Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was wrong, we need crypto

world.hey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 336 posts

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#121

Post by datadata »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #109
datadata wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the digging example, the goal is to complete the tunnel. If the tunnel is not completed, the project would be a failure. You say that PoW works and makes cryptocurrency doable, yet you conclude that it is a failure. But you don't define what the goal of it is. What specific goal would you want crypto to achieve to falsify your belief that it is a failure?

pow has transaction fees that are too high for it to be usable as a currency.

Lightning network on bitcoin has fees that are a few cents at most, is this still a problem?

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#122

Post by jqpabc123 »

jl2718 wrote: post #68
jqpabc123 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, on chain exchanges like uniswap and 0x require zero trust whatsoever. Who determines how much your crypto is worth? Does uniswap do this? No, not on their own. They can't --- their daily trading volume is too small. They are literally forced to follow the "marketplace". The 800lb gorillas that make up the crypto "marketplace" are the centralized exchanges --- Binance and others. They set the price using what…

Uniswap is algorithmic liquidity. It doesn't "follow" anybody. It is true that the exchanges have more volume, but that is not necessarily 'real' volume. The operating model of a centralized exchange is that they get paid to both provide and consume liquidity, so much of the volume is their own. On Uniswap, there is no privileged entity, so everybody pays to consume liquidity. This is a huge damper on volumes. Note t…

It doesn't "follow" anybody.

The uniswap "algorithm" has no other choice but to follow the "market". Otherwise, it would do no trades.

Binance's trading volume is 40-50 times that of uniswap. What Binance does affects the price on uniswap --- way more than the other way around.

If Binance mints USDT and uses it to buy lots of BTC, what happens to the price of BTC on uniswap? Once the price on uniswap and other exchanges starts going up, others see it and jump in to avoid getting left behind --- driving it even higher. What happens when Binance then sells BTC?

This is a classic "pump and dump". It happens all the time because there is nothing to stop it. Binance is the one controlling "the market". Uniswap with their "algorithm " just plays along.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#123

Post by 0xbadc0de5 »

HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #81

> the Canadian prime minister imposed martial law on the protestors No, he didn’t.

Semantics aside - the Act does allow for the suspension of civil liberties that should be troubling to everyone. The ability for a government to unilaterally lock people out of their bank accounts without a court order or any form of recourse is virtually unprecedented in Western society. Likewise, retroactively labelling a behaviour as a crime, then punishing individuals for it is explicitly against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Being 2022, most financial transactions are electronic. Locking people out of their bank accounts is severely restricting their ability to buy essential goods such as food, shelter, transportation, etc.

Remember, it's not about the individuals, it's about the precedent it sets. If the government can do it to those you disagree with, they can (and will) do it to you.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#125

Post by waterlaw »

Comevius wrote: post #15
csee wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the article as connecting (not conflating) the two. He's saying that the government can no longer be trusted with this power, as evidenced by this particular misuse, and they therefore should lose that ability.

[flagged]

This comment reminds me of Carl Schmitt's observation that nothing in a Liberal Democracy prevents it from becoming totalitarian (or otherwise.)

His books are more relevant today, as the state is re-establishing its authority to define "friend" and "enemy". "Good" and "evil".

Tolerating the "other" side's views is no longer acceptable.

The state is re-establishing its authority (and monopoly?) to determine public "friend" and "enemy".

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#126

Post by sneak »

In 2011 I gave a talk in Germany at the Chaos Communications Camp entitled "Financing the Revolution" which makes the argument that uncensorable payment systems are an essential prerequisite for a free society, as without them, you cannot exercise basic rights:

https://media.ccc.de/v/cccamp11-4591-financing_the_revolutio...

I cited the banking blockade by Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal used against Wikileaks/Assange as evidence that, at the very least, publishers need to be able to send and receive payments that the state does not wish them to be able to send or receive.

Last week, I wrote about how we as a society need to be prepared specifically for user-friendly, widespread unstoppable payments, as the technology now exists for actually private, uncensorable payments to reach a wide audience.

https://sneak.berlin/20220213/unstoppable-payments-are-comin...

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#127

Post by bryanlarsen »

Canadians have a right to protest. Canadians also have a right to the enjoyment of their property. The former does not override the latter, and the latter was severely infringed upon by the occupiers.

These protests caused hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage. There is a $300M lawsuit against the occupiers in Ottawa, similar ones will happen against the occupiers of the Ambassador bridge.

The bank accounts have been frozen via two different mechanisms -- by the use of the Emergency Measures Act, and by a preliminary ruling in the civil court.

The freezing via the EMA would thaw after the EMA expires in a few days. The freezing by the civil court will not, and will likely result in the loss of those bank accounts.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#128

Post by AnimalMuppet »

feoren wrote: post #97
CodeGlitch wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the majority don't want these Nazi flag waving idiots distrupting their lives. Slightly off topic but the inconsistent treatment/reporting of these protestors and BLM is what gets me. BLM protestors flying "antifa" flags (let's be honest Marxists) are just as bad as Nazis in my book - seriously misled people with unworkable ideas about how the world should be run. Anyway if you're coming down hard on protestors…

> BLM protestors flying "antifa" flags ... are just as bad as Nazis Let's be clear about what you're saying: people who are vehemently opposed to Nazis are just as bad as Nazis. This is the definition of "fake centrism" or (sarcastically) "enlightened centrism". You're really saying that a new flag created to express opposition to Nazis, fascism, authoritarianism, and genocide is as bad as a flag that has been used f…

People vehemently opposed to Nazis can be exactly as bad as Nazis. It's not the flag; it's not even really the ideology; it's the actions. If your actions are as bad as the actions of Nazis, then you are as bad as Nazis.

You and CodeGlitch can argue whether that applies in this situation. But the idea itself is perfectly reasonable.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#129

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

colpabar wrote: post #89
Elinvynia wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One idiot or provocateur in a sea of tens of thousands does not override the 99%. That's an absurd, lazy smear. Do you feel the same about the BLM protests?

This is a really lazy whataboutism. Let's assume that both the blm protests and the convoy both had "a few idiots or provocateurs in a sea of tens of thousands." Now compare the media coverage and government handling of the two things, and compare how those idiots are portrayed compared to the tens of thousands. Do you see a difference? It seems to me that all blm-related events are generally considered peaceful prot…

And I bet people who watched fox news have a different perspective on how peaceful/violent some BLM protests were. What's even worse is that people getting their news from social media are going to be fed a single narrative and be entirely unaware of it; at least with entities like fox news/CNN or sub-reddits, someone can actively seek out multiple narratives around an event.

> Did any blm related entity have their bank accounts frozen?

Interesting to think about. Just imagine the headline of "Donald trump freezes bank accounts of BLM protestors" and the uproar and legal battles that would immediately follow. Different countries (laws, rights, legal precedents), different levels of public support for the underlying cause, "black bloc" obscuring the protestor identities.

Re: I was wrong, we need crypto

#130

Post by bryanlarsen »

yuvadam wrote: post #28
thomassmith65 wrote: post #3

It is one thing whether or not the Canadian government should seize funds from people who support the "convoy" movement. It is a different thing whether or not the Canadian government should lose the ability to seize funds , in general, from its citizens. This article conflates the two.

The Canadian government can still seize crypto funds from citizens, it just requires them to actually go through a due process, and perhaps get a court order or warrant. What's going on in Canada right now is a disgrace that perfectly exemplifies why the legacy financial system is morally - and quite literally - bankrupt.

> get a court order or warrant.

Already done: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/02/17/citizens-grou...

Post reply on HN