4 ms·

There is nothing wrong with crypto in an abstract. There is a reason it was brought into existence to begin with ( onerous KYC, BSA regs and so on ). Naturally,

There is nothing wrong with crypto in an abstract. There is a reason it was brought into existence to begin with ( onerous KYC, BSA regs and so on ). Naturally, the pieces that made it interesting ( pseudo-anonymity, non-reversibility ) made it worthwhile. The issue is that it became a defacto tool of choice for average fraudster to rehash old scams. I am not feeling the pain, but I am also not celebrating. I want balance and getting SBF should bring some semblance of it ( semblance, because he should be not connected enough to make sufficient amount of connected people angry and vindictive ).

astrange 4y ago
There’s a lot of things wrong with it in abstract!
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  Could you elaborate? I do not want to assume your position and put words in your mouth.
  - astrange 4y ago
    "It's a more expensive version of Transferwise that's only useful for criminals, but isn't useful for them because their transaction history is public and forever" should be good enough. That and "it doesn't get any more useful as you add nodes, but you still have to add them or people can hack it".
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      << "It's a more expensive version of Transferwise that's only useful for criminals, but isn't useful for them because their transaction history is public and forever" That is is testable. I used it and whether it is more expensive appears to depend a lot how/when/what you use to facilitate it.. not completely unlike Transferwise, which is basically a broker of such services, which is how they can offer them at a relative low cost. If I used it and found it useful, does that make me a criminal? << only useful for criminals, but isn't useful for them because their transaction history is public and forever" should be good enough. What you seem to be saying is that crypto has properties that are useful and properties that are not useful. In a practical sense, that means it is just like any other payment type ( fedwire has speed over ACH in US; Zelle has convenience over SWIFT in US ). All of these leave some of sort of trace. Crypto's differentiating factor is that the ledger is public. It is both good and bad depending on what you want to achieve. So, allow me to reframe the question, if only criminals use it, why do they do it if it is not useful to them. Your argument is a little flimsy. << That and "it doesn't get any more useful as you add nodes, but you still have to add them or people can hack it". I agree in principle, but between all the hacks we have seen from all the other non-crypto companies over the past few years, I am not willing to hold crypto to a higher standard.
      - astrange 4y ago
        > If I used it and found it useful, does that make me a criminal? Probably whoever's on the other side of the transaction is. If you bought your BTC on localbitcoins you probably got them from a money launderer for instance. Nootropic companies are the most legal crypto users I'm aware of. (And don't forget the costs of converting to/from crypto coins to get to the final good you purchased with the money you transferred.) > So, allow me to reframe the question, if only criminals use it, why do they do it if it is not useful to them. Your argument is a little flimsy. Criminals aren't very smart. If they were, they wouldn't be criminals, which is a very low-paying career. > I agree in principle, but between all the hacks we have seen from all the other non-crypto companies over the past few years, I am not willing to hold crypto to a higher standard. The regular financial system doesn't need to be 100% immune to hacking because it can undo transactions.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        << If I used it and found it useful, does that make me a criminal? >> Probably whoever's on the other side of the transaction is. If you bought your BTC on localbitcoins you probably got them from a money launderer for instance. Nootropic companies are the most legal crypto users I'm aware of. I did buy mine from Paypal so you might be onto something. << Criminals aren't very smart. If they were, they wouldn't be criminals, which is a very low-paying career. Um. I would maybe call it a reverse survivor bias. As for the low paying claim, I suppose it depends on other factors, but we are currently commenting on an article, which discusses sums upwards of millions of dollars. Reality is refuting that claim unless you want to include everyone with a felony in that circle ( technically accurate, but I personally think financial fraud is its own world that lives outside petty criminal circles ). I am open to rebuttal. << The regular financial system doesn't need to be 100% immune to hacking because it can undo transactions. Hmm. It technically can, but, for example, as some people in fraud cases unfortunately found out, once wire is sent out, getting it back is not as simple as pressing a button even for institutions within the same jurisdiction. You are not exactly wrong, but you are not right about it either. I will admit that this is a first time I see that stated this way and I am a little confused. In a very practical sense, nothing is 100% immune if history is any indicator. If my router is hacked, the fact that I revert it to its prior state makes ok? The original issue remains in place. I am sorry, it is just an odd argument to make. Can you elaborate on what you meant?
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
Your first two paragraphs are written if the 2nd was some sort of exogenous tragedy, rather than the obvious result. Chesterton's Fence, etc. But again, I don't expect joe public to have enough understanding to navigate this stuff solo.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  Um. I don't want to sound difficult, but I would personally want to turn your attention to words of Elizebeth Rosenberg[1] about de-risking. Surely, you would not consider calling her Joe Public that has no understanding of the issues at hand? All this is a result of current badly outdated banking regime and that includes the apparent need and emergence of crypto. I agree that it is a cause and effect, but I worry that you may be mistaking one for the other. [1]https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1143 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1143
lordfrito 4y ago
> The issue is that it became a defacto tool of choice for average fraudster to rehash old scams. You're 100% right. And in theory bitcoin is fine and will still work. The problem is the underlying mechanisms that attract fraud and crime into unregulated spaces. 1) I never thought crypto had that much utility for the average person. It does have a lot of utility for drug dealers, human traffickers, and organized crime. 2) Lack of regulation is a warning sign. Con men and fraudsters are probably mentally primed to spider sense financial spaces and loopholes LEOs are not paying attention to. 3) The above two points make crypto a superconducting magnet for criminals. In retrospect it's no wonder the space is full of bad players. Buying drugs was bitcoins first killer app. Pump and dump frauds were it's second. 4) At this point (as you were saying) "crypto" isn't what it started out as, or wanted to be. But the harsh reality is that it's likely irrevocably tainted, and any attempt to reboot would have to still contend with the above points. 5) Any attempt to cover the above points, and you just get a regular digital payment system that doesn't work well for criminals. Technology aside, the utility is no different than the dozen or so phone app instant payment systems already out there. What's the incentive of average Joe already using Zelle to pay his bills (at no cost) to jump ship into a new unproven digital currency? The problems being solved here are already solved. "Crypto technology" can power a fed digital dollar, or Bank of America tokens (which is all your balance there is anyway). Such currencies are arguably better in every way due to regulation and clawback protections. Crypto's only real utility turned out to be acting as the currency of last resort for criminals. Anyone legit has better options with FDIC protections. Everyone left has no where else to go. So any unregulated space will naturally evolve towards being full of bad players and crime. The key lesson here is that the primary utility of any extra-governmental currency will always be that it operates as the currency of last resort for criminals. So in my mind, that kills the dream of crypto-anarcho-capitalism. It was an interesting experiment while it lasted. I don't see how it can recover. As one last point. I came to this line of thinking and conclusion once before, dealing with Freenet and crypto-information space. Freenet is arguably the crypto-anarcho version of the WWW. Same goals, no government involvement, no censorship. If you haven't followed it's history (been around over 20 years), the space is entirely polluted with CSAM, so much so that many of the idealistic early adopters have fled the space in disgust. [1] Same analogy applies here, Freenet, being the storage space of last resort for data so repulsive no government will allow you to have it, is a haven for the worst kinds of data imaginable. At this point I'm convinced crypto-anarcho-anything will eventually simply become a magnet for crimes and reprehensible people. There's no place else that's safe for them to go, while the rest of us have safer/regulated spaces. It's humans that killed the crypto dream. Technology can't solve all of our problems. We presently need, and will always need, human accountability in the loop. Ok my last-last point. Seeing this play out multiple times now, I'm convinced that total anonymity on the internet is a cancer that must eliminated if digital society wants to move forward. The real world maintains peace/order/justice because we have real identities and real reputations. A similar system is needed in the digital world if we're to evolve past this stage where average people run the daily risk of being waylaid by digital highwaymen. The digital world is still in the medieval ages. The solutions that have allowed society to evolve and scale in the real world need to be implemented in the digital world before we can take it's potential to the next level. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28587220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28587220

