everfree

33 ms·

361.
by everfree 4y ago
> It's as if investors in the tech stocks would bet that a single company with an innovative trading solution would come to replace a substantial part / all of the stock market. But there was a single company with an innovati
362.
by everfree 4y ago
> If we wanted to remove leverage we could sign a law to remove it tomorrow. The kind of unsafe leveraged bundling that caused the great financial crisis was already illegal. In theory, the banks should have suffered the consequences of
363.
by everfree 4y ago
> Traditional finance can, in time, adopt tools and systems from the crypto space (for example, distributed ledgers, "blockchains") if they are technically robust, without the associated speculative mania. New technologies and
364.
by everfree 4y ago
> $50 fee per swap That was five years ago; it's no longer like that. Blockchain software design has progressed past its dial-up era. If you haven't noticed that, you just haven't been paying attention.
365.
by everfree 4y ago
> I pay taxes and it is government's job to stop scams at this scale Are you of the opinion that the government should have blocked the superbowl ads?
366.
by everfree 4y ago
> Can you show me a smart contract that will let me exchange some amount of cryptocurrency for a banana? Agricultural futures contracts technically do what you're describing, and trading them currently involves a lot of intermediari
367.
by everfree 4y ago
They should have. Want to help fund an ad to educate the public?
368.
by everfree 4y ago
I take issue with this part of the article: > Absent clear and easily enforceable property rights, relying solely on private investors to monitor and discipline the behaviour of opaque intermediaries has never been safe and effective. Th
369.
by everfree 4y ago
I've noticed this phenomenon a lot, and I'm not exactly sure what causes it. If you correct someone's understanding of the software, half the time they'll try to pick a fight with you over being a supporter of it. I have
370.
by everfree 4y ago
> A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors. Named after Italian businessman Charles Ponzi, the scheme leads victims to believe that profits are com
371.
by everfree 4y ago
I believe that's true - if you can get ahold of someone's private keys, you have free access not only to their money but also to their money's transaction history. The security and anonymity of the system is predicated on the
372.
by everfree 4y ago
> It is still a Ponzi if people are "honest" about it being a Ponzi It literally isn't. Please go back to the definition, which requires a specific type of deception. If you wished, perhaps you could call crypto some kind
373.
by everfree 4y ago
That's how the definition works, yes. By the way, who is the "they" that your sentence refers to?
374.
by everfree 4y ago
In a ponzi scheme, there is a fictitious business model that's purported to be turning a profit, and its lack of profit is hidden by secretly using new inflows to pay off old investors. In crypto, none of that is hidden. It's wide
375.
by everfree 4y ago
> If there were a clear and well-regulated equivalent of Tether, with obvious and transparent dollar-backing There are several. I compiled a list of them a few months ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31381864
376.
by everfree 4y ago
According to the supreme court, it's not that simple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
377.
by everfree 4y ago
I believe it's mostly a state-by-state thing. The state laws I'm familiar with apply to "precious metal dealers", defined as people who are "in the business" of buying and selling. The laws require a state lice
378.
by everfree 4y ago
Buying and selling property is a tricky thing, legally. To buy and sell cars in a personal capacity, you don't need a license. But if you run a business with the intent of making a profit by buying and selling cars to other individuals
379.
by everfree 4y ago
> The contract is there to punish breach of trust, not to establish trust. If someone can only be trusted under threat of punishment, that means that they aren't actually trustworthy in the first place. I think we might have differe
380.
by everfree 4y ago
> Now, I may trust someone now, but circumstances change. People change. Trust is inherently a forwards-looking thing. If you don't trust someone not to change in a way that breaks the promises they've made to you, that's
381.
by everfree 4y ago
Every time you borrow cash with an asset as collateral - a house loan, a car loan, an iPhone loan, a 401k loan, a margin loan - it could all be said to be a leveraged long in some sense. Or would you say that you're against the idea of
382.
by everfree 4y ago
I actually don't believe it's possible to retroactively reconstruct Monero history, in an information-theoretic sense. The data just isn't there, because it gets thrown out along the way after each ring-signature is completed
383.
by everfree 4y ago
The internet is also naturally globally networked, and it's regulated in every jurisdiction. When a packet hops from one country to another, it's bound by a different set of laws. Same thing with an international financial trans
384.
by everfree 4y ago
Companies, of course. Edit: Businesses, more specifically.
385.
by everfree 4y ago
Thanks, I just read that elsewhere in this thread.
386.
by everfree 4y ago
> Only relevant for crime. Sending money anonymously is speech. Just as there's no reason the government needs access to my Signal text history, they don't need access to my sex toy purchase history either. Are you in favor of
387.
by everfree 4y ago
The IRS currently has a $600k bounty on the ability to de-anonymize Monero transactions, which has so far gone unclaimed. Most crypto drug sales are transacted in Monero nowadays. Not every crypto has public and traceable transactions.
388.
by everfree 4y ago
You're right in that if all we wanted was a domestic payment network, blockchain consensus mechanisms would be overkill and introduce unneeded overhead. Personally, I'm excited about the FedNow payment service coming online in the
389.
by everfree 4y ago
Courts and lawyers are the opposite of trusting who you're doing business with. If you actually trusted them, there would be no need for courts. The "I don't trust you" market consists of everyone who does business using
390.
by everfree 4y ago
> it's not like regulation saved them from being able to become insolvent. It may have, in a way. It's too early to tell, but it's possible that FTX's USA-based corporation ("FTX US") is still solvent. I bel

More ›