5 ms·

This is typical crypto-hype. Notice that although many points are raised, it doesn’t address the direct objections of the previous post. Obfuscate, misdirect,

by jmull 5y ago

This is typical crypto-hype. Notice that although many points are raised, it doesn’t address the direct objections of the previous post. Obfuscate, misdirect, and confuse the marks.

slewis 5y ago
The parent comment does address the points, by saying that while they are downsides, the new properties of crypto _might_ outweigh them. It is nuanced, unlike the comment I am replying to.
i_like_waiting 5y ago
Thats because nobody refutes those points. Yes, transactions in crypto are irreversible. It might be bad for those number of factors. But even given those cons we see benefits in things mentioned above. E.g. my colleague can send bitcoin to his brother in russia. Tell me what other options to transfer value there are at the moment between west and russia. Very similar for ukraine.
- cycrutchfield 5y ago
  Circumventing sanctions is a _killer_ use case
  - i_like_waiting 5y ago
    There are tons of cases when it's morally ethical and positive thing to do. Goverments have option to do just blanket ban, but not consider individual cases. E.g. you want to support independent reporters in Russia. What can you do? Support your family? Maybe even foreign students there?
- thr0wawayf00 5y ago
  > Banks won’t protect you from wire fraud either. This is half-true. A wire transfer can't be reversed due to end-user error, which can be abused by fraudsters. However, Incorrect input on the bank's behalf does warrant a reversal. I'd compare my bank screwing up vs a crypto exchange screwing up (Like getting hacked). I'm still not protected if the exchange gets hacked and my coin is exfiltrated. I am protected if my bank fatfingers a wire transfer. Also, banks are insured by the FDIC against financial catastrophes. Savings accounts held in FDIC-regulated banks are insured up to $250k if the bank fails for some reason. I get no such protection holding crypto with an exchange. The FDIC turns around an audits banks to make sure they're compliant with liquidity requirements, loan quality measures, etc. Nobody in crypto is watching anyone else in crypto to make sure everything is kosher because that is fundamentally impossible in a system that is meant to be decentralized. Scammers are everywhere and not nearly enough is being done to address it. It's not even clear whether it's possible or not to even address crypto scams.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    You’re right about FDIC protection. The wire fraud example is really the least important part of my comment (it was just showing risk exists with some traditional financial transactions too). Exchange risk is tempered somewhat by Coinbase which is more comparable to a standard bank in terms of risk (imo). The true value and capability that’s distinct with crypto is self-custody and that is the important part of my comment.
    - thr0wawayf00 5y ago
      > Exchange risk is tempered somewhat by Coinbase which is more comparable to a standard bank in terms of risk (imo). The fine print does not bear this out at all. Coinbase states in their TOS that your funds may not replaced in the case of a breach because they do not insure the entirety of accounts, nor do they stipulate a guaranteed insured amount:[0] > In case of a covered security event, we will endeavor to make you whole. However, total losses may exceed insurance recoveries so your funds may still be lost. Comparing the risk profile of Coinbase to a bank is no different than blindly trusting a big bank not to fail. These are not analogous institutions from a risk management standpoint. 0: https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/other-topics/legal-policies/how-is-coinbase-insured https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/other-topics/legal-pol...
      - gonehome 5y ago
        FDIC insurance is capped at 250k. The recovery there is also limited and it’s a bad idea to keep large amounts of money in a bank account. > “Comparing the risk profile of Coinbase to a bank is no different than blindly trusting a big bank not to fail.” That’s kind of my point? They share a similar risk. The most interesting thing with crypto is the new capabilities it enables for self custody of wealth. There’s also the non-government controlled supply and global store of value which are interesting too, but easier self-custody is the prerequisite differentiator imo. It’s also one of its core advantages over gold (the others being easier to transact with, easier to move/store which is related).
        5y ago
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Is it really your selling point that crypto is good because Russians can wage war while circumventing sanctions? The whole point of sanctions is to pressure bad actors to change. You've invented a technology that allows them to continue doing evil? Hurrah?
  - yanderekko 5y ago
    >Is it really your selling point that crypto is good because Russians can wage war while circumventing sanctions? No, this is a person sending money to their brother, who is presumably not engaged in "waging war."
    - Tretiotrr 5y ago
      The timing for such a bad argument is bad and it is still shitty. Crypto bros telling us how great it is for the poor people in such countries to get money. Now we see the downside of this as well. Oligarchs protecting their assets as well. Leveled playfield. No added benefit from crypto anymore. And yes right now for me, sanctioning is more critical to me to increase the pressure on Russia to stop killing people than Russian people being able to use crypto.
      - yanderekko 5y ago
        Well, one can easily disagree with the justice of these sorts of indiscriminate collective punishments. At the end of the day you're going to have a hard time justifying to someone why they should feel morally compelled to cut off remittances to their family members because of these sort of high-level geopolitical concerns. The more that financial repression and "cancellations" become mainstream, the more obvious crypto's use cases become - whether or not you support the individual examples of repression.
        Tretiotrr 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean? How much is a human life worth to you? How much are we all responsible for everything and nothing? Collective punishment? It's just that there are limitations on tools global politics can use. Independently of this perhaps my expectations on fellow humans are different than yours. And at the end of the day crypto can be blocked and will be blocked sooner than later. every event like this which circumvent global mechanism will be worked against
