5 ms·

Well maybe we should accept crypto isn’t for the masses. Maybe banks are good enough for that use-case (users who want convenience because they can’t be bothere

Well maybe we should accept crypto isn’t for the masses. Maybe banks are good enough for that use-case (users who want convenience because they can’t be bothered to learn how to manage their own coins). Maybe vitalik should focus on preserving decentralization instead. As far as I can see it the biggest flaw in cryptocurrencies — including Bitcoin - is when you look hard enough you realize the decentralization is a facade.

theCrowing 4y ago
Banks are better.
vouwfietsman 4y ago
Isn't this the same problem though, nobody wants to manage their coins -> platforms manage coins for users -> centralization.
- bergenty 4y ago
  The difference here is people physically cannot manage and protect a large amount of cash and not having it in banks means you gradually lose money over time. This isn’t the case with crypto where you can carry potentially all the wealth in the world on a single flash drive. I think more can be done. An entity with a mobile app like Coinbase that seamlessly carries out transactions and then deposits your coins in your own personal wallet but manages your keys in an encrypted manner so all of the account management is hidden behind a single password. They should charge a monthly subscription for it.
  - flakeoil 4y ago
    But what's the point? Having Coinbase or some exchange like that handle your money or having a bank handle your money. Wherein lies the difference? You prefer to have an encrypted number in your pocket which only Coinbase can access over an encrypted number at a regular bank's server?
    - tsukikage 4y ago
      The difference is that if your money comes from sources or is used for purposes that the traditional banking system does not want on their books, you cannot use the traditional banking system.
      - polygamous_bat 4y ago
        > The difference is that if your money comes from sources or is used for purposes that the traditional banking system does not want on their books, you cannot use the traditional banking system. What % of humanity needs that?
  - bandrami 4y ago
    > you gradually lose money over time As opposed to crypto where you lose it rather quickly[1] [1]: https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin/ https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin/
x-complexity 4y ago
> Maybe vitalik should focus on preserving decentralization instead. As far as I can see it the biggest flaw in cryptocurrencies — including Bitcoin - is when you look hard enough you realize the decentralization is a facade https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1588669782471368704 https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/158866978247136870... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgwVhUjaAAEx_Bb?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgwVhUjaAAEx_Bb?format=jpg&name=... It's being worked on multiple fronts by multiple independent teams simultaneously. What you're specifically asking for can be found under "The Scourge" & "The Verge".
nfin 4y ago
in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses. They were hard to start for example . You would get your hands dirty and needed some power to turn that hand crank. When those problems got solved and more cars got on the road it would become dangerous with so many cars, and people suggested you need to learn it properly (and get a driver license). Some thought not many would get such a license to drive a still dangerous machine (no airbags or even ABS at that time). In the end you are ready to do the work (learn) if it is worth it. And if it is worth it… that nobody knows (in the western world the answer is mostly “no” right now, at least if one trusts the complex economic systems to work well for the next decades). If it’s worth the hassle, more technologies will get built to help.
- zoover2020 4y ago
  A car solves a real problem, clearly crypto only causes them.
- lynx23 4y ago
  > in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses. I guess you mean the 20th century? In any case, those people were actually right. A car for everyone and their daughter is one of the biggest contributing factor for pollution and noise.
- grey-area 4y ago
  And if it is worth it… that nobody knows At the moment, it's quite clear that current cryptocurrencies are solving problems nobody has (trustless transactions), in a way nobody likes the consequences of (distributed) and are magnets for fraud and grift (too many to list). Now the idea of giving people cryptographic keys is really attractive and unlocks a bunch of use-cases (most of which crypto proponents have claimed in vain for a decades crypto could solve), but there are a few problems (which crypto doesn't even try to solve): how to restore keys when they lose them or they are stolen, and related how to tie those keys to real-world identity in a meaningful way, how to rollback fraud and punish grifters, etc... for most of these you need a trusted central authority and also trusted, verified identity. Maybe currencies are just the wrong angle to attack this problem from? Unfortunately that's a really hard problem - if someone can tackle that and tie it to real world verified identity, there are a gold-mine of opportunities to solve. BUT it will require trusted central services for trust, rolling back transactions in case of fraud and identify verification to keep grifters and scammers out. When you do all that you end up with something far more like our current banking system (though it does have significant problems I don't wish to downplay, it also has hundreds of years of scam protection built-in).
once_inc 4y ago
I consider Bitcoin decentralized; what makes you consider it a facade?
- Yizahi 4y ago
  Number of tokens in the individual holdings - power to crash the market immediately or clog the transactions for months starting a DOS attack on the network. Number of mining pools - power to hard fork the network, or to attack the network (51% attack is a very real possibility, the only reason it doesn't happen is the lack of general adoption - there are too few places to actually double spend tokens). Number of people making decisions - power to hard fork at will, change protocol properties etc. And before you say "but but the banks are also bad!", sure they are often crooks, but proposing to replace them with even worse system, and even less accountable people is weird.
  - copirate 4y ago
    > Number of mining pools - power to hard fork the network Miners can hard fork but if the economical agents (exchanges, users) don't follow that won't get them anywhere. Their fork will just become an alternative coin and they won't be able to sell their mined coins, or at a lower price. It happened in 2017 with Bitcoin Cash. > Number of people making decisions - power to hard fork at will, change protocol properties etc. Same here: if the economical actors don't follow these people would just create a new altcoin. And these economical actors seem much more decentralized than the people you mention.
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      > Miners can hard fork but if the economical agents (exchanges, users) don't follow that won't get them anywhere. Their fork will just become an alternative coin and they won't be able to sell their mined coins, or at a lower price. How would users and exchanges find out about the alternate chain? Because from what I know the longest chain in existence is the valid chain, unless you are suggesting we trust centralized third parties like Vitalik and the Ethereum foundation to tell us which chain to mine on.
tsukikage 4y ago
> crypto isn’t for the masses Exactly this. The entire selling point of crypto is its separation from regulated finance and from the rule of law. If you don't believe yourself capable of either going toe to toe with the kinds of predators that prefer such an environment and thrive there, or of personally shouldering the risk of losing whatever funds you place into this space to such actors, crypto is not for you. I would say this is actually true of very nearly everyone, which is why traditional financial systems look like they do.

