Live data from Hacker News

Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut

techcrunch.com

71–80 of 345 posts

Re: Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut

#71
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your banks are slow. Many process SEPA transfers a lot faster than that, try N26 to Revolut if you're curious. Also the SCT inst scheme has started being rolled out.

This was to move money between trading accounts. I don't think these new nimble "mobile" banks offer stock trading accounts just yet. edit : also, those banks are UK ones. I'm not inclined to open accounts there with Brexit going on. Foreign accounts are also a pain for tax admin.

Where do you live that you have to report you own foreign accounts? Asking companies to report them might be justified, but individuals?

Re: Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut

#72
post #8

> with zero fees via Facebook products including Messenger and WhatsApp reminds me of the classic "If You're Not Paying For It, You Become The Product" edit: the prototypical crypto (bitcoin) has fees as the final (after there's no more new btc) incentive for miners to process transactions. but this doesn't? probably we'll have to look at their white paper but if Facebook is the only actor running this network why ma…

You're not off the hook if you pay either. Paying for something doesn't necessarily mean you aren't the product.

Re: Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut

#73
post #18

A few points: - some pegged currencies are still decentralised (e.g. MakerDAO) - they rely solely on smart contracts - even with a centralised peg, you have to trust an organisation to keep the collateral, but the contract can state that anyone can move the funds around, so the managing organisation cannot just remove funds at will Also, compared to a centralised database, you have an interoperability aspect - if it'…

I'm sorry but you're just muddying the water here - Facebook's currency is centralised by both Facebook and peg to USD and there's no need for interoperability at the currency level - Facebook will provide the APIs for working with the currency. As envisioned by Facebook, the whole 'crypto' aspect of it is pointless.

Re: Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut

#75
post #57

From Facebook's perspective, the advantage is that everyone has already forfeited any expectation of privacy wrt financial transactions, since they're recorded on a public ledger. They would be able to link certain transaction events (i.e., ones that happen over Messenger or other Facebook properties) to real identities, so this project will give them tons of data to mine

Haven’t thought about this but it makes perfect sense. Thank you for providing this insight. I guess, ad companies will be ad companies at the end of the day. They will do everything for better targeting and more data.

Re: Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut

#76
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your banks are slow. Many process SEPA transfers a lot faster than that, try N26 to Revolut if you're curious. Also the SCT inst scheme has started being rolled out.

This was to move money between trading accounts. I don't think these new nimble "mobile" banks offer stock trading accounts just yet. edit : also, those banks are UK ones. I'm not inclined to open accounts there with Brexit going on. Foreign accounts are also a pain for tax admin.

N26 is German. Revolut is London based but has an ECB license.

Yes, the SEPA scheme is old and working only during business days according to the TARGET2 calendar, but you definitely can process a transfer within a couple hours (my online stock broker does).

Re: Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut

#77
post #6

Can anyone explain what the point of a pegged cryptocurrency is? Since you are dependent on the issuing entity to honour the stated peg, why not just have your balance be an entry in a regular database maintained by that entity? What exactly does the blockchain gain you here? One thing it does _not_ get you is censorship resistance. If the central authority wants to take away coins from a wallet, all it needs to do i…

On paper, you're basically entirely right. Stablecoins including FB are all smokescreens to sell managing fiat on an internal database for you with "blockchain" wrapped around it. This project and stablecoins in general have nothing to do with cryptocurrencies. With that said i can tell you at least one solid reason why any issuer would do it. At a bare minimum they can earn overnight on the holdings since stablecoins don't kick back interest to date. Although with stablecoin competition that should probably start happening until it squeezes to 0 and then it really wouldn't make any sense except to like monetize spying on you I suppose or something. But to take an example, at this point tether is generating 75mm a year for free for it owners at 0 risk. It's the crypto equivalent of a "free" checking account that doesn't pay interest. Not that any exchange was paying interest for fiat deposits in the first place so i'm not sure to what extent that's relevant for cryptoexchangess, but for FB obviously it would since they're starting from 0.

With that said I can imagine one reason why users would care for USD stablecoins. The US has made owning and dealing with USD directly an absolute horrendous nightmare for international users and US citizens abroad following FATCA et al. And this way you can claim you never owned or touched USD which means whoever is holding stablecoins for you instead of USD doesn't have to file truckloads of paperwork for you to open the account. That's a regulatory loophole though one could imagine the US would start complaining about if this really took off.

There's one remote reason I can think of that people would flip to stablecoins vs fiat if they had some tax view that that wasn't a constructive sale and it could benefit from some likekind kind of treatment since its a "crypto" and not a "fiat". It's obviously a silly argument and there's no way the IRS would fall for it (nor do they even accept it between regular cryptos) but i can't speak for other jurisdictions.

Re: Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut

#78
post #44
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git is "append-only". Just like a normal blockchain, you can't modify an older commit without rewriting all the commits since then. Git also supports signed commits.

So Git could be a somewhat reasonable backend for a cryptocurrency... if only its hash function weren't broken.

Not quite since git purposefully excludes the computationally hard proof of work requirement.

In git you use other external signals to determine which fork to select in the case of diverging histories.

With blockchain, all participants are untrusted, so you just go with the longest chain by convention, and rely on the fact that it’s extremely difficult to build such a chain.

Re: Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut

#79
post #77
post #6

Can anyone explain what the point of a pegged cryptocurrency is? Since you are dependent on the issuing entity to honour the stated peg, why not just have your balance be an entry in a regular database maintained by that entity? What exactly does the blockchain gain you here? One thing it does _not_ get you is censorship resistance. If the central authority wants to take away coins from a wallet, all it needs to do i…

On paper, you're basically entirely right. Stablecoins including FB are all smokescreens to sell managing fiat on an internal database for you with "blockchain" wrapped around it. This project and stablecoins in general have nothing to do with cryptocurrencies. With that said i can tell you at least one solid reason why any issuer would do it. At a bare minimum they can earn overnight on the holdings since stablecoin…

> But to take an example, at this point tether is generating 75mm a year for free for it owners at 0 risk.

Tether has got hundreds of millions of dollars worth of funds seized from their banks.

Re: Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut

#80
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Git could be a somewhat reasonable backend for a cryptocurrency... if only its hash function weren't broken.

Not quite since git purposefully excludes the computationally hard proof of work requirement. In git you use other external signals to determine which fork to select in the case of diverging histories. With blockchain, all participants are untrusted, so you just go with the longest chain by convention, and rely on the fact that it’s extremely difficult to build such a chain.

Yeah, you would need to overlay Git with a client that selects a repository’s master branch based on a PoW scheme included in the commits.
Post reply on HN