- lottin 5y ago
  If the "benefit" is that crypto-currencies allow people to evade laws, well... that's probably true, it's just not a great selling point if you're aiming for mainstream adoption. Especially considering that, for everything else other than evading the law, a standard currency would be more practical than a crypto-currency. And this addressed in the article, it's one of the predictions: "cryptocurrency adoption will be limited to marginal use cases where fiat currency is impractical, e.g. online black-market transactions".
  - gonehome 5y ago
    Retaining more individual capability does allow people to commit crimes (though in the public ledger case this is often a stupid idea if you stay in the jurisdiction where what you’re doing is a crime). Not all governments are good, not all laws are just. It’s easy to roll eyes at this in the west, but a lot of countries in the world are lead by bad people acting in their own self-interest. The other bit you get from Bitcoin at least is programmatic guarantees of supply. This protects you from increases in supply inflating your savings away. It makes it a better store of value than fiat. A standard currency is not always available. The same is true for safe financial systems. This is more relevant for people trying to save in places like Venezuela. Crypto provides new capabilities that may be your best option. If one potential future is authoritarian governments leveraging total control on their citizens financial transactions via centralized financial systems (what the ccp is trying to build) - crypto is a technology that provides a relief valve from that. It’s a good thing it exists imo.
    - lottin 5y ago
      Okay, just don't call it the future of money. A form of money that is worse at everything except clandestine transactions is not the future of money. Regarding the supposed guarantees of limited supply, this is both irrelevant and factually wrong. The issuer of a currency (e.g. a central bank, or the "bitcoin protocol" in the case of bitcoin) does not control the supply of the currency. This is because fractional reserve banking results in new money being created when banks lend, a process that inflates (or deflates, when the demand for loans falls) the money supply. Moreover, the users of a currency don't care about the supply of that currency, because that's not an observable quantity. What matters, instead, is price stability. And to maintain price stability you need a competent authority in charge of managing the money supply, which is antithetical to the very idea of decentralised currency.
smaudet 5y ago
The big problem is the buying anything with it. If you could buy stuff with it and it wasn't an absolute headache (install app, pay transaction fees) and it was easier, it would be more popular. That would also remove the "it's a speculative asset bubble" problem. For the interim, using it as a private bank, assuming you can cache it out at an exchange for local legal tender, is the next best thing. The only true way to make it a currency is for it to have its own country - bunch of people somewhere decide to use it for all their stuff, trade goods and services. Problem with that OFC is a lack of free land and energy. So maybe when we live in space, and need a long term store of value, but don't really want to carry around bars of gold or platinum, it can have some serious uses. Until them it is exactly like buying oil - technically asset trading but really hard to realize the value in any meaningful way.
md2020 5y ago
Yeah, but you also didn’t address why the points they raised aren’t valid sources of value for crypto. All of the points they raised are valid, and none of them are obfuscation or misdirection Not all of us want a future where our rights are constrained by the whims of payment processing companies and the politicians who pressure them. Every right we want (freedom of speech, assembly, press) is meaningless if we lose the right to transact without arbitrary intervention from those with more power.
gonehome 5y ago
https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skeptic https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skepti... You can choose to ignore the nuance, but it exists anyway.
Consultant32452 5y ago
Crypto transactions are no less reversible than ACH or wire transfers. The warm fuzzy feeling you have about ACH is you have a trusted third party intermediary that contractually or legally guarantees they will give you the same amount of currency back under certain conditions. If something goes wrong with that ACH/wire transfer and you don't get your money back, you'll have to sue, just like you would crypto.
- katbyte 5y ago
  The destination of a wire is an account at a bank, who’s owner can be tracked down to recover the money from. Crypto wallet owners can be entirely hidden and impossible to sue.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Wire fraud is a massive problem. I recently bought a house and I was given very specific instructions about how to verify the wire destination and it was made quite clear that if I was taken in by a fraudster I would never get my money back. Lots of money, like buy a house lots of money. Almost zero chance I would get my money back. Have you ever worked a retail/food chain job and gotten to see how many CC transactions are invalid/fraudulent resulting in the business losing money? I worked at a pizza place where 5-10% of CC transactions were bogus (college town). Checks were more like 20%. All financial transactions are trust relationships. Some are higher trust than others. If you could buy groceries at Wal-Mart or a new iPhone from apple.com with bitcoin you would have no concern about that. If you send money to a rando on the internet, well it doesn't matter all that much whether it's crypto or dollars. Sometimes you will have third party intermediaries, like VISA, who will offer certain guarantees/insurance for a fee. It's as simple as that. It's silly to compare transactions with known/trusted entities like a physical business or trusted insurance provider/intermediary like VISA with sending your money to a random anonymous bitcoin address. You would not generally be wiring money to a random anonymous bank account either.

