6 ms·

Crypto is a fraudster's paradise.

chx 3y ago
Deleted. Read https://ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2020-12-31-bitcoin-ponzi.html https://ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2020-12-31-bitcoin-pon... https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2021-01-16-yes-ponzi.html https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2021-01-16-yes-pon... instead.
- icepat 3y ago
  > If you rolled back every bitcoin transaction ever made you would end up with people in debt because the transaction fees were paid. This can be said about every bank transaction that charges a fee as well. Not a crypto fan at all (I find it rather silly overall), however this is not a particularly strong angle to attack it from.
  - otikik 3y ago
    I am in firm opposition to crypto and I agree with you. That line of argumentation is so shaky that it makes crypto look better.
  - hammock 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - srejk 3y ago
      Are you really quoting fucking human trafficker Andrew Tate on economics? Electronic funds transfer (including credit cards) increase the velocity of money significantly. This means more transactions, which means more overall wealth creation. To say nothing of the fact that of that 1.5% fee, I'm recovering most, all, or more than it with things like cashback, rewards points, etc.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- shagymoe 3y ago
  As noted by another poster, all transactions cost someone something on every monetary network. You're also completely ignoring all the benefits miners provide by securing the network etc... Celcius, FTX, et al the many thousands of shitcoins are all scams or pyramid schemes without merit. Bitcoin, despite that fact that early adopters profit greatly, has many benefits to individuals and society as a whole but many people have simply closed themselves off to the possibility because they're unwilling, for mostly selfish reasons, to even consider the benefits.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > but many people have simply closed themselves off to the possibility because they're unwilling, for mostly selfish reasons, to even consider the benefits. And many people have considered the benefits and have rejected the scheme anyway. I'm curious, though... what do you mean by "selfish reasons"? That implies that such people are making a decision that disadvantages others in order to give themselves an advantage. I'm struggling to see how that concept applies here.
    - pdntspa 3y ago
      "Selfish reasons" is how markets work. Economists call it "Rational Self-Interest"
    - shagymoe 3y ago
      It's selfish to reject something beneficial to everyone because you won't benefit as much as others, no? Maybe jealousy is a better adjective. You continue to call it a "scheme" but it was literally invented due to the corruption and malfeasance and "schemes" of the current banking system. Do you call those schemes and scams as well or are those just the ones we've deemed acceptable and necessary for some reason? FWIW, I think the current system is unstoppable and inflation is necessary theft because that's just how it works but I do believe people should be able to save and not lose value. On a long-term basis, Bitcoin achieves that when essentially nothing else can because we've designed it that way. We're all "rich" here and I get why most of us simply want that to continue.
- zarzavat 3y ago
  What global money transmission method doesn’t have transaction fees? Can you name one?
  - bravoetch 3y ago
    Cash. That's why you have to declare it when you move it around in large amounts.
    - nkrisc 3y ago
      Cash has a transaction cost: you need to physically present it.
      - InitialLastName 3y ago
        At scale, you also need to verify it, count it, exchange it, and move it around.
    - ixs 3y ago
      I would posit that the fee for tje airline ticket or the fuel and upkeep for your car is a transaction fee levied on cash transactions. Sure, the bill itself is untouched, but the fee is still extracted.
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        I would posit that you didn't explain why these things are related at all.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wpietri 3y ago
And unfortunately I think the tech industry unintentionally enabled it in a few ways. The internet/mobile boom was a real leap for humanity. (Not an unmixed one, any more than the printing press was. But a real leap nonetheless.) This left a lot investors looking for the Next Big Thing. I think it made regulators very cautious of possibly harming something that could be The Future. Journalists were accustomed to telling uncritical gee-whiz and great-man stories about tech. And we ended up with a cultural archetype of the genius tech founder in the Steve Jobs/Tony Stark mold. All of these things were vigorously exploited by the cryptocurrency fraudsters and blockchain grifters. That harmed all the people they suckered, of course. But I also think it was terrible for the tech industry. The culture flowed back into tech, and also created an incentive toward hype. All the years and all the money spent on the mining/blockchain/smart contract/ICO/DAO/NFT/DeFi/Web3 series of bullshit "innovations" could have gone to real technology and real companies. All the bright young people distracted by that stuff who instead of learning the fundamentals of real business and real tech who will have to spend years deprogramming themselves. Hopefully next time around we can be more discerning, more usefully critical.
- tmpz22 3y ago
  But how much does our industry get to claim unintentional? Were we incompetent? Naive? Uninformed? Blinded by good intentions, optimism, greed? If celebrities who endorsed ftx are now in hot water - should tech influencers such as major VC firms also be held liable?
  - NegativeLatency 3y ago
    Very much intentional, especially after the first couple rounds of fraud/theft/bad behavior, it's obvious that the downsides and risks were known, but the promotion of the tech kept being promoted.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    Entirely fair questions. I said unintentional because a lot of the same factors were helpful for the tech industry and we as an industry just blithely accepted their continuance. That includes the VC money spigots for sure. But there are plenty of actors, specific VCs included, where I have a hard time believing they didn't know better. In my view it was often their job to know better.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

chx 3y ago

Deleted. Read https://ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2020-12-31-bitcoin-ponzi.html https://ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2020-12-31-bitcoin-pon... https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2021-01-16-yes-ponzi.html https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2021-01-16-yes-pon... instead.

