3 ms·

> There's nothing technical about blockchains that adds transparency False. On a public chain like Ethereum, every single historical operation and its outcome

by 3np 5y ago

> There's nothing technical about blockchains that adds transparency False. On a public chain like Ethereum, every single historical operation and its outcome events and state can be traced and verified. If the source code is published, the running bytecode can be verified to match the source code. > smart contracts are [...] not "non-custodial" because they require middlemen to run the blockchain Also false - miners/validators have no opportunity to seize or freeze assets > There is also nothing more open or verifiable about smart contracts compared to any other program See above. You can verify what code was running when and with what input.

lottin 5y ago
Right... why do you think the perpetrators or ransomware attacks demand to be paid in crypto-currency, instead of via a plain old wire transfer which according to you is more opaque?
- 3np 5y ago
  For other reasons than the ones I am replying on. For one, accounts on it are pseudonymous. If by "transparency", you mean "every activity can be traced back to a meatspace individual or institution as recognized by a national government and/or law enforcement", that is a different level of "transparency". It's not being compared to wire transfers but to server-side software (including those responsible for executing legacy wire transfers).
- eptcyka 5y ago
  Because it's still less tracesble than a bank account, but unless one converts it in a dex to something truly untraceablr like monero or zcash, ones attempts to transact with it will be traced, so you won't be able to do much else with it. Coinbase and all other exchanges are known to freeze coins linked to illegal activity.
throwaway82652 5y ago
>False. On a public chain like Ethereum, every single historical operation and its outcome events and state can be traced and verified. If the source code is published, the running bytecode can be verified to match the source code. No it's not false. Ethereum doesn't matter, there are a ton of sidechains and mixers that obfuscate transactions and you can't stop people from using them, you also can't guarantee they will provide source code or provide any means to verify their own smart contracts which they don't have to build on top of Ethereum's platform. And many of them don't anyway, specifically because of deficiencies in Ethereum. >Also false - miners/validators have no opportunity to seize or freeze assets Actually they do, if they all decide they don't like you then they can blacklist your wallet address. For practical purposes it's the same as a frozen asset. The inability to seize assets is actually a bad thing because it means the network operators have no effective way to confiscate stolen money. >See above. You can verify what code was running when and with what input. And you can also do that with literally any other program regardless of whether it's on a blockchain or not.

by 3np 5y ago

lottin 5y ago

Right... why do you think the perpetrators or ransomware attacks demand to be paid in crypto-currency, instead of via a plain old wire transfer which according to you is more opaque?

3np 5y ago
For other reasons than the ones I am replying on. For one, accounts on it are pseudonymous. If by "transparency", you mean "every activity can be traced back to a meatspace individual or institution as recognized by a national government and/or law enforcement", that is a different level of "transparency". It's not being compared to wire transfers but to server-side software (including those responsible for executing legacy wire transfers).
eptcyka 5y ago
Because it's still less tracesble than a bank account, but unless one converts it in a dex to something truly untraceablr like monero or zcash, ones attempts to transact with it will be traced, so you won't be able to do much else with it. Coinbase and all other exchanges are known to freeze coins linked to illegal activity.

throwaway82652 5y ago

>False. On a public chain like Ethereum, every single historical operation and its outcome events and state can be traced and verified. If the source code is published, the running bytecode can be verified to match the source code. No it's not false. Ethereum doesn't matter, there are a ton of sidechains and mixers that obfuscate transactions and you can't stop people from using them, you also can't guarantee they will provide source code or provide any means to verify their own smart contracts which they don't have to build on top of Ethereum's platform. And many of them don't anyway, specifically because of deficiencies in Ethereum. >Also false - miners/validators have no opportunity to seize or freeze assets Actually they do, if they all decide they don't like you then they can blacklist your wallet address. For practical purposes it's the same as a frozen asset. The inability to seize assets is actually a bad thing because it means the network operators have no effective way to confiscate stolen money. >See above. You can verify what code was running when and with what input. And you can also do that with literally any other program regardless of whether it's on a blockchain or not.