4 ms·

The state could use public resources better by providing uniform education on cryptocurrencies. Most of the terms aren't standardized and even their use isn't.

The state could use public resources better by providing uniform education on cryptocurrencies. Most of the terms aren't standardized and even their use isn't. For example, if you put up a Google Form and asked for people's Ethereum addresses, many will provide the 0xAbc123 version and many others will provide the Abc123 version without the 0x. Both audiences may not realize that the 0x is purely cosmetic and addresses and transaction IDs can be resolved without it. Furthermore the state could go further and have examples of smart contracts that help trade, business and commerce function well, instead of malicious contracts that undermine confidence in that system. Similar to the role OpenZeppelin has taken with standardized smart contracts. The US Federal Government has created multiple federal agencies before, specifically to provide confidence and order to markets where there wasn't. So just take some inspiration from 100 years ago and apply the same standard here, as opposed to a CNBC article about the value of scams justifying your aversion to this market. The state could go even further by writing and collaborating on smart contracts, even submitting pull requests or other equivalent contributions to OpenZeppelin contracts or other smart contracts. This would make it easy for market participants to quickly evaluate a smart contract and see how closely it conforms.

lupire 5y ago
From the USG perspective, no good smart contracts exist, because good contracts are impossible to create on the existing Blockchain architecture. From USG perspective, a good blockchain requires all nodes to be registered banks with KYC. But that's not important because no one is really interested in those, because the purpose of Blockchain is to avoid regulation.
- vmception 5y ago
  There is no amorphous opinion of the US government. It is many entities and many offices and many representatives, and there is no consensus amongst them on what you wrote. Not even close. There are representatives that understand and like smart contracts, there are delegates from states that have enshrined smart contracts into their legal code, there are agencies staffed and headed by individuals that are well educated on smart contracts and how to use them favorably, and so on and so forth. There are still influential adversaries also part of that institution.
- danuker 5y ago
  > the purpose of Blockchain is to avoid regulation Citation needed. I use Blockchain as resilient storage for the accounting of a scarce digital asset.
  - mwigdahl 5y ago
    How about https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf? Right in the introduction: "What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party." "Trusted third party" includes regulators, among a wider array of other institutions.
    - vmception 5y ago
      It still functions that way Permissionless means they can operate just as much as anyone else, nobody relies on them
    - danuker 5y ago
      Well, I haven't thought about it that way. I was thinking banks and their >€30 fees for international wires. I guess some people use it for the resistance to regulation (un-freeze-able accounts), others for speculation (like me). Then again, with what is going on in Canada, I am starting to see the risk that the "trusted third party" betrays that trust.
- lawn 5y ago
  > because the purpose of Blockchain is to avoid regulation The purpose of a cryptocurrency is: - Provide a digital transfer of value without a trusted third party - Provide an alternative form of digital money, without a third party that controls its supply Which imare both legal. That it allows people to more easily avoid some regulation is coincidental, but not it's purpose.
mellavora 5y ago
> The state could use public resources better by providing uniform education on cryptocurrencies. Most of the terms aren't standardized and even their use isn't. I'm not sure that the USG defining standard terms of use would mean that those terms become adopted by the entire crypto ecosystem. I'm also not sure how a USG regulated contract market would play in a space whose main attraction seems to be "no regulations"
- vmception 5y ago
  The same way the IETF started out as a US Government supported activity. The same way Tor started out as a US Government funded activity. The similarity being that they are just standards, not required by anyone. For anyone passing by, analogies exclusively compare similarities, not dissimilarities. Here we are exclusively comparing similarities. In this case the US government would be helping with optional standards that help provide the glue between market participants faster. The ethos of the space has nothing to do with the technology. I don't even get what the no regulation meme even means to you as a government helping contract formation and lending credence to one path while showing why is not regulation. Its freedom of association all the way down. Everyone is free to associate with a state contributed contract standard, and free to associate with a random one. It is noteworthy that I used the words "help" and "collaborate" and you read "USG defining" and "USG regulate". Its the allergy to the word government that has room for re-evaluation. The concept of an adversarial state is familiar, but not all that there is, governments can also be gigantic nonprofits actually functioning in collaboration with the public. Sometimes I use them that way.

lupire 5y ago

From the USG perspective, no good smart contracts exist, because good contracts are impossible to create on the existing Blockchain architecture. From USG perspective, a good blockchain requires all nodes to be registered banks with KYC. But that's not important because no one is really interested in those, because the purpose of Blockchain is to avoid regulation.

vmception 5y ago
There is no amorphous opinion of the US government. It is many entities and many offices and many representatives, and there is no consensus amongst them on what you wrote. Not even close. There are representatives that understand and like smart contracts, there are delegates from states that have enshrined smart contracts into their legal code, there are agencies staffed and headed by individuals that are well educated on smart contracts and how to use them favorably, and so on and so forth. There are still influential adversaries also part of that institution.
danuker 5y ago
> the purpose of Blockchain is to avoid regulation Citation needed. I use Blockchain as resilient storage for the accounting of a scarce digital asset.
- mwigdahl 5y ago
  How about https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf? Right in the introduction: "What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party." "Trusted third party" includes regulators, among a wider array of other institutions.
  - vmception 5y ago
    It still functions that way Permissionless means they can operate just as much as anyone else, nobody relies on them
  - danuker 5y ago
    Well, I haven't thought about it that way. I was thinking banks and their >€30 fees for international wires. I guess some people use it for the resistance to regulation (un-freeze-able accounts), others for speculation (like me). Then again, with what is going on in Canada, I am starting to see the risk that the "trusted third party" betrays that trust.
lawn 5y ago
> because the purpose of Blockchain is to avoid regulation The purpose of a cryptocurrency is: - Provide a digital transfer of value without a trusted third party - Provide an alternative form of digital money, without a third party that controls its supply Which imare both legal. That it allows people to more easily avoid some regulation is coincidental, but not it's purpose.

mellavora 5y ago

> The state could use public resources better by providing uniform education on cryptocurrencies. Most of the terms aren't standardized and even their use isn't. I'm not sure that the USG defining standard terms of use would mean that those terms become adopted by the entire crypto ecosystem. I'm also not sure how a USG regulated contract market would play in a space whose main attraction seems to be "no regulations"

vmception 5y ago
The same way the IETF started out as a US Government supported activity. The same way Tor started out as a US Government funded activity. The similarity being that they are just standards, not required by anyone. For anyone passing by, analogies exclusively compare similarities, not dissimilarities. Here we are exclusively comparing similarities. In this case the US government would be helping with optional standards that help provide the glue between market participants faster. The ethos of the space has nothing to do with the technology. I don't even get what the no regulation meme even means to you as a government helping contract formation and lending credence to one path while showing why is not regulation. Its freedom of association all the way down. Everyone is free to associate with a state contributed contract standard, and free to associate with a random one. It is noteworthy that I used the words "help" and "collaborate" and you read "USG defining" and "USG regulate". Its the allergy to the word government that has room for re-evaluation. The concept of an adversarial state is familiar, but not all that there is, governments can also be gigantic nonprofits actually functioning in collaboration with the public. Sometimes I use them that way.