311–320 of 442 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
succinctly said. all these web3 / crypto folks forget complex laws exist to prevent and remedy situations that can't be simply solved by smart contracts. most of the laws are so complex, we've professionals who specialise in them.
alternatively, maybe web3 / crypto folks haven't "forgotten" something so obvious as "complex laws and lawyers exist."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's the advantage for Bob here?
He can work for Alice or anyone else in the world without having to deal with intermediaries and bureaucracy.
what's stopping him now?
> without having to deal with intermediaries and bureaucracy.
you mean laws?
edit: immagine this situation, Bob does the job, the other party never clicks on "done", Bob doesn't get the money, what Bob can do if there's no intermediary and/or bureaucracy protecting him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are middle grounds here. Sovereignty, like security, is not binary, it's a spectrum. You could use a scheme where two of three signatures allow transactions : you, your 'bank' and a notary. Or have such schemes for anything above a value. Or allow transactions by and to a list of whitelisted addresses after a certain date or event (such as a missed canary).
> You could use a scheme where two of three signatures allow transactions So now social engineering hits and someone convinces my ‘bank’ and notary to allow the transaction to a third party. Now my life savings are gone forever. In my real bank (no quotes) you have regulation. Banks are liable for fraud. Blockchains aren’t. Now you could have pre assigned addresses that the notary and bank are allowed to transfer to,…
My point is not that these three examples "solve all issues we have with Authority/Govt/BigFinance". Nor to prove that "Bitcoin Fixes this".
My point is to show that crypto-currencies, by design, are programmable, and this allows a lot of use cases to move from Authority/Govt/BigFinance to DIY. Not all cases, not everywhere, not for everyone. But in a spectrum.
To clarify with your refutations:
> Now my life savings are gone forever.
Which is why you probably want "your life savings" in a secure, goverened, trusted environment. For many people Blockchain or DIY is out of the question for "my life savings". But that leaves a giant spectrum of other use-cases. From checking accounts to saving-for-a-friends-present. Use your imagination.
> Then I have to trust that the blockchain can tell these people are alive
You are dismissing a giant set of use-cases on one that will, indeed, probably never work. I never mentioned that this the ultimate and only replacement for Deed. I deliberately did not, because I think this is a bad use-case for Blockchain for the reasons you mention and much more.
But this could be a "here's some money for when you turn 18" or "bonuses for managers which can only get extracted after a year", a "tip jar that pays out every month" etc.
My point was that trust is a spectrum, and not binary. Yet you take the most extreme outliers thinkable, refute those and then conclude that none of the cases in the broad spectrum can ever work. They can. And Blockchain is one of the tools. As are trust-funds, banks, payment-APIs, courts, notaries and so on.
I'm tired of circular web3 discussions. All I see is people arguing for "but, maybe you shouldn't trust the government, maybe you should trust some math that works like a government in this limited scope". All I see is markets which sidestep all the rules enforced by governments to keep them fair (which prevent things like trading with yourself to create fake transactions), and none of the "park renovation" or "enabl…
More than 2 billions of people live in authoritarian regimes where the government rules exist only to oppress the population and make it more easily controlled. Bitcoin gives them the option to maintain their property rights, avoid financial surveillance and money controls. Saying that crypto is only used for ponzi schemes is simply false and disingenuous.
Nice read. What I don't get about all the crypto haters, who will probably make up the majority of replies here, are they really just happy with the status quo? Do they really think the current financial system is great and their online bank account is perfect and nothing radical is worth trying? That usernames and passwords given to each of a million different companies are so great, why would people want to manage…
Not being happy with the status quo and not liking cryptocurrencies are not mutually exclusive. You can "hate" both. My problem with "crypto" is that the industry is so focused on getting rich, is all about money. That's not changing the status quo, that's wanting to be a part of it. If you TRULY want to change the status quo your focus can't be on how you can get rich quicker. There's been centuries of thought on se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It’s the whole complex web of laws and regulations that created these policies that make them real, and the people (your fellow citizens) who have collectively decided to run society by these rules. Don't forget the whole violent kidnapping thing your fellow citizens let governments do. The mythology of laws running society is cute but laws are made real by constant threats of violence and caging.
Your comment is a kind of virtue signalling. What is your alternative? To not jail murderers or thieves? [edit] Just to check if you're serious or not, would you be happy to move next to a prison and then have all the inmates released?
This is, arguably, going to be better than violently caging people, in some circumstances.
I take the GF comment to be maybe virtue-signally, but mostly pointing out that our legacy law system has an awwwwwful lot of people in jail. Maybe that jail-shaped hammer is not as useful as you think it is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh cool, how many people in your community do you know who are comfortable using PGP in their email?
Thats kinda the point, PGP had 25 years to get any use and failed, this form of crypto reached accelerated saturation very quickly You thought you had a rebuttal and walked right into why its working Those users can learn not to get taken advantage of
Spoken like a true scammer. It is pretty obvious to anyone who is even vaguely aware of phone scams that this will never be enough.
I'm tired of circular web3 discussions. All I see is people arguing for "but, maybe you shouldn't trust the government, maybe you should trust some math that works like a government in this limited scope". All I see is markets which sidestep all the rules enforced by governments to keep them fair (which prevent things like trading with yourself to create fake transactions), and none of the "park renovation" or "enabl…
More than 2 billions of people live in authoritarian regimes where the government rules exist only to oppress the population and make it more easily controlled. Bitcoin gives them the option to maintain their property rights, avoid financial surveillance and money controls. Saying that crypto is only used for ponzi schemes is simply false and disingenuous.
Authoritarian regimes are very good at filtering and blocking unwanted content.
Bitcoin is as easy to block as any other traffic that's easy to recognize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people complain about transaction fees and limited throughput of a blockchain. I can only imagine this ancient system to be a magnitude worse in those regards.
The system is optimized for security, preventing fraud is more important than throughput in this case. Registering something in the Grundbuch is fast enough for property transactions. Transaction fees are high by design. They are a form of tax on property transactions that discourages short term investments. The system works very well and I just don't think it needs fixing.
For the few use-cases that match it, yes.
The name Grundbuch itself puts a limit on its use, but we can imagine that there are many situations that call for the same amount of protection and trust, but which require a far higher throughput.
Back when Grundbuch was set up, ground and estate was probably the most valuable asset peopel can own. Today we have stocks, bonds, contracts, savings, companies, art, private-keys, hell; even cars, that are worth a multiple of a typical meadow in the Austrian hills.
Many of these classes cannot use the a system like Grundbuch because its fees are too high or its throughput too low. No-one wants to pay upwards of €600 just to sell some AAPL stock. No insurance company wants to drive to a notary for each contract they sign and then pay €600 upwards.
I'm not trying to say that blockchain is a solution for all these cases (It isn't). I'm saying that the system is limiting, problematic and unfit for many cases. That therefore, this system is unfit for the majority of cases that would need them 2021 (but for one specific case it works).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk. I get my direct deposit into my account from my employer for free. I can transfer funds to pay bills for free. And I can go anywhere in the world and withdraw money for less than a 5$ fee in less than a minute. Try doing that with crypto.
"I can get my favorite articles delivered to my door, I can watch my sports games live, I can talk to my parent's across country instantly and cheaply over the phone. Try doing any of that with 'the internet.'" Sometimes you're just early, bud.
With e commerce you could view a dynamic catalog and place an order without a painful lengthy phone call.
Cryptos biggest innovation is not being a bank account. But DeFI. Uniswap is huge! And it solves a real pain. Crypto margin loans solve a real pain.
But crypto is not by any stretch better than a dollar for my day to day life.