301–310 of 318 posts
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.
And couldn't a similar trick be used to steal my wallet, or to hack an exchange?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With credit cards, you have to give out your details to whoever you are paying. That party will save them somewhere and then there is a possibility that someone else will gain access to your details and abuse them. You won't ultimaltely lose money here, because your credit card company will reverse the transactions, as you said. Being the victim of credit card fraud is still a hassle, however. With crypto, the only t…
> With crypto, the only thing you give out is your public key That’s not really true. The service/product provider can and will ask for more details, like name, address, etc - it has nothing to do with the mode of payment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin is tied to the physical world the same way every other currency is tied to the physical world. Right now you can transfer abstract value you have acquired without a 1-2% fee through bitcoin, which is much easier than doing it via a bank. For example a poker player needing to get 1 million dollars to Monaco to play a tournament would have to pay 1% (10,000$) and wait god knows how long if he went through the b…
> For example a poker player needing to get 1 million dollars to Monaco to play a tournament would have to pay 1% (10,000$) and wait god knows how long if he went through the banks Do you have a source for this? I find it hard to believe that high stakes gambling is hindered by banking systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being able to transfer value across the internet without the permission of a middle man, is valuable in the real world.
No, you can’t. If you follow the axioms of the cryptocurrency evangelists to their logical ends, transferring cryptocurrency to another wallet is something that happens entirely in virtual space. Of course, this virtual space is coupled with physical space, by hugely centralized entities called exchanges. To get your money across the border, you need to deal with them. In that case the physical value you can buy with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem Hawala solves is turning currency at one end into spendable cash (probably denominated in a different currency) at the other end Crypto doesn't solve this (except in very limited circumstances where recipients can buy everything they need with crypto). It's just a layer in the middle, and as it's a layer which requires additional exchanges, it's not more efficient except where it provides a loophole in fo…
The problem Hawala solves is e.g. sending money from USA to Iran (substitute any other two countries where legal barriers are in place). Which, yes, is a loophole in foreign exchange regulations. Whether you believe that it's a valid use case depends on whether you believe those foreign exchange regulations are justifiable. It can be argued both ways, but don't assume that everybody agrees with you on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing that this is being downvoted. Such a simple and straightforward argument and instead of having it they'd rather hide it. I wonder why.
Because the "argument" has a limited view, namely that individual liberty is the ultimate goal/blessing/benefit. A blanket "all banning is bad" is just wrong. Saying "are you gonna arrest me from doing math" is like saying "are you gonna arrest me for mixing chemicals?" when you're making a homemade bomb to explode other people. The impact of the current crypto rush is worldwide, this person's energy use to generate…
Your argument is flawed. Making a bomb has a narrow purpose to do damage. Banking institutions do dramatically more damage. This is a potential alternative removing middlemen from the equation and operating at a fixed rate.
Proof of Work didn't predict the use of ASICs and was intended for common hardware that would make dominating the pool cost prohibitive. Proof if Stake is one alternative although has its own issues.
Yes, greed is what you are angry at. That is absolutely the problem. If you are truly upset about the environmental impact then moving upstream to energy producers should be your target.
Nuclear is astronomically more energy dense and has made significant strides in zero waste plants and safety features. Then again you aren't complaining about the banking institutions impact on climate which outscales crypto and continues to climb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I kind of liked the idea of NFTs as part of an asset portability system for virtual worlds. Goldman Sachs even endorsed that. I was thinking of this for items in the US$1 - US$100 range, like game items. The transaction costs would be too high if it took a blockchain transaction to walk through a portal, even for the cheap blockchains. This is theoretically possible on Zero Knowledge rollup L2s (two strongest conten…
theoretically possible zkSync says they don't have their test net for smart contracts up yet. StarkNet is in alpha. For this problem, it's OK if change commit verification takes a while, as long as it's cheap. If you move your no-copy NFT from grid A to grid B, grid B can verify that you own it, even though the current state is on grid A, and let you show it on grid B. A slow check later by each grid can prevent pers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you realize how tautological your argument is? The tech is interesting, but the full impact of the invention isn't yet discovered. Focussing on the scamminess of the loudest players in the current tech environment is unfair to the tech. But you can't critizise the current state and environment of said tech, because it's full potential hasn't been discovered yet.
Where did I say you couldn't criticize it? I just said that making final declarations is foolish, and that criticisms of the technology are often just criticisms of people using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t realize we had any Ferengi on Hacker News. You’re ignoring his point that it doesn’t justify the waste and damage that’s being done.
How much waste and damage is being done by the banking data centers and associates globally? Care to take a guess where that damage stands?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much waste and damage is being done by the banking data centers and associates globally? Care to take a guess where that damage stands?
Yes, someone else is doing something morally reprehensible, so it clears my morally reprehensible behaviour too. Now you're sounding like a Ferengi Putin.
How much impact does the banking institution makes vs how much crypto makes. Comparison is not a novel concept and is quite literally part of the scientific method.
It's almost like you are intentionally sowing seeds of misinformation and distrust to redirect...or you just like throwing stones from glass houses.