4 ms·

> Yes, all industries attract bad actors. But the cryptocurrency space seems to be largely run by bad actors. Not everyone, of course, but a disturbingly large

> Yes, all industries attract bad actors. But the cryptocurrency space seems to be largely run by bad actors. Not everyone, of course, but a disturbingly large percentage. Source? Seriously. I mean, we have CEX going down with SBF and Molly White posting anti-web3 stuff. I'm sorry, but that isn't the core fundamental technology that we're talking about here. > I don't actually see a lot of that happening here, though. Again... media focuses on the failures and not on the successes. ETH moving to proof-of-stake was a massive technological advancement that only happened after many years of development, and has gone off without a hitch. While, at the same time literally decimating all of the GPU based proof-of-work mining in a single day. Not only that, but they were able to MVP release the code without even implementing withdraw! People have trusted the developers with 0.40T dollars worth of value [0]. It is not insignificant. Next up is some really interesting work being done with zero-knowledge proofs, which will enable the scaling phase of blockchain to happen. Please try to get past the HN trope of 'crypto has zero purpose other than number goes up or down and bitcoin mining is destroying the planet' and look at what is actually happening in the industry. [0] https://ultrasound.money/ https://ultrasound.money/

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> People have trusted the developers with 0.40T dollars worth of value And that's the thing that causes the most cognitive dissonance. If you're going to trust someone, why not trust entities that have had hundreds of years to work out the kinks?
- latchkey 4y ago
  > that's the thing that causes the most cognitive dissonance. The road is literally being paved and is being done so iteratively. I'm ok with that as that is a standard way to develop things over time. > why not trust entities that have had hundreds of years to work out the kinks? Simple. Because they are not acting in your best interest. We've been sold on the idea that money is scary and we shouldn't touch it ourselves. We should put it into 401k's and forget about it until we retire. We should 'trust' people who know these complicated finance things better than us. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > We've been sold on the idea that money is scary and we shouldn't touch it ourselves. We should put it into 401k's and forget about it until we retire. We should 'trust' people who know these complicated finance things better than us. For 95% of the population (including me) crypto is the same trust system. I can't audit a smart contract and the underlying virtual machine it runs on. I would have no clue whether my transactions can be front-ended by bots that take all of the gains I expected, and then some. I do have a general idea what happens when I use a credit card to make a purchase, and what to expect. I also have a general idea that if I put money into an investment account what fees will be deducted, and what stocks and bonds are being bought and sold. And if I make the horrible mistake of sending money or NFTs to the wrong account, I know it can at least theoretically be reversed in non-crypto systems (and that often the reversal costs will be eaten by the bank, not paid by me). Whereas with crypto I have no expectation that the validators care about me to do a MakerDAO reversal on my behalf.
    - latchkey 4y ago
      Your comment sounds like this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-had-to-be-convinced-of-the-usefulness-of-electricity-21221094/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-had-to-be-c... You obviously have some understanding of the system if you can speak about bots and front running. Fact is that front running exists in all markets, not just crypto. As for reversible transactions, that's something done with smart contracts and escrow services. We are not there yet in terms of development, but it will happen eventually. Today, people actually appreciate the immutability of transactions. It enables the effective store of infinite wealth as a basis. Credit card companies are providing the reversal business, which is paid for by the people who are borrowing money at insane interest rates... no reason why it can't be replicated once there is enough demand for it, but honestly, I'd rather move to reverse the model.... over collateralized loans. This is what is done in countries without the whole bogus credit rating systems.