by jmull 5y ago

This is typical crypto-hype. Notice that although many points are raised, it doesn’t address the direct objections of the previous post. Obfuscate, misdirect, and confuse the marks.

slewis 5y ago

The parent comment does address the points, by saying that while they are downsides, the new properties of crypto _might_ outweigh them. It is nuanced, unlike the comment I am replying to.

i_like_waiting 5y ago

Thats because nobody refutes those points. Yes, transactions in crypto are irreversible. It might be bad for those number of factors. But even given those cons we see benefits in things mentioned above. E.g. my colleague can send bitcoin to his brother in russia. Tell me what other options to transfer value there are at the moment between west and russia. Very similar for ukraine.

cycrutchfield 5y ago
Circumventing sanctions is a _killer_ use case
- i_like_waiting 5y ago
  There are tons of cases when it's morally ethical and positive thing to do. Goverments have option to do just blanket ban, but not consider individual cases. E.g. you want to support independent reporters in Russia. What can you do? Support your family? Maybe even foreign students there?
thr0wawayf00 5y ago
> Banks won’t protect you from wire fraud either. This is half-true. A wire transfer can't be reversed due to end-user error, which can be abused by fraudsters. However, Incorrect input on the bank's behalf does warrant a reversal. I'd compare my bank screwing up vs a crypto exchange screwing up (Like getting hacked). I'm still not protected if the exchange gets hacked and my coin is exfiltrated. I am protected if my bank fatfingers a wire transfer. Also, banks are insured by the FDIC against financial catastrophes. Savings accounts held in FDIC-regulated banks are insured up to $250k if the bank fails for some reason. I get no such protection holding crypto with an exchange. The FDIC turns around an audits banks to make sure they're compliant with liquidity requirements, loan quality measures, etc. Nobody in crypto is watching anyone else in crypto to make sure everything is kosher because that is fundamentally impossible in a system that is meant to be decentralized. Scammers are everywhere and not nearly enough is being done to address it. It's not even clear whether it's possible or not to even address crypto scams.
- gonehome 5y ago
  You’re right about FDIC protection. The wire fraud example is really the least important part of my comment (it was just showing risk exists with some traditional financial transactions too). Exchange risk is tempered somewhat by Coinbase which is more comparable to a standard bank in terms of risk (imo). The true value and capability that’s distinct with crypto is self-custody and that is the important part of my comment.
  - thr0wawayf00 5y ago
    > Exchange risk is tempered somewhat by Coinbase which is more comparable to a standard bank in terms of risk (imo). The fine print does not bear this out at all. Coinbase states in their TOS that your funds may not replaced in the case of a breach because they do not insure the entirety of accounts, nor do they stipulate a guaranteed insured amount:[0] > In case of a covered security event, we will endeavor to make you whole. However, total losses may exceed insurance recoveries so your funds may still be lost. Comparing the risk profile of Coinbase to a bank is no different than blindly trusting a big bank not to fail. These are not analogous institutions from a risk management standpoint. 0: https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/other-topics/legal-policies/how-is-coinbase-insured https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/other-topics/legal-pol...
    - gonehome 5y ago
      FDIC insurance is capped at 250k. The recovery there is also limited and it’s a bad idea to keep large amounts of money in a bank account. > “Comparing the risk profile of Coinbase to a bank is no different than blindly trusting a big bank not to fail.” That’s kind of my point? They share a similar risk. The most interesting thing with crypto is the new capabilities it enables for self custody of wealth. There’s also the non-government controlled supply and global store of value which are interesting too, but easier self-custody is the prerequisite differentiator imo. It’s also one of its core advantages over gold (the others being easier to transact with, easier to move/store which is related).
      - 5y ago
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
