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

Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

wave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 227 posts

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#181

Post by dmitriid »

everfree wrote: post #163
dmitriid wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Other chains either drop, or plan to drop data that's been on the network for over a year or so So when the next $625-million exploit happens [1] the hackers would just need to wait a year before any trace of them disappears? Awesome [1] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=2022-03-29-0

No, that is incorrect. I'm talking about the data availability requirement that the protocol imposes on nodes if they want to remain connected to the swarm. I'm not sure what you're talking about - data doesn't magically get deleted from the internet with "no trace".

> Data doesn't magically get deleted from the internet with "no trace".

This is what you said, emphasis mine: "Bitcoin make the silly argument that ... a full history of all transactions needs to be maximally available on the network. Other chains either drop, or plan to drop data that's been on the network for over a year or so".

I'm reading exactly what you wrote. I don't know, may be the meaning of words in crypto world is "wrong".

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#182

Post by dmitriid »

everfree wrote: post #168
dmitriid wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Some of it" is how much? Out of the "omg we sent 100 million dollars to Ukraine"? How many exchanges will actually be able to cash out that amount of money?

I don't have time to do the chain analysis right now, but it looks like they cashed out the equivalent of at least mid-7-figures USD, possibly much more. Trace the transactions yourself, here's the analytics for their receiving address. https://etherscan.io/address/0x165CD37b4C644C2921454429E7F93... That amount of money is easy to cash out even on a relatively small exchange.

> I don't have time to do the chain analysis right now

For a system that claims to "have all data on the chain" it sure seems to be hard to trace the money.

> looks like they cashed out the equivalent of at least mid-7-figures USD. That amount of money is easy to cash out even on a relatively small exchange.

I've seen a few transfers out to USDT. And then some transfers to Kuna.io which is an offshore company registered in British Virgin Islands. Ah, truly "any exchange". It looks more like someone decided to profit off these donations.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#183

Post by dmitriid »

tromp wrote: post #118
everfree wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most enthusiasts do not accept that the blockchain will became unmanageable by most just due to it's ever-growing size Some blockchain protocols like Bitcoin make the silly argument that in order for a chain to be worthwhile, a full history of all transactions needs to be maximally available on the network. Other chains either drop, or plan to drop data that's been on the network for over a year or so (EIP-4444, fo…

> This relies on the weak assumption that the consensus algorithm will not finalize invalid data and then continue to build on it for over a year. You don't need to rely on such a weak assumption. You can use Incrementally Verifiable Computation to verify the entire blockchain history in constant time. See e.g. https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/11/05/halo.html

So, hackers remove your money or exploit an error in your smart contract, the history is there, okay. Then the data and transaction history is dropped. Yup, the "" tells you that history is correct. So?

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#184

Post by everfree »

dmitriid wrote: post #181
everfree wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is incorrect. I'm talking about the data availability requirement that the protocol imposes on nodes if they want to remain connected to the swarm. I'm not sure what you're talking about - data doesn't magically get deleted from the internet with "no trace".

> Data doesn't magically get deleted from the internet with "no trace". This is what you said, emphasis mine: "Bitcoin make the silly argument that ... a full history of all transactions needs to be maximally available on the network. Other chains either drop, or plan to drop data that's been on the network for over a year or so". I'm reading exactly what you wrote. I don't know, may be the meaning of words in crypto…

There's a wide spectrum between a piece of data being maintained by every participant of a particular blockchain and maximally available, and that data being completely unavailable to anyone.

It's that spectrum between 0-of-N and consensus-enforced N-of-N that you don't seem to grasp.

I'll say it again, once a piece of data is no longer maintained by all N-of-N participants in a blockchain as a matter of its consensus protocol, that doesn't mean that the data gets automatically deleted from the internet and from everyone's hard drives. On the contrary, there are many reasons why particular actors would want to retain that data, one of which is the very thing we are discussing - to keep a transaction history in case old transactions need to be audited for potential criminal prosecution of $625-million exploits.

> Other chains either drop, or plan to drop data that's been on the network for over a year or so

Yes, the chains, i.e. the actors that are keeping the minimal amount of data to continue to participate in the protocol, drop that data. That doesn't mean the data disappears from the internet. Instead, data availability is likely to remain incentivized within dedicated sub-protocols. That's not to mention the numerous private entities that will have their own external incentives to retain that data. Quote from Vitalik:

> Older blocks, transactions and receipts/logs would still be accessible through dedicated sub-protocols (eg. the Portal Network) or externally developed protocols (eg. TheGraph), in addition to a much smaller but still sufficient number of volunteer nodes and block explorers. Note that many dapps are already moving their historical data queries to TheGraph and similar protocols for efficiency.

> https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/qzvsfq/impromptu_...