astrange 4y ago

There’s a lot of things wrong with it in abstract!

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Could you elaborate? I do not want to assume your position and put words in your mouth.
- astrange 4y ago
  "It's a more expensive version of Transferwise that's only useful for criminals, but isn't useful for them because their transaction history is public and forever" should be good enough. That and "it doesn't get any more useful as you add nodes, but you still have to add them or people can hack it".
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    << "It's a more expensive version of Transferwise that's only useful for criminals, but isn't useful for them because their transaction history is public and forever" That is is testable. I used it and whether it is more expensive appears to depend a lot how/when/what you use to facilitate it.. not completely unlike Transferwise, which is basically a broker of such services, which is how they can offer them at a relative low cost. If I used it and found it useful, does that make me a criminal? << only useful for criminals, but isn't useful for them because their transaction history is public and forever" should be good enough. What you seem to be saying is that crypto has properties that are useful and properties that are not useful. In a practical sense, that means it is just like any other payment type ( fedwire has speed over ACH in US; Zelle has convenience over SWIFT in US ). All of these leave some of sort of trace. Crypto's differentiating factor is that the ledger is public. It is both good and bad depending on what you want to achieve. So, allow me to reframe the question, if only criminals use it, why do they do it if it is not useful to them. Your argument is a little flimsy. << That and "it doesn't get any more useful as you add nodes, but you still have to add them or people can hack it". I agree in principle, but between all the hacks we have seen from all the other non-crypto companies over the past few years, I am not willing to hold crypto to a higher standard.
    - astrange 4y ago
      > If I used it and found it useful, does that make me a criminal? Probably whoever's on the other side of the transaction is. If you bought your BTC on localbitcoins you probably got them from a money launderer for instance. Nootropic companies are the most legal crypto users I'm aware of. (And don't forget the costs of converting to/from crypto coins to get to the final good you purchased with the money you transferred.) > So, allow me to reframe the question, if only criminals use it, why do they do it if it is not useful to them. Your argument is a little flimsy. Criminals aren't very smart. If they were, they wouldn't be criminals, which is a very low-paying career. > I agree in principle, but between all the hacks we have seen from all the other non-crypto companies over the past few years, I am not willing to hold crypto to a higher standard. The regular financial system doesn't need to be 100% immune to hacking because it can undo transactions.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        << If I used it and found it useful, does that make me a criminal? >> Probably whoever's on the other side of the transaction is. If you bought your BTC on localbitcoins you probably got them from a money launderer for instance. Nootropic companies are the most legal crypto users I'm aware of. I did buy mine from Paypal so you might be onto something. << Criminals aren't very smart. If they were, they wouldn't be criminals, which is a very low-paying career. Um. I would maybe call it a reverse survivor bias. As for the low paying claim, I suppose it depends on other factors, but we are currently commenting on an article, which discusses sums upwards of millions of dollars. Reality is refuting that claim unless you want to include everyone with a felony in that circle ( technically accurate, but I personally think financial fraud is its own world that lives outside petty criminal circles ). I am open to rebuttal. << The regular financial system doesn't need to be 100% immune to hacking because it can undo transactions. Hmm. It technically can, but, for example, as some people in fraud cases unfortunately found out, once wire is sent out, getting it back is not as simple as pressing a button even for institutions within the same jurisdiction. You are not exactly wrong, but you are not right about it either. I will admit that this is a first time I see that stated this way and I am a little confused. In a very practical sense, nothing is 100% immune if history is any indicator. If my router is hacked, the fact that I revert it to its prior state makes ok? The original issue remains in place. I am sorry, it is just an odd argument to make. Can you elaborate on what you meant?

