6 ms·

The value that cryptocurrency provides is as a payment network between less trustworthy parties. In cryptocurrency, there is a net transfer of wealth from users

The value that cryptocurrency provides is as a payment network between less trustworthy parties. In cryptocurrency, there is a net transfer of wealth from users (in the form of transaction fees) and owners (in the form of inflation/block reward) to miners, who provide value by securing the network. But I agree that in terms of literal dollars, you could define some sort of "Gauss' Law of Economics" along the lines of: The amount of dollars a financial entity has is equal to the time-integral of the rate of dollars entering the system minus the rate of dollars leaving the system.

bluelightning2k 4y ago
The argument that the payments themselves are a service (while valid) has to be broadly competitive with the mainstream alternative. So for "securing the network" crypto is very, very clearly less secure than conventional payments. (Far more hacks, defaults, and not centrally backed by government). And the fees charged are vastly more and vastly slower. The service is therefore so much worse at such a higher cost that it seems more like the arbitrary product that a Multi Level Marketing firm ostensibly sells than a real offering. (And the only real USP of "enables criminal activity" is not a valid USP that anyone should allow or touch.)
- cowtools 4y ago
  There are cryptocurrency systems like Nano or GNU Taler which can be broadly competitive with the alternatives AFIK, so long you are using them in a peer-to-peer manner that doesn't involve Fiat. >And the fees charged are vastly more and vastly slower. ...If you are using a system like Bitcoin or Etherium that has poorly-adjusted artificial limitations on consensus bandwidth. Yes, the cryptocurrency market at large needs a wake up call. >And the only real USP of "enables criminal activity" is not a valid USP that anyone should allow or touch. I don't think all less-trustworthy payments should fall under this umbrella of "criminal activity". If I want to send some money to a anonymous person on IRC, I'm not going to give them my credit card info let alone paypal because they're attached to my personal information which could be used to blackmail/dox me. There is a reasonable use-case for giving the average person the same privacy they expect from cash, but with the ability to make transfers over the internet (that are signed in a secure way!). But in any case the whole point of cryptocurrency is to act non-permissively. You might be right to disagree with its criminal use, especially if you live in a free society (where we agree on definitions of crime that are non-authoritarian). But regardless of what either of us think, the system will continue to develop as long as there is financial interest in DN infrastructure and the cryptography is sound.
  - hnthrow1010 4y ago
    >There are cryptocurrency systems like Nano or GNU Taler Nano has the same ponzi-like economics as the rest of the cryptocurrencies so that's a no-go. GNU Taler is explicitly not a cryptocurrency, in particular it should not be used in a fully peer-to-peer manner, there needs to be a centralized operator that's legally required to hold the funds backing the tokens. That thing that stablecoins were supposed to do, but didn't because crypto companies don't care about actually being honest or responsible with customers' money. >that doesn't involve Fiat. By definition, all cryptocurrency involves fiat because all cryptocurrencies are technically also fiat money. Tokens in a ledger don't have any inherent value or consuming demand, they're backed by nothing but empty promises. >There is a reasonable use-case for giving the average person the same privacy they expect from cash, but with the ability to make transfers over the internet (that are signed in a secure way!). This has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. You don't need to invent a new currency to have a privately signed transaction. Innovation should keep happening in payment systems (with the full involvement of regulators) but it's hard to do that when these fraudulent crypto companies are hogging up all the mindshare and promoting the (false) idea that blockchains are the one true way to accomplish this. They aren't even a good way to accomplish it! >the system will continue to develop as long as there is financial interest in DN infrastructure I certainly hope not. All the more reason to make it illegal ASAP.
    - cowtools 4y ago
      >Nano has the same ponzi-like economics as the rest of the cryptocurrencies so that's a no-go. Then fork it yourself and change the tokenomics to suit your interests. If others agree with you, then your fork may become popular and useful. >GNU Taler is explicitly not a cryptocurrency, in particular it should not be used in a fully peer-to-peer manner, there needs to be a centralized operator that's legally required to hold the funds backing the tokens The issuer does not need to be legally anything. What you need is for the peers to trust the issuer not to double spend. If the law enables that, then so be it, but the GNU Taler system can also function as part of an extralegal system. >That thing that stablecoins were supposed to do, but didn't because crypto companies don't care about actually being honest or responsible with customers' money. The difference between GNU Taler and stablecoins is that stablecoins encourage custodial "staking" AKA investing in ponzi schemes. Whereas in GNU Taler, the issuer can only charge the users on withdrawls/deposits like a typical bank. "because crypto companies don't care about actually being honest or responsible with customers' money?" Please. Users gravitate towards ponzi schemes because they want to be the ones scamming, even if odds are they're getting scammed themselves. The investors are the ones that instigate this behavior, whether that's through a lack of due diligence or otherwise. >Tokens in a ledger don't have any inherent value or consuming demand, they're backed by nothing but empty promises. There is no need for cryptocurrencies to be "backed" by gold, because creating coins or double-spending is non-trivial, so there is no desperate need for additional assurances. The goal of cryptocurrency is not to be a sound investment but instead a useful medium of exchange. To that end, it only needs to ensure its value in the short-term. Cryptocurrencies are not backed by "empty promises". They are not backed by anything at all. If users have an expectation that they will be able to redeem their cryptocurrency for goods and services in the (near) future, then it may be valuable for them if they find utility in it versus some other payment method. But they own that risk themselves, regardless of what snake-oil salesmen will tell them. >I certainly hope not. All the more reason to make it illegal ASAP. I agree. We need to make crime illegal again. Should civilians have access to military-grade cryptography? Bring back the crypto wars!

