cannot be said for each blockchain uniformly. We also don’t need the internet to communicate, gift cards are used to pay scammers, there are other much larger consumers of oil like cars and planes. It’s disingenuous to dismiss this technology for these reasons, there are definite upsides worth exploring that you have alluded to.
- raven105x 5y agoMost people don't enjoy having to jump through a dozen hoops to send 5-8 digits of fiat between countries with a massive delay, possibility of "your" funds being held for almost any duration due to any number of reasons, or just frozen because some automated system quite possibly false positive flagged you. It is far more important to me that a value store is actually under my control, and usable instantly 24/7 instead of only during business hours or having to wait for the next business day. A good part of financial "regulation" is not for consumer protection - it's not for consumers at all, it is for governments. The US government is free to regulate the dollar, because it is a currency they issue. Given their track record of mismanaging fundamental economics, I have no interest in a value store issued by a notoriously incompetent entity that is also inconvenient, volatile, unreliable, being actively hyper-inflated, and not even under my control to begin with. This whole "you dont need crypto unless you are ponzi, ransom or drugs" shill is getting really old. We all know how "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" plays out logically and ethically. I haven't held onto USD for more than a day after getting paid in over three years now, other than what is absolutely necessary for transactions that still rely on USD. I'm a software engineer with no criminal record/affiliations, and strong morals as well as ethics - which is why I still pay all the taxes I should in USD, and circumvent the otherwise technologically inferior and fundamentally unethical method of value exchange for everything else. So please, give me a single reason to use a dinosaur bank over crypto that is actually in my own best interest.
- outside1234 5y agoAll of that stuff is there to prevent money laundering, drug trading, etc. etc., "running to mexico with the money". I agree, it's too slow, but how does crypto get us all of these things, which we need to prevent total chaos.
- raven105x 5y agoPreventing money laundering, drug trading, etc etc is part of what our taxes pay for - a safe and secure society for us and our kids. To your point, do you think that's being done competently in tradfi, given every massive money laundering scandal in the last 50 years which involved established traditional banks? It's already not being done. RE: "running to mexico with the money". I believe any individual should be able to take the "payout" for the value they provided to society and freely move with it / utilize it in whatever country or society they choose. Most governments disagree, and that's cool - but how is that in any of their citizen's best interests? Venezuela was a great example of how that plays out. The people there lost everything due to their government's incompetency. At the end of the day, things like drug and human trafficking don't happen because the people behind them are able to launder money - they happen because of a complete and utter failure on the behalf of our government. All of these issues were here long before crypto, and while yes, CC definitely does not help these issues go away - quite the opposite, actually, and that part is unfortunate ...but it's not the root cause of the problem. And the half-assed solution currently in place is so inadequate that even otherwise sane individuals resort to scapegoating things like crypto. Is the current precedent of "lots of drugs are coming out of [XYZ] country, let's destroy everyone's lives in it unilaterally with sanctions in an attempt to hinder those responsible" really something you are okay with? For example: the US goes to war with a country I have family in, and now I can't support my loved ones. I could not care less about the economic policy, because enabling my grandparents as well as great grandparents to buy food and basic life necessities is far more important to me. In some parts of the world, even Western Union and those services restrict this - or charge exorbitant fees which make CC transaction fees look tame in comparison. Choosing a geographic location and unilaterally destroying the standard of living there through economic sanctions might as well be mass genocide.