71–80 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on historical precedents, I will not believe any "customer commitment" / "privacy commitment" statements from Facebook.
Not believing Facebook is a lot different from stating as a fact that the FBI will be able to tie every wallet generated to a FB account.
"it will be backed by a collection of low-volatility assets, such as bank deposits and short-term government securities in currencies from stable and reputable central banks." from the whitepaper: https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/#the-libra-currency-and-... It's like one to one copy of the traditional monetary system with speed of transactions improved. Low volatile assets they rely on are not real and therefore n…
As someone somewhat out of the crypto-loop, would someone be able to explain/posit/cite why Facebook are entering this market, and why traditional payment providers are also getting involved? On the face of it, this suggests it aims to essentially reduce transaction costs (which would be to the detriment of the status-quo)?
Put it differently, banks have failed to implement something more efficient and the “bitcoin” innovators have also failed on practical aspects. As a result we have a void and it’s anyone’s game right now. Facebook is throwing money at it. A small chance it works but public trust is a big factor in currency isn’t it? Here’s what I think: any alternative currency tied to the USD (meaning a currency without intrinsic va…
That, once again, is a very America centric view. A place where banks must be even worse than taxis.
Within the Euro area (and associated coutries, like Switzerland), at least, SEPA transfers are quick and cheap, if not free.
Edit to add: Even the developing world has fast and efficient money transfer schemes. Look up M-PESA, for example.
>Libra’s mission is to enable a simple global currency and financial infrastructure [...] This document outlines our plans for a new decentralized blockchain, The "decentralized" can be parsed different ways. Facebook Libra is decentralizing the transactions but it does not decentralize the currency creation . (This partial decentralization happens because Facebook wants to peg Libra to stable asset reserves.) This i…
> This is different from Bitcoin's idea of decentralizing Libra is Facebook Credits [1] rebooted. All that changed is the meme it’s attaching to, “cryptocurrency” being better at suspending consumers’ scepticism. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Credits
My posting history will show I'm skeptical of Facebook but setting my biases aside, I think there's still a real technical difference here.
I believe the old Facebook Credits required the transactions to go through Facebook's centralized servers. (The programming api for processing Facebook Credits communicated with Facebook's servers.) This would be similar to a customer holding Marriott Hotel points and she wants to give them to a friend; she would have to call up Marriott customer service and have them transfer the credits/points from her account to someone else's. The transactions can't happen without Facebook and Marriott getting involved. That's fundamentally different from Libra since its transactions are validated by external partner nodes.
Therefore, the Libra isn't a cryptocurrency in just a "meme" bandwagon sense; it's actually designed for decentralized transactions that don't require centralized Facebook servers.
Whether the public (and merchants accepting payments) finds that technical difference of any value and massively adopts it, I don't know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the devil is in the details. The claim `Calibra will not share account information or financial data with Facebook, Inc. or any third party` is followed by `without customer consent.`. From reading through the document you linked, the infrastructure will definitely be there to support the sharing of any and all data. Considering Facebook's history with getting "consent", I am willing to bet that they will tak…
“When Facebook notified the acquisition of WhatsApp in 2014, it informed the Commission that it would be unable to establish reliable automated matching between Facebook users' accounts and WhatsApp users' accounts. It stated this both in the notification form and in a reply to a request of information from the Commission. However, in August 2016, WhatsApp announced updates to its terms of service and privacy policy,…
More tech-y resources: - https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-bl... - https://github.com/libra/libra - https://developers.libra.org - https://developers.libra.org/docs/move-paper
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the devil is in the details. The claim `Calibra will not share account information or financial data with Facebook, Inc. or any third party` is followed by `without customer consent.`. From reading through the document you linked, the infrastructure will definitely be there to support the sharing of any and all data. Considering Facebook's history with getting "consent", I am willing to bet that they will tak…
"We will implement cold wallets and multisig wallets that allow Libra users and association members to add extra security for their Libra coin and Libra Investment Token holdings."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not pegged to a dollar. It's pegged to a blend of currencies and assets. So it's not a dollar wrapped like Tether or USDC. I don't understand how they plan to make it work across jurisdictions. There are so many laws and rules when it comes to transmitting and storing money or derivatives. Like I can transfer a billion dollars worth of BTC, no problem. But if I try to wire even $100K between two of my accounts i…
They plan to ignore regulations and grow quick enough so that they are too big to fail and thus too big to regulate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is different from Bitcoin's idea of decentralizing Libra is Facebook Credits [1] rebooted. All that changed is the meme it’s attaching to, “cryptocurrency” being better at suspending consumers’ scepticism. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Credits
>Libra is Facebook Credits [1] rebooted. All that changed is the meme it’s attaching to, “cryptocurrency” My posting history will show I'm skeptical of Facebook but setting my biases aside, I think there's still a real technical difference here. I believe the old Facebook Credits required the transactions to go through Facebook's centralized servers. (The programming api for processing Facebook Credits communicated w…
“Facebook is expected to maintain a leadership role [in the Association] through 2019.” The Association (“an independent, not-for-profit membership organization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland”) holds title to the reserves, has a monopoly on coin minting and destruction, and has sole determination over new Association members (who each get one vote).
It’s Facebook Credits with co-branding.
>Libra’s mission is to enable a simple global currency and financial infrastructure [...] This document outlines our plans for a new decentralized blockchain, The "decentralized" can be parsed different ways. Facebook Libra is decentralizing the transactions but it does not decentralize the currency creation . (This partial decentralization happens because Facebook wants to peg Libra to stable asset reserves.) This i…
> This is different from Bitcoin's idea of decentralizing Libra is Facebook Credits [1] rebooted. All that changed is the meme it’s attaching to, “cryptocurrency” being better at suspending consumers’ scepticism. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Credits
Absolutely not. As someone heavily involved in social gaming and related payment solutions at the time, Facebook Credits were only intended for one-way transactions, from users to game publishers, with Facebook getting a 30% cut. You weren't able to transfer these credits to other users, so it was never any form of real currency.