3 ms·

Like with ballots tied to people’s real identity in some kind of “polling station”?

bawolff 4y ago
If you're willing to admit a central authority to authenticate who can and cannot vote, cryptocurrency becomes easy. Really bitcoin is fundamentally trying to solve the problem that its impossible to tell who is a "real" person on the internet. If you dont have that problem everything is trivial.
- boltzmann-brain 4y ago
  Indeed, for more nuance here's a full explanation of the problem being dealt with by various Proof of Whatever algorithms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack They always rely on scarcity of something: scarcity of processing power, scarcity of being on the ledger of the blockchain and owning an amount of currency, scarcity of hard disk space, etc.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  So what you're saying is, bitcoin was always useless in sufficiently advanced society, like mine, where I routinely verify my identity online through my bank?
  - funklute 4y ago
    Interestingly, the original bitcoin white-paper had a motivating example that basically amounted to side-stepping banks, because banks do not provide fully non-reversible transactions. In essence, bitcoin was a technological solution to a problem which would have been solved more elegantly by changing financial laws, and requiring banks to offer non-reversible transactions. (the problem with that is obviously that it could be used for fraud, but then you get into the whole debate about freedom vs protection)
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > In essence, bitcoin was a technological solution to a problem which would have been solved more elegantly by changing financial laws, and requiring banks to offer non-reversible transactions. Ahh, this may explain why I don't see how cryptocurrency is a good thing. I consider the fact that banks do not allow fully non-reversible transactions as a very strongly desirable feature, not a bug to be done away with.
      - funklute 4y ago
        And I think this is a very valid viewpoint. Clearly, many people think the same, otherwise we'd already have non-reversible transactions in the conventional banking system.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    I mean, yes. If you read the bitcoin paper it very clearly talks about what problems it is trying to solve, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. Whether or not it is useless really depends how much you value independence from a central authority (i was originally going to say anonoyminity, but if you only care about anonoyminity, digicash is a much better solution than bitcoin)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

If you're willing to admit a central authority to authenticate who can and cannot vote, cryptocurrency becomes easy. Really bitcoin is fundamentally trying to solve the problem that its impossible to tell who is a "real" person on the internet. If you dont have that problem everything is trivial.

boltzmann-brain 4y ago
Indeed, for more nuance here's a full explanation of the problem being dealt with by various Proof of Whatever algorithms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack They always rely on scarcity of something: scarcity of processing power, scarcity of being on the ledger of the blockchain and owning an amount of currency, scarcity of hard disk space, etc.
hypertele-Xii 4y ago
So what you're saying is, bitcoin was always useless in sufficiently advanced society, like mine, where I routinely verify my identity online through my bank?
- funklute 4y ago
  Interestingly, the original bitcoin white-paper had a motivating example that basically amounted to side-stepping banks, because banks do not provide fully non-reversible transactions. In essence, bitcoin was a technological solution to a problem which would have been solved more elegantly by changing financial laws, and requiring banks to offer non-reversible transactions. (the problem with that is obviously that it could be used for fraud, but then you get into the whole debate about freedom vs protection)
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > In essence, bitcoin was a technological solution to a problem which would have been solved more elegantly by changing financial laws, and requiring banks to offer non-reversible transactions. Ahh, this may explain why I don't see how cryptocurrency is a good thing. I consider the fact that banks do not allow fully non-reversible transactions as a very strongly desirable feature, not a bug to be done away with.
    - funklute 4y ago
      And I think this is a very valid viewpoint. Clearly, many people think the same, otherwise we'd already have non-reversible transactions in the conventional banking system.
- bawolff 4y ago
  I mean, yes. If you read the bitcoin paper it very clearly talks about what problems it is trying to solve, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. Whether or not it is useless really depends how much you value independence from a central authority (i was originally going to say anonoyminity, but if you only care about anonoyminity, digicash is a much better solution than bitcoin)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]