5 ms·

And that's largely because of the lack of regulation that so many cryptocurrency fans tout. If it's not legally regulated as a currency, or a security, or anyt

And that's largely because of the lack of regulation that so many cryptocurrency fans tout. If it's not legally regulated as a currency, or a security, or anything of the sort, then why would it be considered to belong to you, and not Mt Gox, once you've given it to them? All you have is a digital account that's basically the legal equivalent of an IOU on a napkin. Welcome to your libertarian utopia.

anon291 4y ago
An IOU on a napkin has legal weight.
tinco 4y ago
Let the record show that I have always supported (explicit) regulation of cryptocurrency. In addition I have always held the opinion that Ripple is a security, not a cryptocurrency, and that it should never have been tolerated by the SEC. The reality there is that no one is actually doing anything about anything unless there's a big scandal. Maybe FTX will change things.
kinnth 4y ago
Defi is not this. In defi exchanges you place your coins into a smart contract or have them always on your account. If anything a crypto exchange is a misnomer as it's not even needed. The only reason it exists is because smart contracts didn't exist when they first started.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >The only reason it exists is because smart contracts didn't exist when they first started. Calm down. That is not true. Smart contract based exchanges do not let people exchange real money into crypto. There will always need to be offchain exchanges for trading USD for crypto. Additionally, trading off chain is much cheaper than on chain. Centralized exchanges will always exist because people want on / off ramps, people want low fees, and because people are willing to trust others.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    >> smart contracts didn't exist when they first started. > Calm down. That is not true. It pretty much is. Bitcoin's solution to scripting exploits was to weaken scripting. It would have been impractical to use BTC for defi and more work was undergoing to fix those problems. The weasels snuck in at the beginning and now that we can do without them they're already in the walls. > Smart contract based exchanges do not let people exchange real money into crypto. For trading there are a couple of options (aside from Tether, which is a scam) for pegging a trade to USD. For on/offramp, you are sorta right. If I want to trade for strawberries I need someone holding strawberries, and I have a risk he'll give me raspberries. > Centralized exchanges will always exist because people want on / off ramps, people want low fees On/off ramps don't require centralization, they only require one legally bound actor, and we can all pick our fave. You may trust a lawyer near you, I may trust my local gold bullion store for up to $5k at a time, etc. Low fees are far better achieved by a channel or rollup based solution, where the assets are essentially on-chain the entire time. > and because people are willing to trust others. This is bad argument. You're trying to make trust virtuous even though removing the need for trust is far better for society - removing risk and friction for everyone.
  - oblio 4y ago
    > Additionally, trading off chain is much cheaper than on chain. How this does not wake up all the idiots, I will never understand. How come your superior technology is inferior in one of the crucial axes of trading technology???
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      You can't forget that it's also usually slower than trading off-chain. It's inferior in a lot of ways, which is why it never took over the way its proponents thought.
    - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
      it's superior in terms of not having the trusted third party that facilitates your trade make off with your money, as is happening in these self-described exchanges right now. Keeping a trusted third-party in the loop is always cheaper than automating that function using a blockchain, unless the risk is factored in.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > In defi exchanges you place your coins into a smart contract Oh, you mean the "smart" "contracts" (which are neither) that routinely have trivial exploitable errors that even their authors are unaware of?
somenameforme 4y ago
If you let somebody borrow your car and they steal it, that's still a crime. You don't need to be a regulated and registered automotive lender to make it anymore or less of a crime. The law has surprisingly strong enforcement of even informal agreements (such as e.g. an email), and these agreements were anything but informal. Incidentally, protection of property rights is one of the primary roles of the government in a libertarian ideology. It's not anarchy.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > you let somebody borrow your car and they steal it, that's still a crime Agreed. But there is no public requirement to direct prosecutorial resources towards your recovery. If the criminal is prosecuted, recovery is a secondary concern, an enforcement cost often borne by the victims through civil action.
johannes1234321 4y ago
> And that's largely because of the lack of regulation that so many cryptocurrency fans tout. In next sentence they will tell you, that you shouldn't have kept the private keys at the exchange. Use your own wallet and keep your copy of the Blockchain.
- lottin 4y ago
  Your "own wallet" is just a piece of software, so it could potentially steal your "coins" could it not?
  - wizeman 4y ago
    Hardware wallets, which are recommended for holding significant amounts of cryptocurrency, are designed so that even if your normal computing devices get hacked or trojaned, the software running on them cannot steal the coins. This is because the private keys are securely stored in the hardware wallet, which never reveals them to the outside world. The user has to physically confirm a transfer on the hardware wallet itself before funds can be spent (which is why they usually have either a small touchscreen or a non-touch screen plus physical buttons).
    - lottin 4y ago
      > The user has to physically confirm a transfer on the hardware wallet And once the user has confirmed the transfer, the software could send the coins to a different address, right?
      - wizeman 4y ago
        > And once the user has confirmed the transfer, the software could send the coins to a different address, right? No, the destination address and amount to send need to be confirmed on the hardware wallet. The hardware wallet cryptographically signs the entire transaction with the private key, so the software in the user's computer or mobile phone cannot change the transaction without the signature becoming invalid.

