3 ms·

> “ By constraining it to transfer of an intermediate representation you're not making a good faith representation of the process.” Yeah, I’m betting on the fu

> “ By constraining it to transfer of an intermediate representation you're not making a good faith representation of the process.” Yeah, I’m betting on the future utility enabled by the tech, not what it can do right now. Similarly people said the web was useless in the 90s [0] when the future utility (imo) was obvious. > “Second, the only thing you can do better with crypto than a centralized exchange is crime, grift and regulatory arbitrage.” There are non-crime advantages to being able to use decentralized systems. These are most obvious in places with hostile governments and unstable currencies. The new stuff you can do with decentralized state and public auditable records is super new and the applications there I think will be really interesting. > “ What takes longer sometimes is AML/KYC and security.” Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong? > “Like any other regulatory arbitrage you can certainly make things faster or cheaper, for instance by dumping chemical waste into lakes. Once again comparing a car to a little buggy with a 2-stroke engine and no catalytic converter on the basis of fuel efficiency is disingenuous too.” I think you’re failing to steelman this. It’s possible to build a lot of stuff to handle things like KYC in a way that’s better because of crypto tech. Imagine using an NFT as a pseudonymous ID that you KYC once and then can use anywhere unless it changes wallets. There are also likely better ways to determine credit worthiness than FICO enabled by the new stuff. A lot of your arguments feel like someone saying “ever heard of radio” when someone else says you can stream sports on the internet. I think you’re being a little myopic. I guess we’ll see how it shakes out, but for better or worse I’m betting against you. [0]: https://youtu.be/lskpNmUl8yQ https://youtu.be/lskpNmUl8yQ

arcticbull 5y ago
> Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong? Blockchain is a database. Records at a bank are a database. There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part. That's why every one of the systems I mentioned supports real-time 24/7 transfers: SEPA, FPS, NPP, Interac, RTP, FedNow, ISO20022. Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right? > It’s possible to build a lot of stuff to handle things like KYC in a way that’s better because of crypto tech. It does not address KYC at all. KYC is built on top at the CEX level. If you have some concrete non-speculative way you think this is true, please share. > I guess we’ll see how it shakes out, but for better or worse I’m betting against you. I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha. [edit] Any the reason settlement hasnt been addressed sooner is because thanks to the magic optimization of centralization and trust, you can just borrow the capital until settlement happens. I mean think about it, equity settlement is T+2 but yet somehow HFTs exist? Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem.
- gonehome 5y ago
  I really try to resist being drawn into flame bait. > "Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem." There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on. > "There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part." Yeah - that's because that's ignoring the entire context of everything else required around that. The centralized systems, the manual trust, the integration problems between organizations. The sql update is not the issue. It seems clear from your tone that you're not really curious about this so I'll just leave it here. > "Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right?" Good for you - let's check back in 10yr. > "I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on. I'm always open to that possibility, and I spend a lot of time learning about blockchain technology. And I've spent the last 10 years working in fintech. Of the commenters here, I probably have more context than most on both. > Yeah - that's because that's ignoring the entire context of everything else required around that. The centralized systems, the manual trust, the integration problems between organizations. The sql update is not the issue. Correct, centralization and trust represent massive efficiencies. Banks trust each other or can trust a central intermediary which is again why NPP, RTP, FedNow, SEPA, FPA all work instantly, basically free, without blockchain. Whereas moving USDC-ETH between two accounts costs $25. > Good for you - let's check back in 10yr. It's been 14 years and yet we have nothing to show for it except a whole pile of used up Kazakh and Xinjiang coal - and some really ugly twitter avatars. But yes, I'll wait, I'm sure OP will deliver by 2031.
    - gonehome 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

> Is this true? I thought there was a complex system of clearing houses, record updates, etc. a lot of which is done manually? Am I wrong? Blockchain is a database. Records at a bank are a database. There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part. That's why every one of the systems I mentioned supports real-time 24/7 transfers: SEPA, FPS, NPP, Interac, RTP, FedNow, ISO20022. Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right? > It’s possible to build a lot of stuff to handle things like KYC in a way that’s better because of crypto tech. It does not address KYC at all. KYC is built on top at the CEX level. If you have some concrete non-speculative way you think this is true, please share. > I guess we’ll see how it shakes out, but for better or worse I’m betting against you. I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha. [edit] Any the reason settlement hasnt been addressed sooner is because thanks to the magic optimization of centralization and trust, you can just borrow the capital until settlement happens. I mean think about it, equity settlement is T+2 but yet somehow HFTs exist? Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem.

gonehome 5y ago
I really try to resist being drawn into flame bait. > "Remember the golden rule of blockchain: except in the case of regulatory arbitrage, grift and crime, if you think a blockchain is a better solution to a problem than any classical solution - you either don't know enough about crypto or you don't know enough about the problem." There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on. > "There's no reason you can't just execute a SQL transaction to deduct from one and increment the other haha. That's not the slow part." Yeah - that's because that's ignoring the entire context of everything else required around that. The centralized systems, the manual trust, the integration problems between organizations. The sql update is not the issue. It seems clear from your tone that you're not really curious about this so I'll just leave it here. > "Not a blockchain in sight. Amazing right?" Good for you - let's check back in 10yr. > "I seriously doubt you're betting against me haha." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > There's a real possibility here that you're way overconfident and wrong and this overconfidence will blind you from a lot of interesting stuff that's going on. I'm always open to that possibility, and I spend a lot of time learning about blockchain technology. And I've spent the last 10 years working in fintech. Of the commenters here, I probably have more context than most on both. > Yeah - that's because that's ignoring the entire context of everything else required around that. The centralized systems, the manual trust, the integration problems between organizations. The sql update is not the issue. Correct, centralization and trust represent massive efficiencies. Banks trust each other or can trust a central intermediary which is again why NPP, RTP, FedNow, SEPA, FPA all work instantly, basically free, without blockchain. Whereas moving USDC-ETH between two accounts costs $25. > Good for you - let's check back in 10yr. It's been 14 years and yet we have nothing to show for it except a whole pile of used up Kazakh and Xinjiang coal - and some really ugly twitter avatars. But yes, I'll wait, I'm sure OP will deliver by 2031.
  - gonehome 5y ago