131–140 of 577 posts
I honestly don't understand why this coin even makes the news. At $250K it was less than a microcap penny token. It's insignificant and not worth a print.
A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…
I'm gonna be honest I don't know what the audience is for a product where you risk losing your entire life savings because you typed a wrong word in a smart contract rather than paying a middleman a fraction of a percent. It's almost like a sort of willful ignorance of division of labour and the concept of pooling risk.
If you are working a w2 job and paying taxes and paying your mortgage / auto loan... crypto doesn't really help you.
Blackmail? Awesome. Buying illegal substances? Awesome. Gambling? You got it...
A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…
I don’t disagree with you, but I think the only fallacy here is that it’s an extremely zero-sum way to look at things. Are we perhaps better off for many — maybe even all — of our status quo legal contracts not working like software programs? Sure. Is there a class of legal contracts — either already in existence, or made possible by crypto — that’d make much more sense if ran like software (with different requiremen…
The whole point of crypto-like contracts is that the terms of the contract are defined solely by code. Ambiguity is, by definition, impossible.
If you remove that, why not just use a regular contract?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of people in the world can't get a credit card.
This argument does not help. Those same folks cannot carry around a crypto-buck either. There are plenty of mobile-only banking solutions that are widely used in non-western worlds, and that's likely a model for emerging economies. When electronic banking comes, OP is saying that standard banking ("perfected over millenia TM") is honestly quite preferable over algorithmic contracts.
I'm not a big DeFi booster, but I don't think that's true. All it takes is a mobile phone. There's some pretty compelling videos coming out of El Salvador showing just how easy it is to instantly transact Bitcoin between two people simply by scanning a QR code on the other person's phone and then sending a Lightning Network transaction. This is already reality on the ground, and seemingly more accessible than getting access to credit.
A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…
> that the world does not run algorithmically Sure it does: moving gold and commodities between countries in non-mutually-friendly regimes, very much resembles crypto. Fiat finance is a system of contract law built on top of a de-facto "state of nature" of irreversible no-arbitrator commodity transfers. It exists in places where people can agree on who the arbitrating party should be. It does not exist outside of tho…
Ah, the "I want to break laws" use case for cryptocurrencies.
These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.
> I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts. I agree, but think it's fixable. I believe we have missed a natural platform in between binary notation and computer languages. I believe there is a 2-D dimensional binary. Simply using a grid (with an array of cells forming a line, and lines stacked on top of each other—a spreadsheet basically), we can drop *all*…
Zero counts as stable. Nothing further is ever going to happen to that price, I'll bet :)
[Mr. Burns looks through a portfolio of his old stocks] Mr. Burns: Hmm, let's see..."Confederated Slave holdings." How's that one holding up? Blue Haired Lawyer: It's, uh, steady.
A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…
I'm gonna be honest I don't know what the audience is for a product where you risk losing your entire life savings because you typed a wrong word in a smart contract rather than paying a middleman a fraction of a percent. It's almost like a sort of willful ignorance of division of labour and the concept of pooling risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the synagogue shooter was paid in Bitcoin. So not pure hyperbole. Edit: might have the details confused about above point, but the general thrust of things is pretty clear. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/19/neo-nazis-banked-on-bit...
Well in that case, nothing incentivizes more crime than USD.