6 ms·

But if an employee at the bank removes a zero from a field in the database and lowers your balance there’s nothing in the protocol to prevent that, external con

But if an employee at the bank removes a zero from a field in the database and lowers your balance there’s nothing in the protocol to prevent that, external controls have to be added to keep that from happening, like checksums, auditing, and monitoring. Blockchains provide that security in the protocol but of course have other problems. It’s all trade offs and different use cases.

echelon 5y ago
That bank employee is going to find themselves on a trip to federal prison.
- camjohnson26 5y ago
  If they get caught. The point is that blockchains can have value, I don’t know anyone reasonable who doesn’t believe this. Git is technically a blockchain.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - echelon 5y ago
    > If they get caught. Federal and international regulations require sophisticated bookkeeping and auditing. Banks and fintechs spend billions of dollars on fraud detection and security. Not only is it a matter of protecting their own self interests, but laws and reputation demand it. > The point is that blockchains can have value, I don’t know anyone reasonable who doesn’t believe this. Git is technically a blockchain. Git history doesn't have monetary value. It has practical, functional value.
    - camjohnson26 5y ago
      The processes you mentioned are external controls, I’m talking about the protocol. For Git, I don’t see how that’s relevant. If things that don’t have monetary value can be secure at the protocol level why shouldn’t money be just as secure.
cogman10 5y ago
If an employee at the bank removes a zero, you can sue them and your bank and get your money back. More likely, it wouldn't come to that, you can contact your bank and get that 0 corrected without legal interference (because they don't WANT to be sued). If someone steals your coin... That's it. Game over. There's no way to force them to give it back. Assuming they are in the same country as you and you can identify them, then you might be able to start legal proceeding to get your money back, but even then, nothing you can do will force them to return whatever coin they have. If they die, game over, the coin is lost forever and the best you can hope for is their estate has enough value in it to recover the loss. An error on the side of the bank gives you a clear target for legal action to recover funds, and barring you having more wealth stolen than the bank has value (unlikely), you'll get your money back. The security of the block chain is both a boon and a curse. It allows the blockchain to operate without a central controller, but it also, by design, makes transactions irreversible.
- camjohnson26 5y ago
  The justice system is an external control, I’m saying that blockchain protocols can have value because they provide this security without an external control. That permanence could be a feature or a downside depending on how the protocol is used.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    And I'm pointing out the downside. External control does not work on the blockchain, which means that when mistakes or theft happen, there's no mechanism to undo. It's a pretty large downside. The only upside I've heard is that you could avoid oppression or government theft. However, I'd contend that a government that would directly rob your bank account isn't exactly going to stop at just that.
    - camjohnson26 5y ago
      We agree there. The crypto ecosystem seems to be in a massive bubble, and Tether is a blatant fraud that’s contributing to wash trading on the unregulated exchanges, and NFTs are just a scam. But it bothers me when people use those facts to try to say that blockchain technology therefore doesn’t have a valid use case. It does, and proof of work was a monumental invention, but how blockchain ultimately will be used is unclear right now because the industry is so broken.
boh 5y ago
I love how the only "use case" for this tech has been speculative trading (paid for by that stodgy fiat money everyone hates so much) but the innovation fantasy sell is still in every thread related to crypto.
- almostkorean 5y ago
  Speaking for myself here, but I much prefer to have USDC in defi than US dollars in my traditional bank. Far from a fantasy IMO
  - boh 5y ago
    You can also buy and own a lightsaber. It makes the sound effects and you can pretend it's real, but it doesn't actually do the things you imagine it to.
    - almostkorean 5y ago
      It's really strange to me how you don't wonder why or dig deeper as to why I have my opinion. I'm automatically just a dumbass who is living in your bias, nothing to see here
      - boh 5y ago
        We all have access to the articles that made your opinion--we don't need to wonder.

echelon 5y ago

That bank employee is going to find themselves on a trip to federal prison.

camjohnson26 5y ago
If they get caught. The point is that blockchains can have value, I don’t know anyone reasonable who doesn’t believe this. Git is technically a blockchain.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- echelon 5y ago
  > If they get caught. Federal and international regulations require sophisticated bookkeeping and auditing. Banks and fintechs spend billions of dollars on fraud detection and security. Not only is it a matter of protecting their own self interests, but laws and reputation demand it. > The point is that blockchains can have value, I don’t know anyone reasonable who doesn’t believe this. Git is technically a blockchain. Git history doesn't have monetary value. It has practical, functional value.
  - camjohnson26 5y ago
    The processes you mentioned are external controls, I’m talking about the protocol. For Git, I don’t see how that’s relevant. If things that don’t have monetary value can be secure at the protocol level why shouldn’t money be just as secure.

cogman10 5y ago

If an employee at the bank removes a zero, you can sue them and your bank and get your money back. More likely, it wouldn't come to that, you can contact your bank and get that 0 corrected without legal interference (because they don't WANT to be sued). If someone steals your coin... That's it. Game over. There's no way to force them to give it back. Assuming they are in the same country as you and you can identify them, then you might be able to start legal proceeding to get your money back, but even then, nothing you can do will force them to return whatever coin they have. If they die, game over, the coin is lost forever and the best you can hope for is their estate has enough value in it to recover the loss. An error on the side of the bank gives you a clear target for legal action to recover funds, and barring you having more wealth stolen than the bank has value (unlikely), you'll get your money back. The security of the block chain is both a boon and a curse. It allows the blockchain to operate without a central controller, but it also, by design, makes transactions irreversible.

camjohnson26 5y ago
The justice system is an external control, I’m saying that blockchain protocols can have value because they provide this security without an external control. That permanence could be a feature or a downside depending on how the protocol is used.
- cogman10 5y ago
  And I'm pointing out the downside. External control does not work on the blockchain, which means that when mistakes or theft happen, there's no mechanism to undo. It's a pretty large downside. The only upside I've heard is that you could avoid oppression or government theft. However, I'd contend that a government that would directly rob your bank account isn't exactly going to stop at just that.
  - camjohnson26 5y ago
    We agree there. The crypto ecosystem seems to be in a massive bubble, and Tether is a blatant fraud that’s contributing to wash trading on the unregulated exchanges, and NFTs are just a scam. But it bothers me when people use those facts to try to say that blockchain technology therefore doesn’t have a valid use case. It does, and proof of work was a monumental invention, but how blockchain ultimately will be used is unclear right now because the industry is so broken.

boh 5y ago

I love how the only "use case" for this tech has been speculative trading (paid for by that stodgy fiat money everyone hates so much) but the innovation fantasy sell is still in every thread related to crypto.

almostkorean 5y ago
Speaking for myself here, but I much prefer to have USDC in defi than US dollars in my traditional bank. Far from a fantasy IMO
- boh 5y ago
  You can also buy and own a lightsaber. It makes the sound effects and you can pretend it's real, but it doesn't actually do the things you imagine it to.
  - almostkorean 5y ago
    It's really strange to me how you don't wonder why or dig deeper as to why I have my opinion. I'm automatically just a dumbass who is living in your bias, nothing to see here
    - boh 5y ago
      We all have access to the articles that made your opinion--we don't need to wonder.