theCrowing 4y ago

Banks are better.

vouwfietsman 4y ago

Isn't this the same problem though, nobody wants to manage their coins -> platforms manage coins for users -> centralization.

bergenty 4y ago
The difference here is people physically cannot manage and protect a large amount of cash and not having it in banks means you gradually lose money over time. This isn’t the case with crypto where you can carry potentially all the wealth in the world on a single flash drive. I think more can be done. An entity with a mobile app like Coinbase that seamlessly carries out transactions and then deposits your coins in your own personal wallet but manages your keys in an encrypted manner so all of the account management is hidden behind a single password. They should charge a monthly subscription for it.
- flakeoil 4y ago
  But what's the point? Having Coinbase or some exchange like that handle your money or having a bank handle your money. Wherein lies the difference? You prefer to have an encrypted number in your pocket which only Coinbase can access over an encrypted number at a regular bank's server?
  - tsukikage 4y ago
    The difference is that if your money comes from sources or is used for purposes that the traditional banking system does not want on their books, you cannot use the traditional banking system.
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      > The difference is that if your money comes from sources or is used for purposes that the traditional banking system does not want on their books, you cannot use the traditional banking system. What % of humanity needs that?
- bandrami 4y ago
  > you gradually lose money over time As opposed to crypto where you lose it rather quickly[1] [1]: https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin/ https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin/

x-complexity 4y ago

> Maybe vitalik should focus on preserving decentralization instead. As far as I can see it the biggest flaw in cryptocurrencies — including Bitcoin - is when you look hard enough you realize the decentralization is a facade https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1588669782471368704 https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/158866978247136870... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgwVhUjaAAEx_Bb?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgwVhUjaAAEx_Bb?format=jpg&name=... It's being worked on multiple fronts by multiple independent teams simultaneously. What you're specifically asking for can be found under "The Scourge" & "The Verge".

