5 ms·

> 1. It's not a currency. It's an asset; Well sort of both, but many of us use exclusively as currency. For instance, I generally only hold it long enough to

> 1. It's not a currency. It's an asset; Well sort of both, but many of us use exclusively as currency. For instance, I generally only hold it long enough to make some bitpay transactions to avoid CC fees. 2. Reversible transactions for fiat currencies is a feature not a bug; Feature of some fiat transactions, but you can avoid that with fiat too. Some people WANT irreversibility, but you're free to use fiat instead if you like. 3. People who can't manage passwords won't be able to manage a wallet so mass appeal is always going to be limited; OK fine, they needn't use crypto. 4. Crypto has its own vulnerabilities (eg 51% attack); If 51% militantly attack the treasury and fed it won't exist either. 5. This whole system is hugely energy wasteful; and (here's the big one) Your beef is with externalities of electricity. I don't like that either. Lets fix that rather than play whack-a-mole with whatever use of electricity you disapprove of. 6. Government action could shut down crypto tomorrow so how robust is it really? All I can say is good luck with that.

smitop 5y ago
> If 51% militantly attack the treasury and fed it won't exist either. It is significantly harder to convince 51% of the population of something than to convince >51% of Bitcoin hashpower: the top 4 mining pools control 51% of the hashpower, so you'd really only need to convince a handful of people to execute a 51% attack.
- notch656a 5y ago
  If 51% of the militants are allied with four factions (a la Libyan civil war) then you also only need to convince a 'handful' of people. But I think this also ignores that the factions and mining pools themselves are made of people with their own interest, including that of maintaining the value of their bitcoin by not sabotaging the entire system.
  - badRNG 5y ago
    It's genuinely absurd to try to map the Libyan civil war onto crypto currency. There was nearly a "51% attack" on Bitcoin, though it's not accurate to call it an attack (and it was far more than 51% of the hash power.) The SegWit2x upgrade almost went through despite upsetting many Bitcoin enthusiasts, but was ultimately squashed by the loose coalition of miners that proposed it when faced with fierce opposition. They could've forced the unpopular change, and only chose not to.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      But I wasn't mapping the Libyan civil war onto crypto. I was mapping it onto a factional attack on the systems maintaining a government fiat currency. My whole point is a fiat systems are weak to 51% attack too. I didn't say the factions that destroyed Libyan government could or wanted to destroy bitcoin or any other crypto. I think we're both acknowledging reality of 51% attack.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
supernovae 5y ago
There is 0 people in the world that want irreverability.
- notch656a 5y ago
  If you and the person you transfer to agree to reverse the transaction, you can, sans transaction fees. If not, then it sounds like someone actually does want irreverability.
- dgrin91 5y ago
  Reversing transactions is how a bunch of scams work, so you are soundly incorrect there. Also there are a ton of non-scam related use cases for irreversible transactions
  - supernovae 5y ago
    No, consumers want to be able to charge back and get their money back if they receive the wrong goods, don't receive any goods or find out the goods they received are fake. Consumers want to charge back if the vendor isn't supporting them. Consumers want to charge back if the charge is fraud - stolen/leaked/socially engineered - whatever it may be. The last thing a consumer wants is to be liable for transactions they didn't make/want and have those transactions be irreversable. Reversing transactions as a scam is fraud and you are protected from fraud by your card member agreement, and you would be refunded your cash because the cash transaction is reversable. Please list one non scam related use case for irreversible transactions and tell me how anything crypto/coin solves that. I've seen in the past 2 weeks alone that oddly enough, smart contracts are changeable and someone changed them to defraud the market... so what good is a smart contract if you can change the terms of the contract and you have to devalue/destroy any coin that participated?
    - notch656a 5y ago
      >Please list one non scam related use case for irreversible transactions and tell me how anything crypto/coin solves that. Introducing a mechanism for reversibility introduces risk for the party responsible for bearing the cost of reversing the transaction. For CC companies, that cost is reflected by charging the merchant maybe a couple percent fee which covers both insurance for reversing customers as well as transaction costs. Some transaction occur between parties who already trust each other in at least one direction. For instance, I sometimes buy metals from APMEX. I have absolute trust in them to not rip me off. They on the other hand, do not have absolute trust I will not rip them off. I do not desire any insurance whatsoever by an intermediary. By using cryptocurrency, I'm able to avoid credit card fees while still yielding fast <30 clearing times for precious metals transactions. This speed and cost point unachievable almost any other way with online payment to a bullion dealer. So what do I gain by losing reversibility? Less transaction fee. The merchant is absolutely assured I can't reverse the transaction, thus their risk is lowered, and they hand off the lower prices to me.
timeon 5y ago
> Lets fix that It is not going to happen.