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        We did not have an alternative to electricity for all of the things electricity could power. For some of the things alternatives to electricity continue to be used (e.g. oil, gas, or wood heated homes; windows for light; combustion engines and fuel cells for automotive power). > You obviously have some understanding of the system if you can speak about bots and front running. What I've read on crypto skeptic blogs. So basically my understanding is equivalent to the understanding that anyone gets from reading news articles written by content-expert journalists. From what I understand the front-running in crypto can have pretty egregious effects, and can occur with simple monetary transactions, not just the crypto equivalent of stock market transactions. (Yeah, sure, front running can occur in currency exchanges in non-crypto, too, but as an individual, when you go to a currency exchange, or make a purchase overseas, you know the exchange rate before you trigger the exchange.) > Today, people actually appreciate the immutability of transactions. I don't. And I don't see how this follows: "It enables the effective store of infinite wealth as a basis." Infinite wealth cannot exist. And how does immutability facilitate this? And how is a blockchain that can technically be rewritten at non-infinite cost immutable (i.e. the MakerDAO rewrite, or any Sybil/51% attack)? > Credit card companies are providing the reversal business, which is paid for by the people who are borrowing money at insane interest rates... no reason why it can't be replicated once there is enough demand for it, but honestly, I'd rather move to reverse the model.... over collateralized loans. From what I understand, the interest rates go to the issuing banks, and the credit card companies take their profit from fees. Credit cards (and payday loans) exist for people who lack the collateral for a non-signature loan (without having to collateralize their freedom, aka debtor's prisons or endenturing). The only way to do this in crypto is to trust a third party lender such as Voyager or Celsius.
JohnFen 4y ago
> Source? No specific source, just how it looks to me based on what I hear pro-cryptocurrency people say (mostly here). > media focuses on the failures and not on the successes. By "here", I meant HN, not the larger mediasphere. > Please try to get past the HN trope of 'crypto has zero purpose other than number goes up or down and bitcoin mining is destroying the planet' and look at what is actually happening in the industry. This comment is mis-aimed. I'm not on that trope (I see one legitimate use), and I do loosely follow the industry. I don't follow it deeply because it's not a field that is technically interesting to me, but I am interested in the ramifications to society at large. All I'm saying is that a rather large percentage of people I see advocating cryptocurrency are not making cryptocurrency look good.
- latchkey 4y ago
  This is the second time you've stated 'a large percentage', with no data to back it up. It is hand waving.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    It's anecdata, not hand-waving. I was pretty clear that I'm talking about what I personally see, not any sort of research results or news reporting.
    - latchkey 4y ago
      > It's anecdata, not hand-waving. It was anecdata the first time. The second time, it became hand-waving. > I do loosely follow the industry You follow it closely and care enough to comment here. 'disturbingly large percentages' and 'rather large percentages'... all say it is the big bad cookie monster... but it is just that... all anecdata. You're trying to spread a myth, without anything more than anecdata, which is the whole point of this thread. I'd love to see less myth and more research.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        > You follow it closely and care enough to comment here Yes, because I'm concerned about the societal effects of it. What I don't follow closely are the implementation details. > You're trying to spread a myth No, I'm simply reporting what I personally observe. I even stated where I've observed it (mostly here on HN). My observations can, of course, be incorrect -- but describing it as "trying to spread a myth" is misleading. I'm not trying to spread a myth at all. I'm explaining why it is that I view the cryptocurrency space as having a lot of sketchy things in it.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