nfin 4y ago

in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses. They were hard to start for example . You would get your hands dirty and needed some power to turn that hand crank. When those problems got solved and more cars got on the road it would become dangerous with so many cars, and people suggested you need to learn it properly (and get a driver license). Some thought not many would get such a license to drive a still dangerous machine (no airbags or even ABS at that time). In the end you are ready to do the work (learn) if it is worth it. And if it is worth it… that nobody knows (in the western world the answer is mostly “no” right now, at least if one trusts the complex economic systems to work well for the next decades). If it’s worth the hassle, more technologies will get built to help.

zoover2020 4y ago
A car solves a real problem, clearly crypto only causes them.
lynx23 4y ago
> in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses. I guess you mean the 20th century? In any case, those people were actually right. A car for everyone and their daughter is one of the biggest contributing factor for pollution and noise.
grey-area 4y ago
And if it is worth it… that nobody knows At the moment, it's quite clear that current cryptocurrencies are solving problems nobody has (trustless transactions), in a way nobody likes the consequences of (distributed) and are magnets for fraud and grift (too many to list). Now the idea of giving people cryptographic keys is really attractive and unlocks a bunch of use-cases (most of which crypto proponents have claimed in vain for a decades crypto could solve), but there are a few problems (which crypto doesn't even try to solve): how to restore keys when they lose them or they are stolen, and related how to tie those keys to real-world identity in a meaningful way, how to rollback fraud and punish grifters, etc... for most of these you need a trusted central authority and also trusted, verified identity. Maybe currencies are just the wrong angle to attack this problem from? Unfortunately that's a really hard problem - if someone can tackle that and tie it to real world verified identity, there are a gold-mine of opportunities to solve. BUT it will require trusted central services for trust, rolling back transactions in case of fraud and identify verification to keep grifters and scammers out. When you do all that you end up with something far more like our current banking system (though it does have significant problems I don't wish to downplay, it also has hundreds of years of scam protection built-in).

once_inc 4y ago

I consider Bitcoin decentralized; what makes you consider it a facade?

Yizahi 4y ago
Number of tokens in the individual holdings - power to crash the market immediately or clog the transactions for months starting a DOS attack on the network. Number of mining pools - power to hard fork the network, or to attack the network (51% attack is a very real possibility, the only reason it doesn't happen is the lack of general adoption - there are too few places to actually double spend tokens). Number of people making decisions - power to hard fork at will, change protocol properties etc. And before you say "but but the banks are also bad!", sure they are often crooks, but proposing to replace them with even worse system, and even less accountable people is weird.
- copirate 4y ago
  > Number of mining pools - power to hard fork the network Miners can hard fork but if the economical agents (exchanges, users) don't follow that won't get them anywhere. Their fork will just become an alternative coin and they won't be able to sell their mined coins, or at a lower price. It happened in 2017 with Bitcoin Cash. > Number of people making decisions - power to hard fork at will, change protocol properties etc. Same here: if the economical actors don't follow these people would just create a new altcoin. And these economical actors seem much more decentralized than the people you mention.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    > Miners can hard fork but if the economical agents (exchanges, users) don't follow that won't get them anywhere. Their fork will just become an alternative coin and they won't be able to sell their mined coins, or at a lower price. How would users and exchanges find out about the alternate chain? Because from what I know the longest chain in existence is the valid chain, unless you are suggesting we trust centralized third parties like Vitalik and the Ethereum foundation to tell us which chain to mine on.

tsukikage 4y ago

> crypto isn’t for the masses Exactly this. The entire selling point of crypto is its separation from regulated finance and from the rule of law. If you don't believe yourself capable of either going toe to toe with the kinds of predators that prefer such an environment and thrive there, or of personally shouldering the risk of losing whatever funds you place into this space to such actors, crypto is not for you. I would say this is actually true of very nearly everyone, which is why traditional financial systems look like they do.