4 ms·

This is sarcasm, right?

by throwingrocks 4y ago

swarnie 4y ago
Its hard to tell with this particular cult.
- prtkgpt 4y ago
redox99 4y ago
Why sarcasm? Centralized crypto "banking" institutions are the worst of both worlds. You are giving away your money to someone else, and there are no regulations to protect you from being screwed over by them. With DeFi (decentralized finance) you have transparency over what the smart contract does. (Of course you have to be careful because a lot of things claim to be decentralized but are actually centralized)
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > With DeFi (decentralized finance) you have transparency over what the smart contract does. No, you don't. People find subtle bugs in open source code all the time, some of them disastrous. Unintentional bugs in smart contracts have lost tens of millions of dollars multiple times; imagine what you could accomplish with intentional holes. Parity lost $280M alone. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/accidental-bug-may-have-frozen-280-worth-of-ether-on-parity-wallet.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/accidental-bug-may-have-froz...
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Thats a major problem, but it's a different problem to the one OP is talking about - some shady guy taking or misusing your money on a whim
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      What if said shady guy wrote a subtle bug into the contract intentionally?
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Has this ever happened or its just a hypothetical?
  - redox99 4y ago
    Smart contracts for sure have their issues. But I would still choose a smart contract any time over these crypto companies which are completely opaque and unregulated, and basically "just trust me bro".
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      That's a false dichotomy; "neither" is an option.
- throwingrocks 4y ago
  It seems that the remaining players will get larger leading to more centralization.
k__ 4y ago
How come? There are many people in crypto who aren't fond of companies like Coinbase or OpenSea. The helped to make things a bit more mainstream, but they aren't paragons of decentralization.
- highwaylights 4y ago
  Yeah, but de-fi had already been done successfully in the early 2000's well before Bitcoin and still didn't pan out in the end.
  - k__ 4y ago
    Done successfully and didn't pan out?!
    - highwaylights 4y ago
      Exactly! The infrastructure worked. The concept did exactly what it was supposed to. 100% successful. .. and yet lending to unreliable borrowers that no-one else wanted was still a stupid idea.
  - redox99 4y ago
    What are you referring to?
    - highwaylights 4y ago
      P2P lending. Or “De-Fi” as the children call it.

This is sarcasm, right?

swarnie 4y ago

Its hard to tell with this particular cult.

prtkgpt 4y ago

redox99 4y ago

Why sarcasm? Centralized crypto "banking" institutions are the worst of both worlds. You are giving away your money to someone else, and there are no regulations to protect you from being screwed over by them. With DeFi (decentralized finance) you have transparency over what the smart contract does. (Of course you have to be careful because a lot of things claim to be decentralized but are actually centralized)

ceejayoz 4y ago
> With DeFi (decentralized finance) you have transparency over what the smart contract does. No, you don't. People find subtle bugs in open source code all the time, some of them disastrous. Unintentional bugs in smart contracts have lost tens of millions of dollars multiple times; imagine what you could accomplish with intentional holes. Parity lost $280M alone. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/accidental-bug-may-have-frozen-280-worth-of-ether-on-parity-wallet.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/accidental-bug-may-have-froz...
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Thats a major problem, but it's a different problem to the one OP is talking about - some shady guy taking or misusing your money on a whim
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    What if said shady guy wrote a subtle bug into the contract intentionally?
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Has this ever happened or its just a hypothetical?
- redox99 4y ago
  Smart contracts for sure have their issues. But I would still choose a smart contract any time over these crypto companies which are completely opaque and unregulated, and basically "just trust me bro".
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    That's a false dichotomy; "neither" is an option.
throwingrocks 4y ago
It seems that the remaining players will get larger leading to more centralization.

k__ 4y ago

How come? There are many people in crypto who aren't fond of companies like Coinbase or OpenSea. The helped to make things a bit more mainstream, but they aren't paragons of decentralization.

highwaylights 4y ago
Yeah, but de-fi had already been done successfully in the early 2000's well before Bitcoin and still didn't pan out in the end.
- k__ 4y ago
  Done successfully and didn't pan out?!
  - highwaylights 4y ago
    Exactly! The infrastructure worked. The concept did exactly what it was supposed to. 100% successful. .. and yet lending to unreliable borrowers that no-one else wanted was still a stupid idea.
- redox99 4y ago
  What are you referring to?
  - highwaylights 4y ago
    P2P lending. Or “De-Fi” as the children call it.