Is it really your selling point that crypto is good because Russians can wage war while circumventing sanctions? The whole point of sanctions is to pressure bad actors to change. You've invented a technology that allows them to continue doing evil? Hurrah?
- yanderekko 5y ago
  >Is it really your selling point that crypto is good because Russians can wage war while circumventing sanctions? No, this is a person sending money to their brother, who is presumably not engaged in "waging war."
  - Tretiotrr 5y ago
    The timing for such a bad argument is bad and it is still shitty. Crypto bros telling us how great it is for the poor people in such countries to get money. Now we see the downside of this as well. Oligarchs protecting their assets as well. Leveled playfield. No added benefit from crypto anymore. And yes right now for me, sanctioning is more critical to me to increase the pressure on Russia to stop killing people than Russian people being able to use crypto.
    - yanderekko 5y ago
      Well, one can easily disagree with the justice of these sorts of indiscriminate collective punishments. At the end of the day you're going to have a hard time justifying to someone why they should feel morally compelled to cut off remittances to their family members because of these sort of high-level geopolitical concerns. The more that financial repression and "cancellations" become mainstream, the more obvious crypto's use cases become - whether or not you support the individual examples of repression.
      - Tretiotrr 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean? How much is a human life worth to you? How much are we all responsible for everything and nothing? Collective punishment? It's just that there are limitations on tools global politics can use. Independently of this perhaps my expectations on fellow humans are different than yours. And at the end of the day crypto can be blocked and will be blocked sooner than later. every event like this which circumvent global mechanism will be worked against
lottin 5y ago
If the "benefit" is that crypto-currencies allow people to evade laws, well... that's probably true, it's just not a great selling point if you're aiming for mainstream adoption. Especially considering that, for everything else other than evading the law, a standard currency would be more practical than a crypto-currency. And this addressed in the article, it's one of the predictions: "cryptocurrency adoption will be limited to marginal use cases where fiat currency is impractical, e.g. online black-market transactions".
- gonehome 5y ago
  Retaining more individual capability does allow people to commit crimes (though in the public ledger case this is often a stupid idea if you stay in the jurisdiction where what you’re doing is a crime). Not all governments are good, not all laws are just. It’s easy to roll eyes at this in the west, but a lot of countries in the world are lead by bad people acting in their own self-interest. The other bit you get from Bitcoin at least is programmatic guarantees of supply. This protects you from increases in supply inflating your savings away. It makes it a better store of value than fiat. A standard currency is not always available. The same is true for safe financial systems. This is more relevant for people trying to save in places like Venezuela. Crypto provides new capabilities that may be your best option. If one potential future is authoritarian governments leveraging total control on their citizens financial transactions via centralized financial systems (what the ccp is trying to build) - crypto is a technology that provides a relief valve from that. It’s a good thing it exists imo.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Okay, just don't call it the future of money. A form of money that is worse at everything except clandestine transactions is not the future of money. Regarding the supposed guarantees of limited supply, this is both irrelevant and factually wrong. The issuer of a currency (e.g. a central bank, or the "bitcoin protocol" in the case of bitcoin) does not control the supply of the currency. This is because fractional reserve banking results in new money being created when banks lend, a process that inflates (or deflates, when the demand for loans falls) the money supply. Moreover, the users of a currency don't care about the supply of that currency, because that's not an observable quantity. What matters, instead, is price stability. And to maintain price stability you need a competent authority in charge of managing the money supply, which is antithetical to the very idea of decentralised currency.

