Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game

#211

Post by alanfalcon » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

lovecg wrote: post #186

magnamerc wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even for PoS cryptos where you require 51% of the currency to control the network, it would become prohibitively expensive to buy up 51% of the circulating supply due to market dynamics. PoS is arguably more secure than PoW. Arguably.

And then even if you do, you now own a lot of the currency and are in theory incentivized to keep the value from crashing.

Missiles have a lot of value. Crashing them expends that value. Governments still crash missiles into their enemies.

Re: Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game

#212

Post by scarface74 » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

warp_factor wrote: post #180

scarface74 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article specifically says that FB does not have a controlling interest or the ability to decide who joins the consortium.

That's the way they marketed it. They know they had to do this little concession in order to get Libra to pick up so that people would repeat tirelessly that it's not controller by Facebook and therefore it's good. But it's controlled by Facebook and friends and the influence they would get over any decision is absolutely huge

Do you have any citations that contradict the article?

The Validators Who, then, are the validators? Well, Facebook is one, but only one: currently there are 28 “Founding Members”, including merchants, venture capitalists, and payment networks, that meet two of the following three criteria:

More than $1 billion USD in market value or more than $500 million USD in customer cash flow Reach more than 20 million people a year Recognition as a top-100 industry leader by a third-party association such as Fortune or S&P These “Founding Members” are required to make a minimum investment of $10 million and provide computing power to the network. In addition, there are separate requirements for non-profit organizations and academic institutions that rely on a mixture of budget, track record, and rankings; a minimum investment may not be necessary. Libra intends to have 100 Founding Members by the time it launches next year.

Re: Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game

#213

Post by NoodleIncident » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #57

bhupy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the counterargument to this?

The incentives don't seem to align in that direction. What would be the point for Facebook to create a promote such a currency if they can't control it at some level? I fully expect that even if the core of the cryptocurrency might actually be decentralized and not directly controlled by Facebook (and I don't believe that either, for the record) the practical implementation of this will give Facebook more than enough…

> What would be the point for Facebook to create a promote such a currency if they can't control it at some level?

So that you can buy things in WhatsApp, like you can in WeChat.

Re: Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game

#214

Post by camgunz » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 9:30 PM UTC

aserafini wrote: post #179

RobertoG wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"Why? Well assuming all things being equal (convenience as medium of exchange etc.), an individual is always going to prefer holding currency that isn’t subject to inflation." And why should they spend a so wonderful asset? And what is the point of a currency that is always appreciating and nobody want to spend? >>"The problem for governments is: the genie is out of the bottle regarding fixed supply." Central banks…

> what is the point of a currency that is always appreciating and nobody want to spend Fixed supply doesn't mean it will always appreciate. It just seems like it today because the first fixed supply currency that can be transferred over the internet was only invented 10 years ago. It (or an equivalent, or a mix of equivalents) has to rise from 0 USD to X USD over time where X is "the value of global, fixed supply cur…

> Just because I pay taxes in USD/EUR doesn't mean I can't store my cash in a fixed supply currency, and anyone who does this avoids inflation.

(Let's just use BTC and USD)

Let's say yesterday milk was $2/gallon. But overnight, USD hyperinflated 50% and now it's $3/gallon. Yesterday, I invested 2 USD in BTC. Unless I can convince someone to give me 3 USD for my BTC, I can't buy a gallon of milk.

No rational person will help you avoid inflation like this, because they'd be losing money. They would have to think that the BTC they get from you will appreciate. In other words, they have to speculate.

So the only thing that you do by storing your cash in a fixed supply currency is speculate, and the only way you "avoid inflation" is if your speculation outpaces inflation.

--This is exactly the same as every other investment.--

But there's a huge difference: speculating in BTC helps no one (actually, it almost certainly helps super awful criminals like drug cartels and human traffickers). Please don't do this. Please invest your money in businesses that need it, or in real estate to help build homes, or in any one of a million ways that actually fuel economic growth and have the potential to help a human being.

> And if everyone does this, government no longer controls the money supply.

Why do you think this is a good thing?

Re: Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game

#215

Post by draw_down » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 9:33 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #74

gooseus wrote: post #45

> The largest leap will come last: Libra as a genuine currency, not simply a medium for transaction. This will be function of volume in the previous two use cases, and is understandably concerning to governments all over the world. Well that's certainly an understatement. This is literally the only mention of government through-out the entire article. The only mention of banks is in the previous paragraph stating the…

>I really don't know why this isn't a larger part of this conversation. That's been the elephant in the room ever since Satoshi published its paper more than a decade ago. When I discuss with cryptocurrency enthusiasts I often get the impression that they think that banks are this kind of useless parasite body that somehow appears like mosquitoes around a pond in summer. That they only serve to basically operate ATMs…

Holy smokes, this is one of the best posts I’ve ever seen on here.

