6 ms·

I really don't understand why people don't get the idea of "digital native". Just because verbal agreements worked for thousands of years doesn't make written

I really don't understand why people don't get the idea of "digital native". Just because verbal agreements worked for thousands of years doesn't make written contracts pointless. Similarly the banking industry technically does "online banking" but they still have to process each transaction through archaic practices that mimic physical transactions.

buzzdenver 4y ago
Sorry, I'm not following how what you posted related to my comment.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Let me take a crack at interpreting it: your comment of "crypto is meant for decentralization, lots of people use exchanges, exchanges are centralized like banks, ergo crypto is just as bad as the legacy financial system" presents a false dichotomy. Crypto adoption does not need to be a binary decision, and crypto enthusiasts are not hypocrites if they still have a bank account or if they still use exchanges when it suits them. The important thing about crypto is optionality. Crypto/web3 gives us the option (but not the obligation) of managing our own wealth. This is something that "digital natives" understand better than old timers.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    > Crypto/web3 gives us the option (but not the obligation) of managing our own wealth. This is something that "digital natives" understand better than old timers. Before crypto/web3 one couldn't manage one's own wealth? C'mon.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      Simple exercise: go to your bank today and try to withdraw $100k. Alternatively: go apply for a mortgage if you have 80% for a down payment, a way to prove the legitimacy of the funds, but little-to-no credit history.
      - buzzdenver 4y ago
        Things might have changed since I bought property a few years ago, but back then I just took a screenshot of my bank account and tried to keep a straight face when giving it to my realtor.
      - neatze 4y ago
        You will have no problem withdrawing 100K, and substantially more, depending on branch you might need to call ahead of time, a many years ago there was poker night somewhere on wall street with 600K cash bonus, yep actual cash in office on table.
        rglullis 4y ago
        Ok bigshot, you are missing the forest for the tree. Try doing the same on the equivalent amount with a bank from Brazil or Greece.
        casion 4y ago
        Ah yes, using examples of currency trade being halted as an example of how crypto is a solution of some sort.
        rglullis 4y ago
        Ok, seems like people really don't read the whole thread before making the same used up retort: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31463534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31463534
        neatze 4y ago
        At least most banks across the world have liquidity requirements, and most have some insurance for limited amounts, for example if you want to open your own bank in Cayman's you need to have 30-50 million in liquid assets such bonds and gold deposits, it is similar for US banks, if recall correctly. You might be able to transfer bitcoins from valet to valet, but they will be effectively useless, if banks stop releasing cash, cash will be the most valuable commodity, not digital bits. Furthermore, during the 90's (the really crazy times) in Russia many were doing bond trading just fine without any issues and without internet, this not some story, it happens so I met a few survivors from that time. On another hand, the only useful thing I find for bitcoin that is "legal" is contributing to sci-hub projects, nothing else, for this reason and other reasons such as drugs and money laundering, bitcoin is here to stay.
  - buzzdenver 4y ago
    Gotcha. You have the option to manage your own NFT-s or BTC, but if 99% of the users are accessing the ecosystem thru centralized actors, then sooner than later you'll have issues interacting with those users. Think running your own mail server and trying to send an email to a friend on Gmail. Coinbase might put a hold on the BTC you send to a friend because it was coming from an untrusted source. We are back to web2.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      No, you missed the point. There is no divide between "those using an exchange" and "those using their own wallet". No one is forced to exclusively use one or other. The divide is along the line of "how much of each individual's portfolio is on a CEX?". I can have 10% of my crypto holdings (for occasional trading or on/off ramping) on an exchange and the rest on my own wallet (for DeFI). You can not do that on a bank. If you think a bank is in trouble, you can only move your funds to another bank. If one exchange starts acting up, its users will learn how to move more to their own wallet. It is not a random example: go to /r/loopringorg and see all the screenshots of the people who finally learn how to use the Loopring protocol/wallet and taking their holdings from Coinbase. Now imagine if there were rumors that an exchange would start unilaterally trying to control what users could do? They would lose their customers. They are centralized, but the balance of power is in favor of the us users because we have options.
      - majormajor 4y ago
        "If you think a bank is in trouble, you can only move your funds to another bank." or to land, or to gold, or to stocks, or to bonds, or to foreign assets, or to cash, or to guns, or to Pokemon cards... all sorts of "not in a bank" options are available. Banks have competition with not just other banks but the whole financial ecosystem. And if a government is after you, some of those are actually harder to trace than crypto.
        rglullis 4y ago
        Your first five items are simply not available for poorer people. It's basically "let them eat cake". Holding cash can lead a whole community to what happened in India. Guns are not liquid. Pokemon cards are easy to be counterfeit.
mdoms 4y ago

buzzdenver 4y ago

Sorry, I'm not following how what you posted related to my comment.