smaudet 5y ago

The big problem is the buying anything with it. If you could buy stuff with it and it wasn't an absolute headache (install app, pay transaction fees) and it was easier, it would be more popular. That would also remove the "it's a speculative asset bubble" problem. For the interim, using it as a private bank, assuming you can cache it out at an exchange for local legal tender, is the next best thing. The only true way to make it a currency is for it to have its own country - bunch of people somewhere decide to use it for all their stuff, trade goods and services. Problem with that OFC is a lack of free land and energy. So maybe when we live in space, and need a long term store of value, but don't really want to carry around bars of gold or platinum, it can have some serious uses. Until them it is exactly like buying oil - technically asset trading but really hard to realize the value in any meaningful way.

md2020 5y ago

Yeah, but you also didn’t address why the points they raised aren’t valid sources of value for crypto. All of the points they raised are valid, and none of them are obfuscation or misdirection Not all of us want a future where our rights are constrained by the whims of payment processing companies and the politicians who pressure them. Every right we want (freedom of speech, assembly, press) is meaningless if we lose the right to transact without arbitrary intervention from those with more power.

gonehome 5y ago

https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skeptic https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skepti... You can choose to ignore the nuance, but it exists anyway.

Consultant32452 5y ago

Crypto transactions are no less reversible than ACH or wire transfers. The warm fuzzy feeling you have about ACH is you have a trusted third party intermediary that contractually or legally guarantees they will give you the same amount of currency back under certain conditions. If something goes wrong with that ACH/wire transfer and you don't get your money back, you'll have to sue, just like you would crypto.

katbyte 5y ago
The destination of a wire is an account at a bank, who’s owner can be tracked down to recover the money from. Crypto wallet owners can be entirely hidden and impossible to sue.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Wire fraud is a massive problem. I recently bought a house and I was given very specific instructions about how to verify the wire destination and it was made quite clear that if I was taken in by a fraudster I would never get my money back. Lots of money, like buy a house lots of money. Almost zero chance I would get my money back. Have you ever worked a retail/food chain job and gotten to see how many CC transactions are invalid/fraudulent resulting in the business losing money? I worked at a pizza place where 5-10% of CC transactions were bogus (college town). Checks were more like 20%. All financial transactions are trust relationships. Some are higher trust than others. If you could buy groceries at Wal-Mart or a new iPhone from apple.com with bitcoin you would have no concern about that. If you send money to a rando on the internet, well it doesn't matter all that much whether it's crypto or dollars. Sometimes you will have third party intermediaries, like VISA, who will offer certain guarantees/insurance for a fee. It's as simple as that. It's silly to compare transactions with known/trusted entities like a physical business or trusted insurance provider/intermediary like VISA with sending your money to a random anonymous bitcoin address. You would not generally be wiring money to a random anonymous bank account either.