Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm entirely unconvinced that self custody is an advantage for anyone except extremely sophisticated people (sophisticated in both the technical and financial sense). I've been doing blockchain on and off since 2008. Recently I lost a few thousand dollars by sending crypto to a L1 address when I was on a L2. I work on self-soverign identity in my day job. I've written smart contracts. I'm a careful person. Basically…
You've been doing blockchain on-and-off since before the genesis of Bitcoin? What were you doing?
Crypto is an unproductive bubble
131–140 of 539 posts
Re: Crypto is an unproductive bubble
#132I used to have many of these same biases, before I actually used crypto. First off, it is factually incorrect to say that transaction costs are higher than traditional banking. In fact, costs on some blockchains are negligible when compared to traditional banking fees -- literally fractions of a cent for moving large sums of money. Moreover, it is very liberating to be free of banks, with all of their absurd controls…
Re: Crypto is an unproductive bubble
#133One of the biggest drawbacks for blockchain is that transactions can't be revoked after the fact (with the only exception being costly forks of the entire ledger), and there's no additional human oversight (like I'd get when sending a large amount of money through a bank) to protect me. If someone steals my credit card, I have my credit card company to give me some level of protection. They can block transactions if…
The beauty of crypto is that those tools are exposed and not required, and that the underlying rules are universal. Banks and custodial services built off of shared liability, insurance, reversions, any useful thing a bank does are still possible with crypto - in fact they aren't even that complicated. The difference is that while allowing a (properly set up) crypto bank to transfer funds you may also at any point an…
Re: Crypto is an unproductive bubble
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a problem (if you consider it as such) that smart contracts intend to solve. For example, in the smart contract introduce some authorities that are allowed to block and revoke transactions for some time (if the block chain has no support for certified timestamps, use "number of new blocks mined and appended to the blockchain" as substitute). Let the market decide what kind of protection stakeholders prefer.
This hinges on the contracts actually working as intended, which is something they often do not. Code in general rarely does poorly in that regard. It's really hard to consider every contingency beforehand. Unknown unknowns and all that.
People keep losing money making coding mistakes that even "gcc -Wall -Werror" would refuse to compile. Examples: type errors like L1 vs L2 (whatever that even means, not a crypto person), wrong number of function parameters causing some sort of currying, allowing that massive ETH heist a few weeks back.
I'm sure there are hundreds of other similar horror stories.
"-Wextra -pedantic" would protect against even more bugs.
(I'm not saying C is a reasonable choice, just that JavaScript was a laughably bad choice.)
Re: Crypto is an unproductive bubble
#135Everything is a bubble. Crypto is no different, but its not more a bubble than web2, web1, telnet and we could go on. Its interesting why people are so interested in trying to argue against crypto. Its here, its adding value, get over it.
Re: Crypto is an unproductive bubble
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is typical crypto-hype. Notice that although many points are raised, it doesn’t address the direct objections of the previous post. Obfuscate, misdirect, and confuse the marks.
Thats because nobody refutes those points. Yes, transactions in crypto are irreversible. It might be bad for those number of factors. But even given those cons we see benefits in things mentioned above. E.g. my colleague can send bitcoin to his brother in russia. Tell me what other options to transfer value there are at the moment between west and russia. Very similar for ukraine.
Re: Crypto is an unproductive bubble
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm entirely unconvinced that self custody is an advantage for anyone except extremely sophisticated people (sophisticated in both the technical and financial sense). I've been doing blockchain on and off since 2008. Recently I lost a few thousand dollars by sending crypto to a L1 address when I was on a L2. I work on self-soverign identity in my day job. I've written smart contracts. I'm a careful person. Basically…
You've been doing blockchain on-and-off since before the genesis of Bitcoin? What were you doing?
> Nakamoto stated that work on the writing of the code for bitcoin began in 2007. On 18 August 2008, he or a colleague registered the domain name bitcoin.org, and created a web site at that address. On 31 October, Nakamoto published a white paper on the cryptography mailing list at metzdowd.com describing a digital cryptocurrency, titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".
Re: Crypto is an unproductive bubble
#138> Claim 1: Crypto is a Bubble (Confidence: High)
Are stablecoins not crypto? The DeFi built on top of stablecoins and other assets is basically what the market/banks had been doing for a long time (except that everything is transparent, fraud is easier to detect, etc.)
