3 ms·

> I think that creating "better banks" can only mean "more government oversight" I mean, a bank is just a financial business. Why wouldn't it be possible to im

> I think that creating "better banks" can only mean "more government oversight" I mean, a bank is just a financial business. Why wouldn't it be possible to improve "banks" but it would be possible to improve cryptocurrency companies (also financial businesses). What is the quality that gives you optimism that these new entities will be able to avoid the problems that you are worried about? Like, I get that the technology is decentralized and it's impractical to track down every node, but if the plan is to run an illegal business that's hard to shut down...you do not need blockchain to do that? And if the business can be legal that seems like it's about laws - not the tech.

ryukoposting 5y ago
I suppose the other commenter doesn't really leave out the argument that "better cryptocurrencies" can only mean "more government oversight." I'm not really sure what a secure, generalized zero-trust system really looks like, from an algorithmic standpoint or a political standpoint. ETH is arguably the first large-scale attempt to answer that question, but so far it has unequivocally failed to do that. > but if the plan is to run an illegal business that's hard to shut down...you do not need blockchain to do that? It sure as hell makes it easier. Think about NFTs for a moment - they have the perfect recipe for money laundering: 1. Subjective market value (examples: paintings, pokemon cards) 2. High market value. 3. Relatively-unregulated bookkeeping system (examples: other cryptos, any transaction in a tax haven) 4. Trivial mechanisms for layering as a result of (3). 5. Easy (not necessarily cheap) liquidation (examples: casinos)