3 ms·

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?

"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?