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago

Your first two paragraphs are written if the 2nd was some sort of exogenous tragedy, rather than the obvious result. Chesterton's Fence, etc. But again, I don't expect joe public to have enough understanding to navigate this stuff solo.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Um. I don't want to sound difficult, but I would personally want to turn your attention to words of Elizebeth Rosenberg[1] about de-risking. Surely, you would not consider calling her Joe Public that has no understanding of the issues at hand? All this is a result of current badly outdated banking regime and that includes the apparent need and emergence of crypto. I agree that it is a cause and effect, but I worry that you may be mistaking one for the other. [1]https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1143 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1143

lordfrito 4y ago

> The issue is that it became a defacto tool of choice for average fraudster to rehash old scams. You're 100% right. And in theory bitcoin is fine and will still work. The problem is the underlying mechanisms that attract fraud and crime into unregulated spaces. 1) I never thought crypto had that much utility for the average person. It does have a lot of utility for drug dealers, human traffickers, and organized crime. 2) Lack of regulation is a warning sign. Con men and fraudsters are probably mentally primed to spider sense financial spaces and loopholes LEOs are not paying attention to. 3) The above two points make crypto a superconducting magnet for criminals. In retrospect it's no wonder the space is full of bad players. Buying drugs was bitcoins first killer app. Pump and dump frauds were it's second. 4) At this point (as you were saying) "crypto" isn't what it started out as, or wanted to be. But the harsh reality is that it's likely irrevocably tainted, and any attempt to reboot would have to still contend with the above points. 5) Any attempt to cover the above points, and you just get a regular digital payment system that doesn't work well for criminals. Technology aside, the utility is no different than the dozen or so phone app instant payment systems already out there. What's the incentive of average Joe already using Zelle to pay his bills (at no cost) to jump ship into a new unproven digital currency? The problems being solved here are already solved. "Crypto technology" can power a fed digital dollar, or Bank of America tokens (which is all your balance there is anyway). Such currencies are arguably better in every way due to regulation and clawback protections. Crypto's only real utility turned out to be acting as the currency of last resort for criminals. Anyone legit has better options with FDIC protections. Everyone left has no where else to go. So any unregulated space will naturally evolve towards being full of bad players and crime. The key lesson here is that the primary utility of any extra-governmental currency will always be that it operates as the currency of last resort for criminals. So in my mind, that kills the dream of crypto-anarcho-capitalism. It was an interesting experiment while it lasted. I don't see how it can recover. As one last point. I came to this line of thinking and conclusion once before, dealing with Freenet and crypto-information space. Freenet is arguably the crypto-anarcho version of the WWW. Same goals, no government involvement, no censorship. If you haven't followed it's history (been around over 20 years), the space is entirely polluted with CSAM, so much so that many of the idealistic early adopters have fled the space in disgust. [1] Same analogy applies here, Freenet, being the storage space of last resort for data so repulsive no government will allow you to have it, is a haven for the worst kinds of data imaginable. At this point I'm convinced crypto-anarcho-anything will eventually simply become a magnet for crimes and reprehensible people. There's no place else that's safe for them to go, while the rest of us have safer/regulated spaces. It's humans that killed the crypto dream. Technology can't solve all of our problems. We presently need, and will always need, human accountability in the loop. Ok my last-last point. Seeing this play out multiple times now, I'm convinced that total anonymity on the internet is a cancer that must eliminated if digital society wants to move forward. The real world maintains peace/order/justice because we have real identities and real reputations. A similar system is needed in the digital world if we're to evolve past this stage where average people run the daily risk of being waylaid by digital highwaymen. The digital world is still in the medieval ages. The solutions that have allowed society to evolve and scale in the real world need to be implemented in the digital world before we can take it's potential to the next level. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28587220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28587220