5 ms·

> Decentralized systems democratize trust. What you're asking us to trust is that: 1. We trust the coders to know what is best for us. 2. You can write

by bb88 5y ago

> Decentralized systems democratize trust. What you're asking us to trust is that: 1. We trust the coders to know what is best for us. 2. You can write perfect code so that our money is safe. 3. The price will never plummet. I've observed: 1. Mt. Gox Failure 2. DAO Failure 3. First BTC price crash 4. USDT regulatory concerns 5. Lack of learning from failures 6. Politics still exist, they just moved to the coding layer 7. Willful ignorance of the scams and crimes cryptocurrencies has enabled 7.1 Because somehow cryptocurrency is better for us. 8. Hype over price security and software security 8.1 Because somehow cryptocurrency is better for us. Trust in USDT is centralized in the corporation Tether and has none of the benefits you mentioned. Trust in BTC is hoping (praying?) that the price doesn't crash, and software doesn't control the price, humans do.

rglullis 5y ago
I can use blockchain apps all of my life and even if there are people (now) making billions of USD worth of Tether transfers, I never will be forced to accept it, because I don't trust them. That is exactly what "democratized trust" looks like.
- lottin 5y ago
  No, that's not what democratised trust looks like. This is what freedom to accept or reject a token looks like. Nothing to do with trust.
- bb88 5y ago
  But trust in the blockchain isn't what I'm talking about. It's trust that my retirement won't vanish overnight.
darawk 5y ago
> What you're asking us to trust is that: > 1. We trust the coders to know what is best for us. > 2. You can write perfect code so that our money is safe. > 3. The price will never plummet. Nobody is asking that. The source code is public, read it and decide for yourself. Good luck doing that at your local bank. There are plenty of stablecoins, you don't have to take on crypto exposure. > 1. Mt. Gox Failure Totally irrelevant. > 2. DAO Failure Sure, a public commons infrastructure will elicit a lot of bad projects. Just like the vast majority of open source projects are bad. This is not an indictment of open source. > 3. First BTC price crash Irrelevant. > 4. USDT regulatory concerns Use one of the many other stablecoins, then. This is the beauty of the system. It's actually open, so there are a diversity of issuers. You could even start one yourself, if you wanted. > 5. Lack of learning from failures There is an enormous amount of learning from failures. If you believe there isn't, you aren't paying attention. > 6. Politics still exist, they just moved to the coding layer Yes, this is true. However, this layer is thin, by design. That means the layers above it, which implement most of the relevant functionality, are a diverse ecosystem of choice. Contrast to the thickness of politics in other domains. > 7. Willful ignorance of the scams and crimes cryptocurrencies has enabled > 7.1 Because somehow cryptocurrency is better for us. New technology brings about scams roughly in proportion to its power. The internet enabled tons of scams. Fiat currency enabled tons of scams. Coinage enabled tons of scams. And so did banks, particularly of the fractional reserve variety. That doesn't mean scams are good or should be tolerated. But it takes time to develop the social and political conventions to deal with them. I believe that process is taking place in crypto, though perhaps not as quickly as we'd like. I think if you look back at the history of other comparable technologies, you will see that crypto is pretty far ahead of the game in this regard, though. > 8. Hype over price security and software security > 8.1 Because somehow cryptocurrency is better for us. Sure. Lots of elements of crypto are overhyped. Overhype comes along with any transformative technology. See hype about carbon nanotubes, nuclear power, 3d printing, etc. Hype is an indictment of people, not technology.
- e9 5y ago
  > Nobody is asking that. The source code is public, read it and decide for yourself. Good luck doing that at your local bank. There are plenty of stablecoins, you don't have to take on crypto exposure. Most people are not advanced coders and will never be. So most people still have to trust a random coder (be it close friend or someone on the news or online). If something happens to your money because someone took advantage of you in the code then good luck getting anything back. At least with banks there are laws around this stuff and you can actually get your money back. For average person this is still the way to go.
  - acdha 5y ago
    There's also a massive unregulated conflict of interest here: reviewing the source code will require experience which someone is unlikely to have without also having a financial interest in expanded use of cryptocurrencies. As we've seen so many times over from all of the cryptocurrency boosters who talked up code or services until a major problem occurred, this can cloud someone's judgement even if they're not intentionally scamming you.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Isn’t this argument also true of anyone in a position to wield government power? Politicians aren’t really renowned for their honesty, for example.
      - acdha 5y ago
        That’s not what we’re talking about: if I hire a lawyer to review a contract, they’re not making decisions based on a need to boost USD to protect their ability to find a buyer. Similarly, while they’re both fiat currencies the USD is orders of magnitude stronger (inordinately more use, links to durable value, etc.) which means that my hypothetical lawyer’s ability to shift the value is extremely small. Even actual government officials have relatively little power this way: there are many of them and the need to get re-elected means they’re far less likely to try the kind of pump and dump scams which are routine in the cryptocurrency world, especially given the likelihood of scrutiny and punishment.

