10 ms·
your talking points are from like 2012 man. off the top of my head: remittances, online retail, trustless decentralized computational systems
by nyolfen 4y ago
your talking points are from like 2012 man. off the top of my head: remittances, online retail, trustless decentralized computational systems
- messutied 4y agoCan you link a couple of sources that show companies that successfully leverage this use cases?
- dubswithus 4y agohttps://brave.com/transparency/ https://brave.com/transparency/
- nyolfen 4y agoi run a small retail business that only accepts crypto and it's been doing fine
- arcticbull 4y agoIs it a small laundromat, or do you just not want to accept money from all customers?
- low_tech_love 4y agoCould you tell us why you chose to do that?
- nyolfen 4y agopartly to seize a market niche and avoid fees, partly as a proof of concept for others (i wrote up the technical details), and partly because the product is crypto-adjacent, which most CC processors won't touch. i highly recommend the software i use, you can fairly easily turn it into an automated vending machine for digital goods that relies on no middlemen: https://btcpayserver.org/ https://btcpayserver.org/ my business is not even close to legally questionable but i prefer not to dox myself on this account. i found a friendly CC processor that i'm waiting on approval from, so it will be hybrid eventually.
- dghlsakjg 4y agoWhat do you sell/provide?
- paulryanrogers 4y agoTrustless or distributed trust (up until the point of a 51% attack)?
- nyolfen 4y agofair enough, but in the same way that conventional systems are only 'secure and encrypted up until the point of being beaten with a wrench'
- Feriti 4y agoConventional systems don't tell you all the time how they save the trust issue. And conventional systems are old and grown and have a ton of security features and is still getting finetuned.
- nyolfen 4y agoif i want to send money to a family member in bangalore, i don't have to trust anybody by using crypto. this isn't some nebulous promise, it is intrinsic to the design of the system -- i perform a transaction in my bed room, and the money is transferred to a new ownership address, which nobody else has control over. this trivial use case is profound and there is no parallel for it in the conventional financial system. that isn't to say it has perfect security, but it eliminates the need for middlemen while preserving the benefits of digital systems. it's optimized for autonomy and freedom over safety -- giving someone the power the revoke transactions can also be used against you. "grown and have a ton of security features and is still getting finetuned" is also true of crypto
- paulryanrogers 4y ago> ...which nobody else has control over. Control may be distributed, though it certainly is there. And crypto requires no party have too much control over the hash rate or else the advantage over traditional finance is lost. > ...but it eliminates the need for middlemen... Not technically. Even crypto-to-crypto trades still involve miners at least. And if it's L2 then you're trusting that middleman. Then for the family to get useful fiat from crypto they need an exchange.
- alexb_ 4y agoRemittances and online retail is already done quite well with centralized systems. "Trustless decentralization" is only relevant when you are doing things illegal. Which, as it turns out, is the main usecase of cryptocurrency.
- tshaddox 4y ago“Nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide” goes back even further than 2012.
- alexb_ 4y agoThat has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. What I am saying is that cryptocurrencies are so horrible in every way except anonymity that the ONLY reason you would use it is for illegal activities, speculation, or paranoia.
- jack_pp 4y agos/cryptocurrencies/encrypted communcation
- runarberg 4y agoIt isn’t even that good at anonymity for the most frequent use case compared to alternatives. By far the most transactions that may benefit anonymity are local and involve relatively low values. Cash is a perfect fit for that and gives you even more (and a lot easier) anonymity then cryptocoins. Cryptocoins only prove them selfs superior if the transaction is located to far away to conveniently travel, or involves such large sums that gathering or carrying as cash becomes inconvenient (or impossible). I would think that over 99.99% of people never engage in such transactions where they additionally require—or even prefer—anonymity.
- nyolfen 4y agoi personally use it as a passive, diversified savings instrument, but i don't mess with altcoins or trading. most crypto is actually exceptionally bad for anonymity, worse than cash, and the proportion of criminal activity it facilitates is 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than the conventional economy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=3572219b3432 https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-fal... it is in fact so bad for anonymity that i suspect you have not read much about it! i don't disagree that it features a lot of hype bubbles and ridiculous speculation, but that's hardly specific to cryptocurrency. how's your local housing market been looking lately?
- polygamous_bat 4y agoMaybe people wouldn't repeat the 2012 talking points 10 years later if crypto had improved in any way since then. But no, all that has happened is the growth of a massive speculative bubble on top, while the fundamental issues remain the same.
- low_tech_love 4y agoA trustless descentralized system that manages to process a handful of operations a second by spending as much energy as a country?
- anothernewdude 4y agoremittances - money laundering. online retail - drug & illegal sales - essentially money laundering trustless decentralized computational systems - There is still trust, it's just in the code. Which also tells you how "decentralized" they are.
- nyolfen 4y agoi urge you to think about things a little bit before talking