anon291 4y ago

An IOU on a napkin has legal weight.

tinco 4y ago

Let the record show that I have always supported (explicit) regulation of cryptocurrency. In addition I have always held the opinion that Ripple is a security, not a cryptocurrency, and that it should never have been tolerated by the SEC. The reality there is that no one is actually doing anything about anything unless there's a big scandal. Maybe FTX will change things.

kinnth 4y ago

Defi is not this. In defi exchanges you place your coins into a smart contract or have them always on your account. If anything a crypto exchange is a misnomer as it's not even needed. The only reason it exists is because smart contracts didn't exist when they first started.

charcircuit 4y ago
>The only reason it exists is because smart contracts didn't exist when they first started. Calm down. That is not true. Smart contract based exchanges do not let people exchange real money into crypto. There will always need to be offchain exchanges for trading USD for crypto. Additionally, trading off chain is much cheaper than on chain. Centralized exchanges will always exist because people want on / off ramps, people want low fees, and because people are willing to trust others.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  >> smart contracts didn't exist when they first started. > Calm down. That is not true. It pretty much is. Bitcoin's solution to scripting exploits was to weaken scripting. It would have been impractical to use BTC for defi and more work was undergoing to fix those problems. The weasels snuck in at the beginning and now that we can do without them they're already in the walls. > Smart contract based exchanges do not let people exchange real money into crypto. For trading there are a couple of options (aside from Tether, which is a scam) for pegging a trade to USD. For on/offramp, you are sorta right. If I want to trade for strawberries I need someone holding strawberries, and I have a risk he'll give me raspberries. > Centralized exchanges will always exist because people want on / off ramps, people want low fees On/off ramps don't require centralization, they only require one legally bound actor, and we can all pick our fave. You may trust a lawyer near you, I may trust my local gold bullion store for up to $5k at a time, etc. Low fees are far better achieved by a channel or rollup based solution, where the assets are essentially on-chain the entire time. > and because people are willing to trust others. This is bad argument. You're trying to make trust virtuous even though removing the need for trust is far better for society - removing risk and friction for everyone.
- oblio 4y ago
  > Additionally, trading off chain is much cheaper than on chain. How this does not wake up all the idiots, I will never understand. How come your superior technology is inferior in one of the crucial axes of trading technology???
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    You can't forget that it's also usually slower than trading off-chain. It's inferior in a lot of ways, which is why it never took over the way its proponents thought.
  - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
    it's superior in terms of not having the trusted third party that facilitates your trade make off with your money, as is happening in these self-described exchanges right now. Keeping a trusted third-party in the loop is always cheaper than automating that function using a blockchain, unless the risk is factored in.
dmitriid 4y ago
> In defi exchanges you place your coins into a smart contract Oh, you mean the "smart" "contracts" (which are neither) that routinely have trivial exploitable errors that even their authors are unaware of?

somenameforme 4y ago

If you let somebody borrow your car and they steal it, that's still a crime. You don't need to be a regulated and registered automotive lender to make it anymore or less of a crime. The law has surprisingly strong enforcement of even informal agreements (such as e.g. an email), and these agreements were anything but informal. Incidentally, protection of property rights is one of the primary roles of the government in a libertarian ideology. It's not anarchy.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> you let somebody borrow your car and they steal it, that's still a crime Agreed. But there is no public requirement to direct prosecutorial resources towards your recovery. If the criminal is prosecuted, recovery is a secondary concern, an enforcement cost often borne by the victims through civil action.

johannes1234321 4y ago

> And that's largely because of the lack of regulation that so many cryptocurrency fans tout. In next sentence they will tell you, that you shouldn't have kept the private keys at the exchange. Use your own wallet and keep your copy of the Blockchain.

lottin 4y ago
Your "own wallet" is just a piece of software, so it could potentially steal your "coins" could it not?
- wizeman 4y ago
  Hardware wallets, which are recommended for holding significant amounts of cryptocurrency, are designed so that even if your normal computing devices get hacked or trojaned, the software running on them cannot steal the coins. This is because the private keys are securely stored in the hardware wallet, which never reveals them to the outside world. The user has to physically confirm a transfer on the hardware wallet itself before funds can be spent (which is why they usually have either a small touchscreen or a non-touch screen plus physical buttons).
  - lottin 4y ago
    > The user has to physically confirm a transfer on the hardware wallet And once the user has confirmed the transfer, the software could send the coins to a different address, right?
    - wizeman 4y ago
      > And once the user has confirmed the transfer, the software could send the coins to a different address, right? No, the destination address and amount to send need to be confirmed on the hardware wallet. The hardware wallet cryptographically signs the entire transaction with the private key, so the software in the user's computer or mobile phone cannot change the transaction without the signature becoming invalid.