by bb88 5y ago

rglullis 5y ago

I can use blockchain apps all of my life and even if there are people (now) making billions of USD worth of Tether transfers, I never will be forced to accept it, because I don't trust them. That is exactly what "democratized trust" looks like.

lottin 5y ago
No, that's not what democratised trust looks like. This is what freedom to accept or reject a token looks like. Nothing to do with trust.
bb88 5y ago
But trust in the blockchain isn't what I'm talking about. It's trust that my retirement won't vanish overnight.

darawk 5y ago

> What you're asking us to trust is that: > 1. We trust the coders to know what is best for us. > 2. You can write perfect code so that our money is safe. > 3. The price will never plummet. Nobody is asking that. The source code is public, read it and decide for yourself. Good luck doing that at your local bank. There are plenty of stablecoins, you don't have to take on crypto exposure. > 1. Mt. Gox Failure Totally irrelevant. > 2. DAO Failure Sure, a public commons infrastructure will elicit a lot of bad projects. Just like the vast majority of open source projects are bad. This is not an indictment of open source. > 3. First BTC price crash Irrelevant. > 4. USDT regulatory concerns Use one of the many other stablecoins, then. This is the beauty of the system. It's actually open, so there are a diversity of issuers. You could even start one yourself, if you wanted. > 5. Lack of learning from failures There is an enormous amount of learning from failures. If you believe there isn't, you aren't paying attention. > 6. Politics still exist, they just moved to the coding layer Yes, this is true. However, this layer is thin, by design. That means the layers above it, which implement most of the relevant functionality, are a diverse ecosystem of choice. Contrast to the thickness of politics in other domains. > 7. Willful ignorance of the scams and crimes cryptocurrencies has enabled > 7.1 Because somehow cryptocurrency is better for us. New technology brings about scams roughly in proportion to its power. The internet enabled tons of scams. Fiat currency enabled tons of scams. Coinage enabled tons of scams. And so did banks, particularly of the fractional reserve variety. That doesn't mean scams are good or should be tolerated. But it takes time to develop the social and political conventions to deal with them. I believe that process is taking place in crypto, though perhaps not as quickly as we'd like. I think if you look back at the history of other comparable technologies, you will see that crypto is pretty far ahead of the game in this regard, though. > 8. Hype over price security and software security > 8.1 Because somehow cryptocurrency is better for us. Sure. Lots of elements of crypto are overhyped. Overhype comes along with any transformative technology. See hype about carbon nanotubes, nuclear power, 3d printing, etc. Hype is an indictment of people, not technology.

e9 5y ago
> Nobody is asking that. The source code is public, read it and decide for yourself. Good luck doing that at your local bank. There are plenty of stablecoins, you don't have to take on crypto exposure. Most people are not advanced coders and will never be. So most people still have to trust a random coder (be it close friend or someone on the news or online). If something happens to your money because someone took advantage of you in the code then good luck getting anything back. At least with banks there are laws around this stuff and you can actually get your money back. For average person this is still the way to go.
- acdha 5y ago
  There's also a massive unregulated conflict of interest here: reviewing the source code will require experience which someone is unlikely to have without also having a financial interest in expanded use of cryptocurrencies. As we've seen so many times over from all of the cryptocurrency boosters who talked up code or services until a major problem occurred, this can cloud someone's judgement even if they're not intentionally scamming you.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Isn’t this argument also true of anyone in a position to wield government power? Politicians aren’t really renowned for their honesty, for example.
    - acdha 5y ago
      That’s not what we’re talking about: if I hire a lawyer to review a contract, they’re not making decisions based on a need to boost USD to protect their ability to find a buyer. Similarly, while they’re both fiat currencies the USD is orders of magnitude stronger (inordinately more use, links to durable value, etc.) which means that my hypothetical lawyer’s ability to shift the value is extremely small. Even actual government officials have relatively little power this way: there are many of them and the need to get re-elected means they’re far less likely to try the kind of pump and dump scams which are routine in the cryptocurrency world, especially given the likelihood of scrutiny and punishment.