4 ms·

You could make the same argument against cash. You could easily lose your cash or have it stolen. That doesn't mean we should force everyone on a centralized di

by bko 5y ago

You could make the same argument against cash. You could easily lose your cash or have it stolen. That doesn't mean we should force everyone on a centralized digital ledger. You would be given some assurances in case of stolen funds through reversals. But there's a difference between accidentally losing your wallet and having your funds stolen because someone in power doesn't like you. The answer is to allow for both.

bin_bash 5y ago
Who keeps a large percentage of their wealth in cash?
- smeej 5y ago
  I don't know, but they're comparable in sophistication and foresight to people who keep a large percentage of their crypto wealth in a single-signature wallet. Neither one is a good idea. It isn't difficult to set up multisignature wallets, where you can lose some subset of the keys and still retain access to the funds. (It's not easy either, but it's not difficult, and there are companies like Casa and Unchained making it easier.) Just like someone might keep a couple hundred dollars in their wallet/on their person, a couple percent of their wealth in a home safe, and the majority of their wealth distributed across multiple locations with various failsafes to access it, someone might keep a couple hundred bucks worth of BTC in a wallet on their phone, another percent or two of their BTC in a single-sig hardware wallet in a safe at home, and the majority of their BTC in a 3-of-5 multisig setup with only two keys at home, one in a safety deposit box, one in a trusted family member's home, and one in the custody of their attorney.
  - lottin 5y ago
    > It isn't difficult to set up multisignature wallets I don't think setting up the wallet is the hardest part. The hardest part would be to get into a legally binding agreement with the other parties, that you depend on from now on to access your "wealth", the very situation that crypto-currencies were supposed to avert.
    - smeej 5y ago
      How is that any harder than getting into a legally binding agreement with anyone else about anything else under the existing system? You can make sure they don't have enough of the keys to move your funds without your consent. Making a legally binding agreement that they have to give you access to the key they have if/when you demand it is no more complex a legal task than any other instance where you trust someone to custody something for you.
      - lottin 5y ago
        > How is that any harder than getting into a legally binding agreement with anyone else about anything else under the existing system? I never said it was harder. I'm merely pointing out that the proposed solution to this particular usability issue that crypto-currencies suffer from involves reverting back to a web of mutual obligations enforced by courts of justice, which entirely defeats the purpose of using a crypto-currency.
- justinpowers 5y ago
  ~22% of the US population if you equate being unbanked or underbanked with holding your wealth in cash. Worldwide, the percentage is similar. Of course being unbanked isn’t equivalent but it’s likely very nearly so. Not to mention, the chances of being unbanked are higher for vulnerable populations, especially those who might benefit from uncensorable money.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    Given the required internet access, transaction fees, and general tech sophistication required to use crypto (even more to use it safely), does it seem like it would be a good fit for those people?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kragen 5y ago
      I know a lot of "those people" who are using Bitcoin already, but I would never refer to unbanked people as "those people," being for all practical purposes one of them. We mostly aren't using it safely (a lot of us don't know the difference between Binance and Bitcoin) but we are using it. The last transaction fee I paid was 33¢, and the average transaction in the last Bitcoin block was 913 bytes, so your internet access speed isn't an obstacle to sending a transaction as long as it's above about 20 bits per second; if you want to run a full node you need at least 17000 bits per second of internet access unless you're using the Blockstream satellite. Typically I pay US$5 a month for cellphone internet access when I have it, but more commonly I use Wi-Fi in various places.
      - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
        How long before there's safe tech for relaying your transactions via other people's connections, as a cooperative distributed mesh, to improve confirmation and delivery speed of your own packets?

by bko 5y ago

bin_bash 5y ago

Who keeps a large percentage of their wealth in cash?

smeej 5y ago
I don't know, but they're comparable in sophistication and foresight to people who keep a large percentage of their crypto wealth in a single-signature wallet. Neither one is a good idea. It isn't difficult to set up multisignature wallets, where you can lose some subset of the keys and still retain access to the funds. (It's not easy either, but it's not difficult, and there are companies like Casa and Unchained making it easier.) Just like someone might keep a couple hundred dollars in their wallet/on their person, a couple percent of their wealth in a home safe, and the majority of their wealth distributed across multiple locations with various failsafes to access it, someone might keep a couple hundred bucks worth of BTC in a wallet on their phone, another percent or two of their BTC in a single-sig hardware wallet in a safe at home, and the majority of their BTC in a 3-of-5 multisig setup with only two keys at home, one in a safety deposit box, one in a trusted family member's home, and one in the custody of their attorney.
- lottin 5y ago
  > It isn't difficult to set up multisignature wallets I don't think setting up the wallet is the hardest part. The hardest part would be to get into a legally binding agreement with the other parties, that you depend on from now on to access your "wealth", the very situation that crypto-currencies were supposed to avert.
  - smeej 5y ago
    How is that any harder than getting into a legally binding agreement with anyone else about anything else under the existing system? You can make sure they don't have enough of the keys to move your funds without your consent. Making a legally binding agreement that they have to give you access to the key they have if/when you demand it is no more complex a legal task than any other instance where you trust someone to custody something for you.
    - lottin 5y ago
      > How is that any harder than getting into a legally binding agreement with anyone else about anything else under the existing system? I never said it was harder. I'm merely pointing out that the proposed solution to this particular usability issue that crypto-currencies suffer from involves reverting back to a web of mutual obligations enforced by courts of justice, which entirely defeats the purpose of using a crypto-currency.
justinpowers 5y ago
~22% of the US population if you equate being unbanked or underbanked with holding your wealth in cash. Worldwide, the percentage is similar. Of course being unbanked isn’t equivalent but it’s likely very nearly so. Not to mention, the chances of being unbanked are higher for vulnerable populations, especially those who might benefit from uncensorable money.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  Given the required internet access, transaction fees, and general tech sophistication required to use crypto (even more to use it safely), does it seem like it would be a good fit for those people?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kragen 5y ago
    I know a lot of "those people" who are using Bitcoin already, but I would never refer to unbanked people as "those people," being for all practical purposes one of them. We mostly aren't using it safely (a lot of us don't know the difference between Binance and Bitcoin) but we are using it. The last transaction fee I paid was 33¢, and the average transaction in the last Bitcoin block was 913 bytes, so your internet access speed isn't an obstacle to sending a transaction as long as it's above about 20 bits per second; if you want to run a full node you need at least 17000 bits per second of internet access unless you're using the Blockstream satellite. Typically I pay US$5 a month for cellphone internet access when I have it, but more commonly I use Wi-Fi in various places.
    - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
      How long before there's safe tech for relaying your transactions via other people's connections, as a cooperative distributed mesh, to improve confirmation and delivery speed of your own packets?