3 ms·

I absolutely agree it’s not ready for regular people to use. > I've been hearing the Western Union usurper argument since 2010. I doubt any of the people makin

I absolutely agree it’s not ready for regular people to use. > I've been hearing the Western Union usurper argument since 2010. I doubt any of the people making those arguments actually use those services. I know you weren’t talking about me but I’ve actually used western Union, and while it wasn’t bad, it wasn’t a particularly pleasant nor pain free experience either. Wise is EXCELLENT though. More importantly, money exchangers and check caching places extract a TREMENDOUS toll on people who are forced to use them, and the prospect that could change is actually pretty good. Up until now the main issue was the wastefulness and lack of scale/purpose fit of blockchain. It seems like ETH is poised to solve those things where BTC was stuck due to the interests of miners. There are problems, but it really does feel like blockchain might have just finished it’s infancy (the scam era, let’s say). Maybe I should publish something longer form on this. I had something written then chose to self censor

rchaud 4y ago
I would suggest you do write something up, because there is a lot of myopia among the pro-crypto crowd about the real-world challenges of cross-border fund transfers. There is often an enormous difference in the tech-savviness of people that send the money, relative to those who collect that money. Crypto assumes similar levels of knowledge between both parties, which is how you end up with people sending ETH to a BTC address, causing it to fall out of the money circulation entirely. I too have worked in the money services business, so I know the good and bad about these companies. They are by no means angels, but they work within the regulatory systems of the countries in which they operate and that creates costs and bureaucracy. But it also prevents problems that most of the crypto sector likely doesn't see, due to lack of real world logistical experience.
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  > I would suggest you do write something up, because there is a lot of myopia among the pro-crypto crowd about the real-world challenges of cross-border fund transfers. Will do! I am confident I have the same misgivings but the base assumption here is that cross border fund transfers are hard, but crypto gives the system a chance to be rebuilt (with technology that's much more traceable, as well) -- without governments funding development and doing the political wrangling and horse trading to get on one system. I'll try to lay this simpler thought out even simpler (for my own sake) -- If nation X and nation Y trust Coinbase, and have negotiated how to off ramp, and Coinbase satisfies KYC with both countries/participating institutions, we can theoretically do away with SWIFT + TARGET2 or VISA at the end of the day. What Coinbase as done is also not so unassailable (where as VISA very much is), so there will be many Coinbases, and this will drive prices down. > There is often an enormous difference in the tech-savviness of people that send the money, relative to those who collect that money. Crypto assumes similar levels of knowledge between both parties, which is how you end up with people sending ETH to a BTC address, causing it to fall out of the money circulation entirely. I agree -- I think this assumption of Crypto is optimistic and wrong. But, I also see this as opportunity -- this is a problem to be solved. Crypto needs people willing to do the hard work of building reliable, trustable, and reversible transactions, and essentially re-imagining what transactions, contract enforcement, and escrow look like without the threat of violence from one government in particular. Maybe people shouldn't manage their own crypto wallets at all -- maybe they should be managed custodially -- that's an industry that needs to spring up. I know this is peak crypto-bull-speak but I assure you I am not a crypto bull (I literally do not hold any) -- but I can really imagine the recreation of the modern bank. An entity you trust to manage your crypto and help you make purchases/safeguard your money that takes drastically less fees than the modern bank. I could Trust and reputation becoming paramount, moreso because there is less recourse.
  - rchaud 4y ago
    > An entity you trust to manage your crypto and help you make purchases/safeguard your money that takes drastically less fees than the modern bank I am interested to read your article as I am open to changing my mind, but I know for a fact that this quoted bit will not happen to any meaningful degree. In the scenario you posit, the market has to have consolidated around a few key players. Coinbase wins over Visa for instance. What incentive does CB then have to charge lower prices to merchants? Why shouldn't they help themselves to the same margins that Visa were enjoying?
