Live data from Hacker News

Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

seldo.com

231–240 of 318 posts

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time my cc was compromised is when the bad guys injected js into a large e-commerce site and stole the card data. This is a real threat. I’d rather not use any pull based payment mechanism if possible. Push only.

I understand the potential security issues. But the only affect this would have had on you is you would have had to contact your bank to reissue the card and chargeback any fraudulent transaction. Consider a similar hack on a site that accepted Bitcoin instead of credit cards. The fraudulent JS replaces the payment address with the hacker's address and you send your coin to it. There's no getting your money back now.…

Getting new cards is a pain, especially if you are traveling. You are without a card for a bit until it is replaced. And chargebacks are a headache. That is a good point about malware, However I would bet address substitution would be discovered a lot more quickly. Magecart was ripping vendors for weeks before the cc vendors tipped them off. 1 bad purchase flow and the customer complains and the site would investigate. It’s pwned for minutes not weeks. Cc theft can be silent and might only strike its victims months after the compromise. The difference is the victim. In a malware scenario, cc’s it’s the card holder, with cryptocurrency it’s the vendor that is getting screwed.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the potential security issues. But the only affect this would have had on you is you would have had to contact your bank to reissue the card and chargeback any fraudulent transaction. Consider a similar hack on a site that accepted Bitcoin instead of credit cards. The fraudulent JS replaces the payment address with the hacker's address and you send your coin to it. There's no getting your money back now.…

Getting new cards is a pain, especially if you are traveling. You are without a card for a bit until it is replaced. And chargebacks are a headache. That is a good point about malware, However I would bet address substitution would be discovered a lot more quickly. Magecart was ripping vendors for weeks before the cc vendors tipped them off. 1 bad purchase flow and the customer complains and the site would investigat…

> The difference is the victim. In a malware scenario, cc’s it’s the card holder, with cryptocurrency it’s the vendor that is getting screwed.

This makes no sense. The CC holder isn't screwed, they are mildly inconvenienced while they wait for a replacement card. It doesn't matter how many months after a breach it happens - the person who ends up without money is whe merchant who the fraudster used the stolen card with, because they will get a chargeback fee and lose stock (if they sent it out before chargebacks happen).

The vendor isn't screwed in in the cryptocurrency situation. The vendor isn't out of pocket (except for losing a sale). The person who sent the money to the hacked address (i.e you) are. Maybe the vendor will decide to send you the product anyway because their site got hacked, but that would be entirely up to them and not a function of the payment method used.

I can see how it might aid early detection. But I don't see how in that scenario you're safer using Bitcoin. The malware could be on the customers computer rather than the website. It could only be altering one in every 100 transactions. It could not be malware, it could just be a vendor selectively scamming. There are many nice features in cryptocurrency, but consumer protection is not one of them and it's a weird thing to espouse.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#233
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your view, what's the long term solution between environmental efficiency vs attack resistance? The two seem mutually-exclusive in PoW.

Solar, geothermal, wind and nuclear power? Using energy doesn’t destroy the environment. Producing energy uncleanly does. Shouting at children using PlayStations or miners producing hashes doesn’t make the environment any better. Shouting at the coal lobby might.

Color me skeptical. The cost-security tradeoff of PoW fundamentally relies on using more energy until it becomes expensive (relative to crypto revenue). If energy is cheap ("), someone will consume additional capacity.

Solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear et al. are cleaner (from an energy production standpoint, and mostly from a generator production standpoint), but still have fundamental capacity limits.

"We're going to burn {currentWorldPower}+1, forever" isn't a viable end state.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#234
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar, geothermal, wind and nuclear power? Using energy doesn’t destroy the environment. Producing energy uncleanly does. Shouting at children using PlayStations or miners producing hashes doesn’t make the environment any better. Shouting at the coal lobby might.

Color me skeptical. The cost-security tradeoff of PoW fundamentally relies on using more energy until it becomes expensive (relative to crypto revenue). If energy is cheap ("), someone will consume additional capacity. Solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear et al. are cleaner (from an energy production standpoint, and mostly from a generator production standpoint), but still have fundamental capacity limits. "We're going t…

We will use more and more energy every year as our species evolves. It is the trajectory of every civilization to generate and harness more energy. Cryptocurrency will use more and more energy, and we will seek out new ways to generate it. It is the drumbeat of human progress.

