5 ms·

Filecoin is a cryptocurrency that is used to incentivize IPFS pinning in a decentralized way. There, you have a reason.

by leppr 5y ago

holoduke 5y ago
Buy why is called coin? Why not distributed Blockchain file container or something.
- detaro 5y ago
  Because it's a currency to pay for storage?
acdha 5y ago
Okay, 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 ago
  Uncensorability, mostly. Stripe is an American company. Why should Iranians be bared from participating in the decentralized web?
  - acdha 5y ago
    Blockchains 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 ago
      They aren't. Try to find a single case of censorship in Bitcoin or Ethereum to substantiate your claim.
      - bccdee 5y ago
        Here'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 ago
        That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about being able to cancel the activity "onChain" which you can't.
        bccdee 5y ago
        That's exactly my point, though. What happens on-chain doesn't really matter when you can circumvent it in real life. If I start sending people to jail for using blockchain, nobody's going to want your bitcoin, no matter how irreversible the transactions are.
        leppr 5y ago
        He was punished but not censored. In many cases the distinction matters. The US can't prevent Wikileaks from receiving Bitcoin donations, for instance. They can punish one of their citizen who sent Wikileaks money, but not take the money back.
        acdha 5y ago
        You're trying to be pedantic about a line which doesn't exist. No form of censorship has ever been perfect at preventing all activity — the likelihood of punishment is what makes it effective. Newspapers won't cover a story which they expect to be punished for, people will say things in private rather than in the street, etc. all despite technically having the option to shout something on the street. It turns out that being able to say “this is punishment, not censorship!” afterwards while the police are getting out the electrodes isn't very appealing to most people. In this case, you need to think more carefully about the various ways in which activity can be deterred or prevented: 1. Blockchains give a permanent, public record. That has a chilling effect on anything potentially censorable because while the government might need a witness to know that you dropped $50 in the Wikileaks jar, they can at their leisure tell that you did so with cryptocurrency. 2. “But it's [pseudo-]anonymous!” — if any part of your transaction network becomes known to them, they can link that wallet to you. Better hope that you, your friends, and every business you interact with have perfect opsec and all of your software is flawless about masking its network traffic. 3. Most people use exchanges and buy from businesses which have a legal presence in a country which is part of international agreements. That means that when, say, the US puts someone on a sanctions list transactions might be blocked outright for people using a bank which checks the blacklist and refuses to take on liability for prohibited activity, but if successful those coins have less value because fewer people are going to buy them in return and they'll pay less. You can probably get Bitcoin to Wikileaks, for example, but that Wikileaks wallet holder is going to have a hard time turning it into useful currency which will be accepted by legitimate businesses in most of the world. Paying to launder it is possible but unreliable and you'll be running afoul of the same infrastructure used to track organized crime, and presumably paying similar rates to do so.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

Filecoin is a cryptocurrency that is used to incentivize IPFS pinning in a decentralized way. There, you have a reason.

by leppr 5y ago

Filecoin is a cryptocurrency that is used to incentivize IPFS pinning in a decentralized way. There, you have a reason.

holoduke 5y ago

Buy why is called coin? Why not distributed Blockchain file container or something.

detaro 5y ago
Because it's a currency to pay for storage?

acdha 5y ago

Okay, 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 ago
Uncensorability, mostly. Stripe is an American company. Why should Iranians be bared from participating in the decentralized web?
- acdha 5y ago
  Blockchains 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 ago
    They aren't. Try to find a single case of censorship in Bitcoin or Ethereum to substantiate your claim.
    - bccdee 5y ago
      Here'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 ago
        That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about being able to cancel the activity "onChain" which you can't.
        bccdee 5y ago
        That's exactly my point, though. What happens on-chain doesn't really matter when you can circumvent it in real life. If I start sending people to jail for using blockchain, nobody's going to want your bitcoin, no matter how irreversible the transactions are.
      - leppr 5y ago
        He was punished but not censored. In many cases the distinction matters. The US can't prevent Wikileaks from receiving Bitcoin donations, for instance. They can punish one of their citizen who sent Wikileaks money, but not take the money back.
        acdha 5y ago
        You're trying to be pedantic about a line which doesn't exist. No form of censorship has ever been perfect at preventing all activity — the likelihood of punishment is what makes it effective. Newspapers won't cover a story which they expect to be punished for, people will say things in private rather than in the street, etc. all despite technically having the option to shout something on the street. It turns out that being able to say “this is punishment, not censorship!” afterwards while the police are getting out the electrodes isn't very appealing to most people. In this case, you need to think more carefully about the various ways in which activity can be deterred or prevented: 1. Blockchains give a permanent, public record. That has a chilling effect on anything potentially censorable because while the government might need a witness to know that you dropped $50 in the Wikileaks jar, they can at their leisure tell that you did so with cryptocurrency. 2. “But it's [pseudo-]anonymous!” — if any part of your transaction network becomes known to them, they can link that wallet to you. Better hope that you, your friends, and every business you interact with have perfect opsec and all of your software is flawless about masking its network traffic. 3. Most people use exchanges and buy from businesses which have a legal presence in a country which is part of international agreements. That means that when, say, the US puts someone on a sanctions list transactions might be blocked outright for people using a bank which checks the blacklist and refuses to take on liability for prohibited activity, but if successful those coins have less value because fewer people are going to buy them in return and they'll pay less. You can probably get Bitcoin to Wikileaks, for example, but that Wikileaks wallet holder is going to have a hard time turning it into useful currency which will be accepted by legitimate businesses in most of the world. Paying to launder it is possible but unreliable and you'll be running afoul of the same infrastructure used to track organized crime, and presumably paying similar rates to do so.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]