> Claim 2: Blockchain technology has no non-monetary applications (Confidence: High)
This one is easy to refute. A few ways:
1. The point of cryptocurrencies, is that we found that we could use monetary incentives to build and run services that have nothing to do with money. Sure bitcoin was only for transfers, but other projects have explored how to build services on top: smart contracts, identity registry, archiving of the web, file storage as a service, a tor-like mixnetworks, and I'm sure others can point out all sorts of projects.
2. The core of blockchain technology (although not all of it, see next point) is about protocols for distributed systems when faults can be malicious. Distributed systems are used EVERYWHERE, think distributed databases. As threat models are different for every products, why claim that we don't need distributed databases resistant to malicious faults? Banks are the first target of such products, so it's no wonder that cryptocurrencies were invented. Another example is the web PKI, which currently uses protocols like Certificate Transparency which are good are letting you audit your domain names and detect if any attacks have happened after the fact. I bet you that in the next 10-20 years the web PKI will run on a BFT consensus protocol, or an unknown breakthrough solving a similar problem, to prevent attacks from happening, period. And if nobody builds it I will.
3. What is blockchain tech exactly? Because I can tell you that many fields in cryptography have seen INSANE advances SOLELY because of cryptocurrencies: general-purpose zero knowledge proofs, multi-party computation (and threshold cryptography), broadcast protocols, etc.
> Claim 3: Future monetary use of blockchain technology will be minor (Confidence: Medium)
That really depends on regulations, and if they want to kill the beast (and replace it with a non-fault tolerant CBDC). But we're already seeing countries adopting cryptocurrencies (albeit the wrong ones) so I guess it depends on where you'll be in the world. The dream of crypto is really, no matter bitcoin maximalists will tell you, to make payments as easy as sending an email. And without an open standard that everyone can trust, how will this ever happen?
Re: Crypto is an unproductive bubble
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banks won’t protect you from wire fraud either. I’ve written this elsewhere when this topic routinely comes up and crypto is dismissed, but the capability of self-custody is the thing to pay attention to. Nothing else has this capability to the same extent. Today we store most of our wealth in assets (market index funds, stocks, real estate, etc.) and some (typically very little, and rarely outside of a bank account)…
This is typical crypto-hype. Notice that although many points are raised, it doesn’t address the direct objections of the previous post. Obfuscate, misdirect, and confuse the marks.
Re: Crypto is an unproductive bubble
#140People have been making similar claims about Bitcoin for over a decade now, and meanwhile it is still alive and kicking and shows no signs of slowing down. It is especially useful in places in the world that don’t have easy access to banking and countries where their currencies are being debased. I encourage you to watch this video if you have any interest in challenging your beliefs:
You shrug crypto off as not being “genuinely innovative” which I think shows a big lack of understanding. Personally, I think the invention of Bitcoin is perhaps the greatest innovation since the internet itself. It cannot be understated how powerful it is to create money whose supply cannot be controlled by a central institution or power. This is the kind of invention that could literally change the world (and likely will).
Your second point in claim 3 is the exact talking point used by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. I think this represents an extremely narrow view of the world. Look at the US dollar which is dangerously on the verge of falling into an inflationary spiral. If you feel safe keeping your money in dollars then godspeed. I personally feel very unsafe given the current political climate. The dollar has lost over 99% of its purchasing power since the creation of the Federal Reserve and the current strategy of printing more money to solve every problem has been much more of a “detriment to people’s lives and livelihoods” than the gold standard ever was. You should research The Cantillon effect which seems to be more and more relevant in today’s economy.
An alternative to the boom and bust narrative is that the banking elites of that time period created the boom and bust cycles themselves through control of the gold supply in order to lobby and justify the creation of a central banking system that would benefit them and ensure that if they ever got into a pinch they could bail themselves out by having easy access to the money spigot. Remember history is told by the victors.
I agree with you that governments are unlikely to let go of control over monetary policy and won’t do it willingly or eagerly, but I think it is already too late for them to kill Bitcoin. They can cut off exchange access to buy and sell for dollars, but by forcing people to use dollars and cutting off access to crypto, I think it will actually expedite people’s willingness and acceptance of crypto. People and businesses will start accepting crypto directly for payments. It will take a long time for this to actually materialize in the real world because there are so many people like you who have such a narrow-minded view of crypto, but when you are faced with accepting a currency that is losing 10-20% of its purchasing power every year, or accepting Bitcoin, eventually people will understand that Bitcoin is the better money.
I expect to receive an onslaught of downvotes for this reply and going against the grain, but so be it.