rglullis 4y ago
Let me take a crack at interpreting it: your comment of "crypto is meant for decentralization, lots of people use exchanges, exchanges are centralized like banks, ergo crypto is just as bad as the legacy financial system" presents a false dichotomy. Crypto adoption does not need to be a binary decision, and crypto enthusiasts are not hypocrites if they still have a bank account or if they still use exchanges when it suits them. The important thing about crypto is optionality. Crypto/web3 gives us the option (but not the obligation) of managing our own wealth. This is something that "digital natives" understand better than old timers.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > Crypto/web3 gives us the option (but not the obligation) of managing our own wealth. This is something that "digital natives" understand better than old timers. Before crypto/web3 one couldn't manage one's own wealth? C'mon.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Simple exercise: go to your bank today and try to withdraw $100k. Alternatively: go apply for a mortgage if you have 80% for a down payment, a way to prove the legitimacy of the funds, but little-to-no credit history.
    - buzzdenver 4y ago
      Things might have changed since I bought property a few years ago, but back then I just took a screenshot of my bank account and tried to keep a straight face when giving it to my realtor.
    - neatze 4y ago
      You will have no problem withdrawing 100K, and substantially more, depending on branch you might need to call ahead of time, a many years ago there was poker night somewhere on wall street with 600K cash bonus, yep actual cash in office on table.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        Ok bigshot, you are missing the forest for the tree. Try doing the same on the equivalent amount with a bank from Brazil or Greece.
        casion 4y ago
        Ah yes, using examples of currency trade being halted as an example of how crypto is a solution of some sort.
        rglullis 4y ago
        Ok, seems like people really don't read the whole thread before making the same used up retort: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31463534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31463534
        neatze 4y ago
        At least most banks across the world have liquidity requirements, and most have some insurance for limited amounts, for example if you want to open your own bank in Cayman's you need to have 30-50 million in liquid assets such bonds and gold deposits, it is similar for US banks, if recall correctly. You might be able to transfer bitcoins from valet to valet, but they will be effectively useless, if banks stop releasing cash, cash will be the most valuable commodity, not digital bits. Furthermore, during the 90's (the really crazy times) in Russia many were doing bond trading just fine without any issues and without internet, this not some story, it happens so I met a few survivors from that time. On another hand, the only useful thing I find for bitcoin that is "legal" is contributing to sci-hub projects, nothing else, for this reason and other reasons such as drugs and money laundering, bitcoin is here to stay.
- buzzdenver 4y ago
  Gotcha. You have the option to manage your own NFT-s or BTC, but if 99% of the users are accessing the ecosystem thru centralized actors, then sooner than later you'll have issues interacting with those users. Think running your own mail server and trying to send an email to a friend on Gmail. Coinbase might put a hold on the BTC you send to a friend because it was coming from an untrusted source. We are back to web2.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    No, you missed the point. There is no divide between "those using an exchange" and "those using their own wallet". No one is forced to exclusively use one or other. The divide is along the line of "how much of each individual's portfolio is on a CEX?". I can have 10% of my crypto holdings (for occasional trading or on/off ramping) on an exchange and the rest on my own wallet (for DeFI). You can not do that on a bank. If you think a bank is in trouble, you can only move your funds to another bank. If one exchange starts acting up, its users will learn how to move more to their own wallet. It is not a random example: go to /r/loopringorg and see all the screenshots of the people who finally learn how to use the Loopring protocol/wallet and taking their holdings from Coinbase. Now imagine if there were rumors that an exchange would start unilaterally trying to control what users could do? They would lose their customers. They are centralized, but the balance of power is in favor of the us users because we have options.
    - majormajor 4y ago
      "If you think a bank is in trouble, you can only move your funds to another bank." or to land, or to gold, or to stocks, or to bonds, or to foreign assets, or to cash, or to guns, or to Pokemon cards... all sorts of "not in a bank" options are available. Banks have competition with not just other banks but the whole financial ecosystem. And if a government is after you, some of those are actually harder to trace than crypto.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        Your first five items are simply not available for poorer people. It's basically "let them eat cake". Holding cash can lead a whole community to what happened in India. Guns are not liquid. Pokemon cards are easy to be counterfeit.

mdoms 4y ago