icepat 3y ago
> If you rolled back every bitcoin transaction ever made you would end up with people in debt because the transaction fees were paid. This can be said about every bank transaction that charges a fee as well. Not a crypto fan at all (I find it rather silly overall), however this is not a particularly strong angle to attack it from.
- otikik 3y ago
  I am in firm opposition to crypto and I agree with you. That line of argumentation is so shaky that it makes crypto look better.
- hammock 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - srejk 3y ago
    Are you really quoting fucking human trafficker Andrew Tate on economics? Electronic funds transfer (including credit cards) increase the velocity of money significantly. This means more transactions, which means more overall wealth creation. To say nothing of the fact that of that 1.5% fee, I'm recovering most, all, or more than it with things like cashback, rewards points, etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
shagymoe 3y ago
As noted by another poster, all transactions cost someone something on every monetary network. You're also completely ignoring all the benefits miners provide by securing the network etc... Celcius, FTX, et al the many thousands of shitcoins are all scams or pyramid schemes without merit. Bitcoin, despite that fact that early adopters profit greatly, has many benefits to individuals and society as a whole but many people have simply closed themselves off to the possibility because they're unwilling, for mostly selfish reasons, to even consider the benefits.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > but many people have simply closed themselves off to the possibility because they're unwilling, for mostly selfish reasons, to even consider the benefits. And many people have considered the benefits and have rejected the scheme anyway. I'm curious, though... what do you mean by "selfish reasons"? That implies that such people are making a decision that disadvantages others in order to give themselves an advantage. I'm struggling to see how that concept applies here.
  - pdntspa 3y ago
    "Selfish reasons" is how markets work. Economists call it "Rational Self-Interest"
  - shagymoe 3y ago
    It's selfish to reject something beneficial to everyone because you won't benefit as much as others, no? Maybe jealousy is a better adjective. You continue to call it a "scheme" but it was literally invented due to the corruption and malfeasance and "schemes" of the current banking system. Do you call those schemes and scams as well or are those just the ones we've deemed acceptable and necessary for some reason? FWIW, I think the current system is unstoppable and inflation is necessary theft because that's just how it works but I do believe people should be able to save and not lose value. On a long-term basis, Bitcoin achieves that when essentially nothing else can because we've designed it that way. We're all "rich" here and I get why most of us simply want that to continue.
zarzavat 3y ago
What global money transmission method doesn’t have transaction fees? Can you name one?
- bravoetch 3y ago
  Cash. That's why you have to declare it when you move it around in large amounts.
  - nkrisc 3y ago
    Cash has a transaction cost: you need to physically present it.
    - InitialLastName 3y ago
      At scale, you also need to verify it, count it, exchange it, and move it around.
  - ixs 3y ago
    I would posit that the fee for tje airline ticket or the fuel and upkeep for your car is a transaction fee levied on cash transactions. Sure, the bill itself is untouched, but the fee is still extracted.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      I would posit that you didn't explain why these things are related at all.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wpietri 3y ago

And unfortunately I think the tech industry unintentionally enabled it in a few ways. The internet/mobile boom was a real leap for humanity. (Not an unmixed one, any more than the printing press was. But a real leap nonetheless.) This left a lot investors looking for the Next Big Thing. I think it made regulators very cautious of possibly harming something that could be The Future. Journalists were accustomed to telling uncritical gee-whiz and great-man stories about tech. And we ended up with a cultural archetype of the genius tech founder in the Steve Jobs/Tony Stark mold. All of these things were vigorously exploited by the cryptocurrency fraudsters and blockchain grifters. That harmed all the people they suckered, of course. But I also think it was terrible for the tech industry. The culture flowed back into tech, and also created an incentive toward hype. All the years and all the money spent on the mining/blockchain/smart contract/ICO/DAO/NFT/DeFi/Web3 series of bullshit "innovations" could have gone to real technology and real companies. All the bright young people distracted by that stuff who instead of learning the fundamentals of real business and real tech who will have to spend years deprogramming themselves. Hopefully next time around we can be more discerning, more usefully critical.

tmpz22 3y ago
But how much does our industry get to claim unintentional? Were we incompetent? Naive? Uninformed? Blinded by good intentions, optimism, greed? If celebrities who endorsed ftx are now in hot water - should tech influencers such as major VC firms also be held liable?
- NegativeLatency 3y ago
  Very much intentional, especially after the first couple rounds of fraud/theft/bad behavior, it's obvious that the downsides and risks were known, but the promotion of the tech kept being promoted.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Entirely fair questions. I said unintentional because a lot of the same factors were helpful for the tech industry and we as an industry just blithely accepted their continuance. That includes the VC money spigots for sure. But there are plenty of actors, specific VCs included, where I have a hard time believing they didn't know better. In my view it was often their job to know better.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]