Building oligarchical proof of stake ponzi games is not progress. That is when we have given up and just want to stagnate.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#235
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How easy is it to convert gains back into fiat though?

You send it from your wallet to the exchange where you bought it, sell it for fiat and withdraw it to your bank account. The most complicated parts are complying with KYC regulation and calculating taxes, as well as not losing or leaking your private keys. If the asset has only low liquidity, then it is difficult to sell it at the sticker price and your sale may actually lower the price, but this will not happen for…

Unless of course Binance disables withdrawals because of ""technical issues""

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#236
post #96
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really what's holding this idea back, though? Seems doubtful. I could maybe buy the idea that we'll move to an internet where every site nickel and dimes us. But is it more likely for the world to adopt crypto or is it more likely for our Google and Facebook OAuth accounts to support a non-chain wallet api? The crypto cut seems like it will always be more expensive as well.

> Is that really what's holding this idea back, though? I personally don't believe it is, but some people seem convinced. Also, there's a lot of money to be made for the early entrants who are promoting this idea.

So you're saying early adopters are paid off using late investors money? Is there a name for such a scheme?

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#237
post #218
post #172

I don’t know. This hype-crypto-machine is not catching up with my “feelings” about the future of the Web. Maybe I am getting old, but aside from some communication protocol usage and some form of authenticity (which is questionable), I don’t see web3. I would go out on a limb and say that if this is web3, I don’t want to have anything to do with it. This is an outrageous waste of resources and energy with awful envir…

OK. I am convinced. The entire cryptocurrency industry is a scam. So rather than saying the same thing over and over on every HN thread about it being a 'scam', let's do something about it then? How do we ban it all to save the planet and stop the scams everywhere then? Or are we going to complain on the next HN thread about cryptocurrencies and web3 once again?

People like you helped a lot to make cryptocurrencies born by banning rights and oppressing freedom. Paper money does a lot more, and I mean A LOT more damage to the world, still damaging...

You just don't understand what you are talking about. Everything can be abused, but just because it is abused that does not mean it should be banned.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#238
post #135
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am glad we are talking about crypto pro/cons but this article was a huge miss imho. The arguments against are these beaten dead horses that many within crypto know already and frankly not well versed. NFTs were an unenforceable joke, integrating the physical world and the digital world doesn't exist (yet?), there are alternatives to the PoW model in use, legal aspects and oracles in the Ethereum network need to be…

> NFTs were an unenforceable joke "NFT Art" is a stupid implementation of NFTs that probably mostly exists for money laundering. I always thought of NFTs as a good backend for things like concert tickets or other kinds of "club memberships". This would not really have the enforceability problem, at least not more than traditional tickets, while some new features are added.

If there is no way to enforce the NFTs, then they are useless.

If someone is enforcing the NFTs then that someone could just as well store the data in some SQL table, since there is exactly 0 decentralisation in that case

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#239

1.5 decades into the tech, blockchain hasn't really provided any utility aside from easing drug transactions and money laundering. I agree with the author that some interesting tech issues were solved but apparently this still doesn't lead to anything legitimate and more useful than the non-crypto version of whatever problem you're trying to solve.

No post body was provided.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#240
post #187

Some remarks from Captain Obvious here. The primary use case for crypto is simple: (1) People buy crypto because it keeps going up in value (2) It keeps going up in value because people keep buying it. (3) For why people keep buying Crypto, see (1). That's the logic of a Ponzi scheme. All previous Ponzi schemes failed because either (a) sooner or later the scheme runs out of new suckers, and/or (b) the authorities in…

> Sooner or later, the founders of BTC (for example) will start to cash out. At the moment, they seem to be cashing out gradually Who are these "BTC founders" that are cashing out gradually? The only actual founder of Bitcoin, the anonymous Satoshi, has not moved any BTC since they disappeared from the internet: https://whale-alert.medium.com/the-satoshi-fortune-e49cf73f9...

That's the real innovation behind cryptocurrency. There is no single founder, and so there is no one to put behind bars when the whole thing collapses. But still the formula of paying old investors with new investors money remains. It's quite brilliant really
Post reply on HN