Re: Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game

#216

Post by mntmoss » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 9:36 PM UTC

creato wrote: post #184

panarky wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is one of the reasons I dropped out of crypto for years, most of its supporters were completely delusional and tragically uninformed about actual banks. The reason I stayed in is because Bitcoin solved a seemingly intractable problem, it works in the real world, and it's survived and even thrived in the face of fierce attacks for a decade. Yes, there are many shills who are delusional and ignorant. Yes, specul…

> and it's survived and even thrived in the face of fierce attacks for a decade What fierce attacks has bitcoin faced? Sure, lots of people mock and criticize it, but no real action has been taken. The people criticizing it have just as much influence (or maybe even less) than the delusional and ignorant true believers. To me, a fierce attack would be regulatory action taken by various world governments, but that has…

With Bitcoin, there are certain elements that make it desirable as a bargaining chip during internal power struggles. The claim of banking and government being joined at the hip is true due to pragmatic convenience: If you want to have power over things like militaries and social services, you need a solution for financing and that sends you into the arms of the bankers. But if you start having an option to opt out, to say as a large institution, "we don't need you," then the banks have to start to compete.

At the end of that struggle, you still have a government in control of its financing, but the shape of it, borne through so many battles, is likely to be more efficient.

Re: Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game

#217

Post by jonathankoren » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

abecedarius wrote: post #170

jonathankoren wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to read up on the era before central banking, and bank notes. It was chaos. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/12/07/166747693/epis...

Counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking#Scotland

Also the exception. Ultimately, you have to wonder what problem you're trying to solve from going from a globally recognized stable reserve currency, to something that is synonymous with extreme volatility and fraud.

Re: Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game

#218

Post by TuringNYC » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 9:57 PM UTC

gooseus wrote: post #45

> The largest leap will come last: Libra as a genuine currency, not simply a medium for transaction. This will be function of volume in the previous two use cases, and is understandably concerning to governments all over the world. Well that's certainly an understatement. This is literally the only mention of government through-out the entire article. The only mention of banks is in the previous paragraph stating the…

>> No government is going to let FB and any coalition do an end run around their national currency and their banking institutions.

1. I can see the US government and perhaps the Five Eyes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes) wanting this because it effectively reveals lots of global transactions they are not currently privy to w/o tedious work. I find it difficult to believe that all the relevant FiveEyes agencies have not been an integral part of this from the planning stage.

2. I dont see how small nations can really stop it. They can stop transfers to/from their own currency, but can they really stop closed loop Libra systems? For example, someone in Whateveristan does some work on E-Lance/Upwork and gets paid 100 Libra. They spend 100 Libra on goods online and gets it delivered -- how could the local government stop this?

Re: Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game

#219

Post by aserafini » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:08 PM UTC

camgunz wrote: post #214

aserafini wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is the point of a currency that is always appreciating and nobody want to spend Fixed supply doesn't mean it will always appreciate. It just seems like it today because the first fixed supply currency that can be transferred over the internet was only invented 10 years ago. It (or an equivalent, or a mix of equivalents) has to rise from 0 USD to X USD over time where X is "the value of global, fixed supply cur…

> Just because I pay taxes in USD/EUR doesn't mean I can't store my cash in a fixed supply currency, and anyone who does this avoids inflation. (Let's just use BTC and USD) Let's say yesterday milk was $2/gallon. But overnight, USD hyperinflated 50% and now it's $3/gallon. Yesterday, I invested 2 USD in BTC. Unless I can convince someone to give me 3 USD for my BTC, I can't buy a gallon of milk. No rational person wi…

> Unless I can convince someone to give me 3 USD for my BTC.

This is exactly what would happen, no convincing required. Overnight 50% hyperinflation of the dollar would mean 2 USD worth of BTC/EUR/GBP/milk/anything bought yesterday could be sold for 3 USD today.

> Why do you think this is a good thing?

I’m not claiming it’s a good or bad idea. I’m claiming it’s an inevitable consequence of usable fixed supply currencies continuing to exist.

Re: Facebook, Libra, and the Long Game

#220

Post by csomar » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

gooseus wrote: post #45

> The largest leap will come last: Libra as a genuine currency, not simply a medium for transaction. This will be function of volume in the previous two use cases, and is understandably concerning to governments all over the world. Well that's certainly an understatement. This is literally the only mention of government through-out the entire article. The only mention of banks is in the previous paragraph stating the…

> No government is going to let FB and any coalition do an end run around their national currency and their banking institutions. They're also not going to partner with an international consortium to have them replaced with something they only partially control.

Libra is going to be backed by top currencies (probably USD, EUR, JPY, GBP). Why wouldn't the USA like that? They get to invade other countries for free.

Most countries do not like the USD. And most of them are fighting it with capital controls. The US is imposing the liberation of these economies. Through both threats and cookies. Check the FATCA for example. There is no reciprocity and yet countries are implementing it.

Libra could help the US and friends get into other countries easily.