> People have trusted the developers with 0.40T dollars worth of value And that's the thing that causes the most cognitive dissonance. If you're going to trust someone, why not trust entities that have had hundreds of years to work out the kinks?

latchkey 4y ago
> that's the thing that causes the most cognitive dissonance. The road is literally being paved and is being done so iteratively. I'm ok with that as that is a standard way to develop things over time. > why not trust entities that have had hundreds of years to work out the kinks? Simple. Because they are not acting in your best interest. We've been sold on the idea that money is scary and we shouldn't touch it ourselves. We should put it into 401k's and forget about it until we retire. We should 'trust' people who know these complicated finance things better than us. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > We've been sold on the idea that money is scary and we shouldn't touch it ourselves. We should put it into 401k's and forget about it until we retire. We should 'trust' people who know these complicated finance things better than us. For 95% of the population (including me) crypto is the same trust system. I can't audit a smart contract and the underlying virtual machine it runs on. I would have no clue whether my transactions can be front-ended by bots that take all of the gains I expected, and then some. I do have a general idea what happens when I use a credit card to make a purchase, and what to expect. I also have a general idea that if I put money into an investment account what fees will be deducted, and what stocks and bonds are being bought and sold. And if I make the horrible mistake of sending money or NFTs to the wrong account, I know it can at least theoretically be reversed in non-crypto systems (and that often the reversal costs will be eaten by the bank, not paid by me). Whereas with crypto I have no expectation that the validators care about me to do a MakerDAO reversal on my behalf.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    Your comment sounds like this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-had-to-be-convinced-of-the-usefulness-of-electricity-21221094/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-had-to-be-c... You obviously have some understanding of the system if you can speak about bots and front running. Fact is that front running exists in all markets, not just crypto. As for reversible transactions, that's something done with smart contracts and escrow services. We are not there yet in terms of development, but it will happen eventually. Today, people actually appreciate the immutability of transactions. It enables the effective store of infinite wealth as a basis. Credit card companies are providing the reversal business, which is paid for by the people who are borrowing money at insane interest rates... no reason why it can't be replicated once there is enough demand for it, but honestly, I'd rather move to reverse the model.... over collateralized loans. This is what is done in countries without the whole bogus credit rating systems.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      We did not have an alternative to electricity for all of the things electricity could power. For some of the things alternatives to electricity continue to be used (e.g. oil, gas, or wood heated homes; windows for light; combustion engines and fuel cells for automotive power). > You obviously have some understanding of the system if you can speak about bots and front running. What I've read on crypto skeptic blogs. So basically my understanding is equivalent to the understanding that anyone gets from reading news articles written by content-expert journalists. From what I understand the front-running in crypto can have pretty egregious effects, and can occur with simple monetary transactions, not just the crypto equivalent of stock market transactions. (Yeah, sure, front running can occur in currency exchanges in non-crypto, too, but as an individual, when you go to a currency exchange, or make a purchase overseas, you know the exchange rate before you trigger the exchange.) > Today, people actually appreciate the immutability of transactions. I don't. And I don't see how this follows: "It enables the effective store of infinite wealth as a basis." Infinite wealth cannot exist. And how does immutability facilitate this? And how is a blockchain that can technically be rewritten at non-infinite cost immutable (i.e. the MakerDAO rewrite, or any Sybil/51% attack)? > Credit card companies are providing the reversal business, which is paid for by the people who are borrowing money at insane interest rates... no reason why it can't be replicated once there is enough demand for it, but honestly, I'd rather move to reverse the model.... over collateralized loans. From what I understand, the interest rates go to the issuing banks, and the credit card companies take their profit from fees. Credit cards (and payday loans) exist for people who lack the collateral for a non-signature loan (without having to collateralize their freedom, aka debtor's prisons or endenturing). The only way to do this in crypto is to trust a third party lender such as Voyager or Celsius.

JohnFen 4y ago

> Source? No specific source, just how it looks to me based on what I hear pro-cryptocurrency people say (mostly here). > media focuses on the failures and not on the successes. By "here", I meant HN, not the larger mediasphere. > Please try to get past the HN trope of 'crypto has zero purpose other than number goes up or down and bitcoin mining is destroying the planet' and look at what is actually happening in the industry. This comment is mis-aimed. I'm not on that trope (I see one legitimate use), and I do loosely follow the industry. I don't follow it deeply because it's not a field that is technically interesting to me, but I am interested in the ramifications to society at large. All I'm saying is that a rather large percentage of people I see advocating cryptocurrency are not making cryptocurrency look good.

latchkey 4y ago
This is the second time you've stated 'a large percentage', with no data to back it up. It is hand waving.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  It's anecdata, not hand-waving. I was pretty clear that I'm talking about what I personally see, not any sort of research results or news reporting.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    > It's anecdata, not hand-waving. It was anecdata the first time. The second time, it became hand-waving. > I do loosely follow the industry You follow it closely and care enough to comment here. 'disturbingly large percentages' and 'rather large percentages'... all say it is the big bad cookie monster... but it is just that... all anecdata. You're trying to spread a myth, without anything more than anecdata, which is the whole point of this thread. I'd love to see less myth and more research.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > You follow it closely and care enough to comment here Yes, because I'm concerned about the societal effects of it. What I don't follow closely are the implementation details. > You're trying to spread a myth No, I'm simply reporting what I personally observe. I even stated where I've observed it (mostly here on HN). My observations can, of course, be incorrect -- but describing it as "trying to spread a myth" is misleading. I'm not trying to spread a myth at all. I'm explaining why it is that I view the cryptocurrency space as having a lot of sketchy things in it.