    - hardwaresofton 4y ago
      > I am interested to read your article as I am open to changing my mind, but I know for a fact that this quoted bit will not happen to any meaningful degree. Well I am also open to changing my mind -- would you mind explaining how you know this? Is the implication here that the regulation and operational heft of banks will be sure to apply to any new challengers? > In the scenario you posit, the market has to have consolidated around a few key players. Coinbase wins over Visa for instance. What incentive does CB then have to charge lower prices to merchants? Why shouldn't they help themselves to the same margins that Visa were enjoying? I think that it's natural for markets to consolidate around a few key players, almost inevitable in the capitalistic system. I'm positing that it is much easier to challenge Coinbase than it is to challenge any existing banking infrastructure in the US, so you get a much better chance of actual competition and prices being pushed down. The pool of people who can start a crypto exchange and the group of people who can open up a bank in the US are of wildly different size.
smoldesu 4y ago
> it really does feel like blockchain might have just finished it’s infancy (the scam era, let’s say). I don't buy it? Structurally, nothing has really stopped the social engineering and manipulation of cryptocurrency. The same principles that made cryptocurrency attractive for scamming still hold true, and the audience of potential legitimate users shrinks with each passing day. I hate echoing the comment above, but I've been hearing this argument since 2012. Cryptocurrency will not graduate from it's scam phase unless it has a centralized judicial body to punish and correct wrongdoings. If that ever happens, cryptocurrency will have no tangible benefits when compared to centralized alternatives.
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  > I don't buy it? Structurally, nothing has really stopped the social engineering and manipulation of cryptocurrency. The same principles that made cryptocurrency attractive for scamming still hold true, and the audience of potential legitimate users shrinks with each passing day. Two things (excuse my curtness I think they are good points that can stand alone): - social engineering and manipulation is present in all forms of money, investments, etc -- it's human nature. Crypto essentially democratized it much like MLMs do. So I wouldn't call this a failing of crypto necessarily, but crypto did amplify the effect greatly. - I think "the audience of potential legitimate users shrinking every day passing day" will choke out scamming narrative along with the legitimate use narrative. Once this post-fire brush is cleared, new things (useful things with actual utility) may have a chance to grow. > I hate echoing the comment above, but I've been hearing this argument since 2012. Cryptocurrency will not graduate from it's scam phase unless it has a centralized judicial body to punish and correct wrongdoings. If that ever happens, cryptocurrency will have no tangible benefits when compared to centralized alternatives. It's a good argument (and it's not wrong either). As far as the judicial bodies, I do think that they can be distributed/federated though, and that small networks can grow with trust as currency, anew. Right now the established systems have found one way to encode trust via contracts and implied/actual force, etc. I think that crypto might be able to offer a new way to enforce trust for less serious/lighter use cases. I think of it this way -- do I need the full faith and credit of the united states government to buy a coffee? Maybe not. Also in making that statement I am fully aware that being money is one of the biggest failings of crypto so far, but I think PoS ETH2 + L2 + Sharding/rollups (future) will actually make it possible (in theory at least) to surpass VISA's transaction volume as a network. Also, I think there's a huge way crypto might be better than the traditional alternatives -- it represents a chance to redraw the boundaries. The current system is ossified -- even if crypto is simply a re-creation of the existing system with worse efficiency maybe it's similar to trying to change the engine in a moving plane/train/automobile. You build a second, possibly shittier engine which can be less tied to the mistakes of the first, switch to that, then maybe switch BACK to the original engine after upgrading/changing it. Optimistic, but I think the current success of PoS ETH2 (and the fact literally anyone else can take it and run their own) warrants some optimism.