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#185

Post by dmitriid »

miohtama wrote: post #178
tablespoon wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> With crypto you pay the additional overhead of gas fees, which are often unpredictable and may cost more than the item itself. > Can you cite any source for this? It's common knowledge. https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f... https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_transaction_...

I think your information is somewhat outdated. For example, paying on USDC using Solana or Avalanche networks - Fee is less than 10c, less then a debit card - USDC is backed by US Treasury notes, making it more solid than deposit in a bank - There is no volatility risk of the cryptocurrency - USDC follows US court orders for crime and money laundering cases https://solberginvest.com/blog/how-much-are-solana-fees/

> I think your information is somewhat outdated. For example, paying on USDC using Solana or Avalanche networks

As always with cryptocurrencies, "you're using the wrong cryptocurrency" as if the absolutely dominant ones, Bitcoin and Ethereum don't exist and aren't much more likely to be used than whatever the darling du jour is.

> USDC is backed by US Treasury notes, making it more solid than deposit in a bank

They are "backed" as much as Tether is "backed". To quote, "Circle claims that each USDC is backed by a dollar held in reserve, or by other 'approved investments', though these are not detailed. The wording on the Circle website changed from the previous 'backed by US dollars' to 'backed by fully reserved assets' by June 2021".

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#186

Post by loceng »

randomhodler84 wrote: post #150
knorker wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I regularly make 5 digit USD transfers with no fees at all. But that's with fiat, so… They're also instant (seconds, maybe single digit minutes between banks), but that's because I'm in Europe.

And you were at the whim of the banks. They could confiscate your funds, lose the tx, reverse the payments, etc. You are missing what cryptocurrency is about. No banks. No middle man. No censorship. No do-overs. Personal responsibility for wealth. When a person says “but I can do x with bank” they have missed the entire point of the exercise.

And Bitcoin et al is at the whim of the government, example: China ban Bitcoin et al.

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#187

Post by [deleted] »

miohtama wrote: post #178
tablespoon wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> With crypto you pay the additional overhead of gas fees, which are often unpredictable and may cost more than the item itself. > Can you cite any source for this? It's common knowledge. https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f... https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_transaction_...

I think your information is somewhat outdated. For example, paying on USDC using Solana or Avalanche networks - Fee is less than 10c, less then a debit card - USDC is backed by US Treasury notes, making it more solid than deposit in a bank - There is no volatility risk of the cryptocurrency - USDC follows US court orders for crime and money laundering cases https://solberginvest.com/blog/how-much-are-solana-fees/

[deleted]

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#188

Post by Forgeties79 »

miohtama wrote: post #128
diputsmonro wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With crypto you pay the additional overhead of gas fees, which are often unpredictable and may cost more than the item itself.

Can you cite any source for this?

https://crypto.com/defi/dashboard/gas-fees

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#189

Post by everfree »

dmitriid wrote: post #182
everfree wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have time to do the chain analysis right now, but it looks like they cashed out the equivalent of at least mid-7-figures USD, possibly much more. Trace the transactions yourself, here's the analytics for their receiving address. https://etherscan.io/address/0x165CD37b4C644C2921454429E7F93... That amount of money is easy to cash out even on a relatively small exchange.

> I don't have time to do the chain analysis right now For a system that claims to "have all data on the chain" it sure seems to be hard to trace the money. > looks like they cashed out the equivalent of at least mid-7-figures USD. That amount of money is easy to cash out even on a relatively small exchange. I've seen a few transfers out to USDT. And then some transfers to Kuna.io which is an offshore company registe…

> For a system that claims to "have all data on the chain" it sure seems to be hard to trace the money.

What I linked you was a raw trace of the money. It includes all transactions to and from the address, with the amounts of each transaction shown, and with the exchange addresses labeled.

If you don't want to pore through their account history manually, write a script. The API is free.

> It looks more like someone decided to profit off these donations.

We could be looking at a criminal who stole the donated funds and is currently laundering them. Or, we could be looking at a government legally exchanging their foreign donations into their native currency.

Personally, I find that insinuation absurd. Do you really think we just witnessed a 7-figure heist from the Ukrainian government in plain view, and nobody is reporting on it?

Re: Cryptocurrency doesn’t address the hard parts of financial inclusion

#190

Post by everfree »

dmitriid wrote: post #183
tromp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This relies on the weak assumption that the consensus algorithm will not finalize invalid data and then continue to build on it for over a year. You don't need to rely on such a weak assumption. You can use Incrementally Verifiable Computation to verify the entire blockchain history in constant time. See e.g. https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/11/05/halo.html

So, hackers remove your money or exploit an error in your smart contract, the history is there, okay. Then the data and transaction history is dropped. Yup, the " " tells you that history is correct. So?

Just because you don't understand a data structure doesn't make it a magic buzzword.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree#Uses

Post reply on HN