3 ms·

to be clear the caveat has a caveat - the centralized control you're talking about is through public (privately hosted) APIs. anyone running a node on the chain

to be clear the caveat has a caveat - the centralized control you're talking about is through public (privately hosted) APIs. anyone running a node on the chain can still send and receive whatever they want. unless the majority of the chain chooses to black list addresses, then you have a hard fork because the nodes don't have a consensus on the protocol (open vs black listing).

theamk 3y ago
I don't see how this changes my point? Yes, on the chain you can send and receive any data you want. But if all you want to do is to exchange meaningless data, you don't need a blockchain for that. An in practice, there was no hard fork, and yet Moxie's NFT was "removed" from opensea and from the metamask wallet. Sure, someone with a full client can still see the NFT and _techinically_ all the data is there.. and yet the data is value-less. Would you pay any amount of money for NFT you cannot show off to anyone nor use with any online service? The same goes with bitcoin - sure, the chain will happily process your bitcoin transactions from the mixer and accept your gas fees. So if you are only looking on the chain, it is all fine and decentralized. But if you are actually trying to withdraw the money, then your accounts get blocked. So in practice, this may not be 100% useless, but this is still significantly less useful than "clean" bitcoin. And no hard fork or even community consensus required.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  just launder it differently. the blocking mechanisms cannot discern. forget about mixers. just launch an NFT or ordinals collection, buy it first with your clean KYC’d coin, pump it with your dirty coin, and sell your clean coin to whoever is buying - the audience or your dirty coin address now you just have more clean coin, if you even want govbucks then you can get that on an exchange with no issue now
- Tokumei-no-hito 3y ago
  > But if all you want to do is to exchange meaningless data, you don't need a blockchain for that. in this context it does matter. cloudlfare and any other "web 2" (for lack of a better encompassing term) is censorable. they can use any other HTTP API (or host their own although that could be blocked by a VPS eventually). i agree with the rest of what you're saying. the reality is that it's a decentralized world that inherently requires centralized bridging. the KYC push was the turning point for controlling all the on/off ramps. it's still possible to exchange entirely on chain but the recipient would have to acknowledge that if the sender is black listed then their received holdings are subject to the same control. as long as there is "border control" back to tradfi then there will always be a centralized constraint on the concept. in theory we may see a future where people have enough markets for remaining purely on chain but anything related to government fiat (housing, taxes etc) will by definition remain centralized.

theamk 3y ago

I don't see how this changes my point? Yes, on the chain you can send and receive any data you want. But if all you want to do is to exchange meaningless data, you don't need a blockchain for that. An in practice, there was no hard fork, and yet Moxie's NFT was "removed" from opensea and from the metamask wallet. Sure, someone with a full client can still see the NFT and _techinically_ all the data is there.. and yet the data is value-less. Would you pay any amount of money for NFT you cannot show off to anyone nor use with any online service? The same goes with bitcoin - sure, the chain will happily process your bitcoin transactions from the mixer and accept your gas fees. So if you are only looking on the chain, it is all fine and decentralized. But if you are actually trying to withdraw the money, then your accounts get blocked. So in practice, this may not be 100% useless, but this is still significantly less useful than "clean" bitcoin. And no hard fork or even community consensus required.

yieldcrv 3y ago
just launder it differently. the blocking mechanisms cannot discern. forget about mixers. just launch an NFT or ordinals collection, buy it first with your clean KYC’d coin, pump it with your dirty coin, and sell your clean coin to whoever is buying - the audience or your dirty coin address now you just have more clean coin, if you even want govbucks then you can get that on an exchange with no issue now
Tokumei-no-hito 3y ago
> But if all you want to do is to exchange meaningless data, you don't need a blockchain for that. in this context it does matter. cloudlfare and any other "web 2" (for lack of a better encompassing term) is censorable. they can use any other HTTP API (or host their own although that could be blocked by a VPS eventually). i agree with the rest of what you're saying. the reality is that it's a decentralized world that inherently requires centralized bridging. the KYC push was the turning point for controlling all the on/off ramps. it's still possible to exchange entirely on chain but the recipient would have to acknowledge that if the sender is black listed then their received holdings are subject to the same control. as long as there is "border control" back to tradfi then there will always be a centralized constraint on the concept. in theory we may see a future where people have enough markets for remaining purely on chain but anything related to government fiat (housing, taxes etc) will by definition remain centralized.