smitop 5y ago

> If 51% militantly attack the treasury and fed it won't exist either. It is significantly harder to convince 51% of the population of something than to convince >51% of Bitcoin hashpower: the top 4 mining pools control 51% of the hashpower, so you'd really only need to convince a handful of people to execute a 51% attack.

notch656a 5y ago
If 51% of the militants are allied with four factions (a la Libyan civil war) then you also only need to convince a 'handful' of people. But I think this also ignores that the factions and mining pools themselves are made of people with their own interest, including that of maintaining the value of their bitcoin by not sabotaging the entire system.
- badRNG 5y ago
  It's genuinely absurd to try to map the Libyan civil war onto crypto currency. There was nearly a "51% attack" on Bitcoin, though it's not accurate to call it an attack (and it was far more than 51% of the hash power.) The SegWit2x upgrade almost went through despite upsetting many Bitcoin enthusiasts, but was ultimately squashed by the loose coalition of miners that proposed it when faced with fierce opposition. They could've forced the unpopular change, and only chose not to.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    But I wasn't mapping the Libyan civil war onto crypto. I was mapping it onto a factional attack on the systems maintaining a government fiat currency. My whole point is a fiat systems are weak to 51% attack too. I didn't say the factions that destroyed Libyan government could or wanted to destroy bitcoin or any other crypto. I think we're both acknowledging reality of 51% attack.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

supernovae 5y ago

There is 0 people in the world that want irreverability.

notch656a 5y ago
If you and the person you transfer to agree to reverse the transaction, you can, sans transaction fees. If not, then it sounds like someone actually does want irreverability.
dgrin91 5y ago
Reversing transactions is how a bunch of scams work, so you are soundly incorrect there. Also there are a ton of non-scam related use cases for irreversible transactions
- supernovae 5y ago
  No, consumers want to be able to charge back and get their money back if they receive the wrong goods, don't receive any goods or find out the goods they received are fake. Consumers want to charge back if the vendor isn't supporting them. Consumers want to charge back if the charge is fraud - stolen/leaked/socially engineered - whatever it may be. The last thing a consumer wants is to be liable for transactions they didn't make/want and have those transactions be irreversable. Reversing transactions as a scam is fraud and you are protected from fraud by your card member agreement, and you would be refunded your cash because the cash transaction is reversable. Please list one non scam related use case for irreversible transactions and tell me how anything crypto/coin solves that. I've seen in the past 2 weeks alone that oddly enough, smart contracts are changeable and someone changed them to defraud the market... so what good is a smart contract if you can change the terms of the contract and you have to devalue/destroy any coin that participated?
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >Please list one non scam related use case for irreversible transactions and tell me how anything crypto/coin solves that. Introducing a mechanism for reversibility introduces risk for the party responsible for bearing the cost of reversing the transaction. For CC companies, that cost is reflected by charging the merchant maybe a couple percent fee which covers both insurance for reversing customers as well as transaction costs. Some transaction occur between parties who already trust each other in at least one direction. For instance, I sometimes buy metals from APMEX. I have absolute trust in them to not rip me off. They on the other hand, do not have absolute trust I will not rip them off. I do not desire any insurance whatsoever by an intermediary. By using cryptocurrency, I'm able to avoid credit card fees while still yielding fast <30 clearing times for precious metals transactions. This speed and cost point unachievable almost any other way with online payment to a bullion dealer. So what do I gain by losing reversibility? Less transaction fee. The merchant is absolutely assured I can't reverse the transaction, thus their risk is lowered, and they hand off the lower prices to me.

timeon 5y ago

> Lets fix that It is not going to happen.