4 ms·

> theoretically sound "theoretically" here means, with cooperation from the local state, who agrees not to seize the assets. And cooperation from the local or

by jMyles 4y ago

> theoretically sound "theoretically" here means, with cooperation from the local state, who agrees not to seize the assets. And cooperation from the local organized crime syndicate, who agrees not to seize the assets. And with a consensus-driven on-chain oracle representing the auditing process, the key custody of which is entrusted to... someone. I'm just baffled that on HN of all places we're saying we prefer violent paleo-economic solutions to mathematical verifiability.

FabHK 4y ago
1. There is no mathematical verifiability for a purely algorithmic stable coin. You're dreaming of a mirage. A perpetuum mobile. 2. Your mathematically verified coin offers no protection against the state or crime syndicate, either (see xkcd about 50 years ago).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nemothekid 4y ago
>"theoretically" here means, with cooperation from the local state, who agrees not to seize the assets The local state is a boogeyman here to prop up the cyclical scams of stablecoins. There is nothing mathematical verifiable in meatspace; you only have trust. Somehow despite there being 0 cases of the USG seizing legitimate crypto assets, and several failures of algorithmic stablecoins, the "boring" option is still being fearmongered as unsafe. The mathematical verifiability of Terra was supposedly meant that it would only lose its peg once in a million years based off of thousands of simulations. Turned out, shockingly, mathematical verifiability and economics don't mix all that well and I won't be surprised if "mathematical verifiability" of any of these stable coins is NP-hard. But it's baffling than HN prefers paleo-economic solutions to trying to solve NP-hard problems.
- jMyles 4y ago
  > The mathematical verifiability of Terra was supposedly meant Yeah, but nobody believed that. Just like now, we all know the other shoe is going to drop on Tether. We all know it. Are you going to feign surprise when that happens too?
- rtkwe 4y ago
  The bigger issue with the off-chain backed coins is verifying assets. I think it's pretty well accepted now that Tether was just lying about their cash reserves in the beginning and now don't even try to claim they're backed with cash but a dubious opaque mix of commercial debt, cash, and crypto.
- jMyles 4y ago
  Casting the state as a phantom, rather than a real and challenging obstacle, is ignoring one of the primary motivations for ongoing development of the internet. Of course we don't want structures in this realm that rely on the predatory societal organization of humanity's childhood. The whole point is to move past that. I'm not saying blockchain tech does that on its own of course - and I think we all recognize that some of the asinine and childish habits of capitalism are leaking into crypto. Nevertheless, to be internally consistent certainly means that the role of the state (even if it has been on relatively good behavior in this limited aspect lately) needs to be taken seriously in the context of the system. It's far better to craft solutions that are more difficult for the state to compromise. How is this even in dispute? (Or have I misunderstood your argument?)

by jMyles 4y ago

FabHK 4y ago

1. There is no mathematical verifiability for a purely algorithmic stable coin. You're dreaming of a mirage. A perpetuum mobile. 2. Your mathematically verified coin offers no protection against the state or crime syndicate, either (see xkcd about 50 years ago).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nemothekid 4y ago

>"theoretically" here means, with cooperation from the local state, who agrees not to seize the assets The local state is a boogeyman here to prop up the cyclical scams of stablecoins. There is nothing mathematical verifiable in meatspace; you only have trust. Somehow despite there being 0 cases of the USG seizing legitimate crypto assets, and several failures of algorithmic stablecoins, the "boring" option is still being fearmongered as unsafe. The mathematical verifiability of Terra was supposedly meant that it would only lose its peg once in a million years based off of thousands of simulations. Turned out, shockingly, mathematical verifiability and economics don't mix all that well and I won't be surprised if "mathematical verifiability" of any of these stable coins is NP-hard. But it's baffling than HN prefers paleo-economic solutions to trying to solve NP-hard problems.

jMyles 4y ago
> The mathematical verifiability of Terra was supposedly meant Yeah, but nobody believed that. Just like now, we all know the other shoe is going to drop on Tether. We all know it. Are you going to feign surprise when that happens too?
rtkwe 4y ago
The bigger issue with the off-chain backed coins is verifying assets. I think it's pretty well accepted now that Tether was just lying about their cash reserves in the beginning and now don't even try to claim they're backed with cash but a dubious opaque mix of commercial debt, cash, and crypto.
jMyles 4y ago
Casting the state as a phantom, rather than a real and challenging obstacle, is ignoring one of the primary motivations for ongoing development of the internet. Of course we don't want structures in this realm that rely on the predatory societal organization of humanity's childhood. The whole point is to move past that. I'm not saying blockchain tech does that on its own of course - and I think we all recognize that some of the asinine and childish habits of capitalism are leaking into crypto. Nevertheless, to be internally consistent certainly means that the role of the state (even if it has been on relatively good behavior in this limited aspect lately) needs to be taken seriously in the context of the system. It's far better to craft solutions that are more difficult for the state to compromise. How is this even in dispute? (Or have I misunderstood your argument?)