bluelightning2k 4y ago

The argument that the payments themselves are a service (while valid) has to be broadly competitive with the mainstream alternative. So for "securing the network" crypto is very, very clearly less secure than conventional payments. (Far more hacks, defaults, and not centrally backed by government). And the fees charged are vastly more and vastly slower. The service is therefore so much worse at such a higher cost that it seems more like the arbitrary product that a Multi Level Marketing firm ostensibly sells than a real offering. (And the only real USP of "enables criminal activity" is not a valid USP that anyone should allow or touch.)

cowtools 4y ago
There are cryptocurrency systems like Nano or GNU Taler which can be broadly competitive with the alternatives AFIK, so long you are using them in a peer-to-peer manner that doesn't involve Fiat. >And the fees charged are vastly more and vastly slower. ...If you are using a system like Bitcoin or Etherium that has poorly-adjusted artificial limitations on consensus bandwidth. Yes, the cryptocurrency market at large needs a wake up call. >And the only real USP of "enables criminal activity" is not a valid USP that anyone should allow or touch. I don't think all less-trustworthy payments should fall under this umbrella of "criminal activity". If I want to send some money to a anonymous person on IRC, I'm not going to give them my credit card info let alone paypal because they're attached to my personal information which could be used to blackmail/dox me. There is a reasonable use-case for giving the average person the same privacy they expect from cash, but with the ability to make transfers over the internet (that are signed in a secure way!). But in any case the whole point of cryptocurrency is to act non-permissively. You might be right to disagree with its criminal use, especially if you live in a free society (where we agree on definitions of crime that are non-authoritarian). But regardless of what either of us think, the system will continue to develop as long as there is financial interest in DN infrastructure and the cryptography is sound.
- hnthrow1010 4y ago
  >There are cryptocurrency systems like Nano or GNU Taler Nano has the same ponzi-like economics as the rest of the cryptocurrencies so that's a no-go. GNU Taler is explicitly not a cryptocurrency, in particular it should not be used in a fully peer-to-peer manner, there needs to be a centralized operator that's legally required to hold the funds backing the tokens. That thing that stablecoins were supposed to do, but didn't because crypto companies don't care about actually being honest or responsible with customers' money. >that doesn't involve Fiat. By definition, all cryptocurrency involves fiat because all cryptocurrencies are technically also fiat money. Tokens in a ledger don't have any inherent value or consuming demand, they're backed by nothing but empty promises. >There is a reasonable use-case for giving the average person the same privacy they expect from cash, but with the ability to make transfers over the internet (that are signed in a secure way!). This has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. You don't need to invent a new currency to have a privately signed transaction. Innovation should keep happening in payment systems (with the full involvement of regulators) but it's hard to do that when these fraudulent crypto companies are hogging up all the mindshare and promoting the (false) idea that blockchains are the one true way to accomplish this. They aren't even a good way to accomplish it! >the system will continue to develop as long as there is financial interest in DN infrastructure I certainly hope not. All the more reason to make it illegal ASAP.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    >Nano has the same ponzi-like economics as the rest of the cryptocurrencies so that's a no-go. Then fork it yourself and change the tokenomics to suit your interests. If others agree with you, then your fork may become popular and useful. >GNU Taler is explicitly not a cryptocurrency, in particular it should not be used in a fully peer-to-peer manner, there needs to be a centralized operator that's legally required to hold the funds backing the tokens The issuer does not need to be legally anything. What you need is for the peers to trust the issuer not to double spend. If the law enables that, then so be it, but the GNU Taler system can also function as part of an extralegal system. >That thing that stablecoins were supposed to do, but didn't because crypto companies don't care about actually being honest or responsible with customers' money. The difference between GNU Taler and stablecoins is that stablecoins encourage custodial "staking" AKA investing in ponzi schemes. Whereas in GNU Taler, the issuer can only charge the users on withdrawls/deposits like a typical bank. "because crypto companies don't care about actually being honest or responsible with customers' money?" Please. Users gravitate towards ponzi schemes because they want to be the ones scamming, even if odds are they're getting scammed themselves. The investors are the ones that instigate this behavior, whether that's through a lack of due diligence or otherwise. >Tokens in a ledger don't have any inherent value or consuming demand, they're backed by nothing but empty promises. There is no need for cryptocurrencies to be "backed" by gold, because creating coins or double-spending is non-trivial, so there is no desperate need for additional assurances. The goal of cryptocurrency is not to be a sound investment but instead a useful medium of exchange. To that end, it only needs to ensure its value in the short-term. Cryptocurrencies are not backed by "empty promises". They are not backed by anything at all. If users have an expectation that they will be able to redeem their cryptocurrency for goods and services in the (near) future, then it may be valuable for them if they find utility in it versus some other payment method. But they own that risk themselves, regardless of what snake-oil salesmen will tell them. >I certainly hope not. All the more reason to make it illegal ASAP. I agree. We need to make crime illegal again. Should civilians have access to military-grade cryptography? Bring back the crypto wars!