rchaud 4y ago

I would suggest you do write something up, because there is a lot of myopia among the pro-crypto crowd about the real-world challenges of cross-border fund transfers. There is often an enormous difference in the tech-savviness of people that send the money, relative to those who collect that money. Crypto assumes similar levels of knowledge between both parties, which is how you end up with people sending ETH to a BTC address, causing it to fall out of the money circulation entirely. I too have worked in the money services business, so I know the good and bad about these companies. They are by no means angels, but they work within the regulatory systems of the countries in which they operate and that creates costs and bureaucracy. But it also prevents problems that most of the crypto sector likely doesn't see, due to lack of real world logistical experience.

hardwaresofton 4y ago
> I would suggest you do write something up, because there is a lot of myopia among the pro-crypto crowd about the real-world challenges of cross-border fund transfers. Will do! I am confident I have the same misgivings but the base assumption here is that cross border fund transfers are hard, but crypto gives the system a chance to be rebuilt (with technology that's much more traceable, as well) -- without governments funding development and doing the political wrangling and horse trading to get on one system. I'll try to lay this simpler thought out even simpler (for my own sake) -- If nation X and nation Y trust Coinbase, and have negotiated how to off ramp, and Coinbase satisfies KYC with both countries/participating institutions, we can theoretically do away with SWIFT + TARGET2 or VISA at the end of the day. What Coinbase as done is also not so unassailable (where as VISA very much is), so there will be many Coinbases, and this will drive prices down. > There is often an enormous difference in the tech-savviness of people that send the money, relative to those who collect that money. Crypto assumes similar levels of knowledge between both parties, which is how you end up with people sending ETH to a BTC address, causing it to fall out of the money circulation entirely. I agree -- I think this assumption of Crypto is optimistic and wrong. But, I also see this as opportunity -- this is a problem to be solved. Crypto needs people willing to do the hard work of building reliable, trustable, and reversible transactions, and essentially re-imagining what transactions, contract enforcement, and escrow look like without the threat of violence from one government in particular. Maybe people shouldn't manage their own crypto wallets at all -- maybe they should be managed custodially -- that's an industry that needs to spring up. I know this is peak crypto-bull-speak but I assure you I am not a crypto bull (I literally do not hold any) -- but I can really imagine the recreation of the modern bank. An entity you trust to manage your crypto and help you make purchases/safeguard your money that takes drastically less fees than the modern bank. I could Trust and reputation becoming paramount, moreso because there is less recourse.
- rchaud 4y ago
  > An entity you trust to manage your crypto and help you make purchases/safeguard your money that takes drastically less fees than the modern bank I am interested to read your article as I am open to changing my mind, but I know for a fact that this quoted bit will not happen to any meaningful degree. In the scenario you posit, the market has to have consolidated around a few key players. Coinbase wins over Visa for instance. What incentive does CB then have to charge lower prices to merchants? Why shouldn't they help themselves to the same margins that Visa were enjoying?
  - hardwaresofton 4y ago
    > I am interested to read your article as I am open to changing my mind, but I know for a fact that this quoted bit will not happen to any meaningful degree. Well I am also open to changing my mind -- would you mind explaining how you know this? Is the implication here that the regulation and operational heft of banks will be sure to apply to any new challengers? > In the scenario you posit, the market has to have consolidated around a few key players. Coinbase wins over Visa for instance. What incentive does CB then have to charge lower prices to merchants? Why shouldn't they help themselves to the same margins that Visa were enjoying? I think that it's natural for markets to consolidate around a few key players, almost inevitable in the capitalistic system. I'm positing that it is much easier to challenge Coinbase than it is to challenge any existing banking infrastructure in the US, so you get a much better chance of actual competition and prices being pushed down. The pool of people who can start a crypto exchange and the group of people who can open up a bank in the US are of wildly different size.

smoldesu 4y ago

> it really does feel like blockchain might have just finished it’s infancy (the scam era, let’s say). I don't buy it? Structurally, nothing has really stopped the social engineering and manipulation of cryptocurrency. The same principles that made cryptocurrency attractive for scamming still hold true, and the audience of potential legitimate users shrinks with each passing day. I hate echoing the comment above, but I've been hearing this argument since 2012. Cryptocurrency will not graduate from it's scam phase unless it has a centralized judicial body to punish and correct wrongdoings. If that ever happens, cryptocurrency will have no tangible benefits when compared to centralized alternatives.

hardwaresofton 4y ago
> I don't buy it? Structurally, nothing has really stopped the social engineering and manipulation of cryptocurrency. The same principles that made cryptocurrency attractive for scamming still hold true, and the audience of potential legitimate users shrinks with each passing day. Two things (excuse my curtness I think they are good points that can stand alone): - social engineering and manipulation is present in all forms of money, investments, etc -- it's human nature. Crypto essentially democratized it much like MLMs do. So I wouldn't call this a failing of crypto necessarily, but crypto did amplify the effect greatly. - I think "the audience of potential legitimate users shrinking every day passing day" will choke out scamming narrative along with the legitimate use narrative. Once this post-fire brush is cleared, new things (useful things with actual utility) may have a chance to grow. > I hate echoing the comment above, but I've been hearing this argument since 2012. Cryptocurrency will not graduate from it's scam phase unless it has a centralized judicial body to punish and correct wrongdoings. If that ever happens, cryptocurrency will have no tangible benefits when compared to centralized alternatives. It's a good argument (and it's not wrong either). As far as the judicial bodies, I do think that they can be distributed/federated though, and that small networks can grow with trust as currency, anew. Right now the established systems have found one way to encode trust via contracts and implied/actual force, etc. I think that crypto might be able to offer a new way to enforce trust for less serious/lighter use cases. I think of it this way -- do I need the full faith and credit of the united states government to buy a coffee? Maybe not. Also in making that statement I am fully aware that being money is one of the biggest failings of crypto so far, but I think PoS ETH2 + L2 + Sharding/rollups (future) will actually make it possible (in theory at least) to surpass VISA's transaction volume as a network. Also, I think there's a huge way crypto might be better than the traditional alternatives -- it represents a chance to redraw the boundaries. The current system is ossified -- even if crypto is simply a re-creation of the existing system with worse efficiency maybe it's similar to trying to change the engine in a moving plane/train/automobile. You build a second, possibly shittier engine which can be less tied to the mistakes of the first, switch to that, then maybe switch BACK to the original engine after upgrading/changing it. Optimistic, but I think the current success of PoS ETH2 (and the fact literally anyone else can take it and run their own) warrants some optimism.