Earlier quoted context omitted.
where are you getting these $1 international wire transfers? Sign me up!
SEPA transfers cost €0, which (still) is less than $1.
Ok, let me send dollars from the US to Japan via SEPA real quick.
Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
311–320 of 392 posts
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
Purchases, perhaps. Money transfer, definitely not. Bitcoin is a pretty cheap way to transfer money across international borders. A person probably wouldn't use bitcoin at the grocery store to buy milk, but it works better for sending grandma (located in a third world country) a bunch of money.
Bitcoin is still more expensive than the banking system among first-world countries. How much can it be worth to send money to third-world countries of no banks are willing to set up there?
Bitcoin BTC is currently more expensive than the banking system in first world countries because of the specific technical choices they have made. When I first used bitcoin it was free to the user (i.e. it was paid for by issuance). Other cryptocurrency systems that have made different technical choices are much cheaper these days - bitcoin BTC is a bit of an outlier in that regard. I personally have been experimenting with USDC on Argent wallet (a zksync L2 on ethereum). It's easy to use, quick and the transaction fees are around 20c at the moment (and likely to reduce further), and I'm sending a stable coin that tracks dollar.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
You claimed that blockchains solve the problem of atomically transferring digital assets. I gave an example of two digital assets I may like to transfer. Please tell me how Ethereum solves the problem of exchanging WoW gold for FF14 Gil in a trust less manner. The problem of transferring digital goods controlled by the same entity in a trust less manner is trivial and solved by many technologies predating Bitcoin. I…
This is a pretty stupid argument; WoW and FF14 gold are not assets defined on the network. The goal of Ethereum is to record Ethereum-based assets (e.g. ERC20, ERC721), not to record the exchange of every asset on the web. > I can already trustlessly sell a piece of copper in World of Warcraft for gold without involving any other third party. In this case the third party is Blizzard Entertainment, who can control the…
> In this case the third party is Blizzard Entertainment, who can control the state and data.
And in the case of two Ethereum based assets, the third party is the Ethereum network, which can be forked to control the state and data (as it was after the DAO fiasco).
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was referring to people in crypto. Obviously the general public prefers traditional payment systems because most people have no problem trusting that the banks will do the right thing.
Millions of people work at banks… lots of middlemen that maybe don’t need to be there anymore…
If only we could invent a way of settling transactions that takes more money and energy than running traditional banks. It might sound like the worst idea ever, but with enough buzzwords and a sprinkle of Ponzi, I think it will be a hit.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, then how can I buy a World of Warcraft mount from another player I don't trust by using my Final Fantasy 14 money and a block chain? Or, if that's too silly, how do I buy a .com domain name in exchange for some ETH, assuming neither I nor the seller of the domain name trust each other? These are all digital goods, so can avax help me do it?
The games needs to be built to allow this, however here's how it works for games that do implement it. This is using the C-Chain. Most games now would use a subnet (which is like a parallel blockchain integrated with the mainnet, but cheaper transactions) 1. Dev Create an ERC721 contract for WoW items 2. Dev Create an ERC20 contract for Final Fantasy 14 money 3. ANYONE can Create a liquidity pair for the Final Fantas…
Sure, if I'm allowed to change the games, I can link them even without a block chain. Transacting digital assets on a particular market (be it a single blockchain or Steam or the WoW Auction House) is a solved problem, and is not helped in any clear way by adding a blockchain in the middle.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously, non-digital assets, but does the Hawala system fit your analog version for decentralized escrow? Early stock exchanges were sometimes created to get around existing third parties ("auctioneers") and allow the brokers to directly transact p2p. What about a credit coop (it is central, but it is also owned by all the users)? Edit: at it's most basic, reliable coinage was kind of way to create reliable p2p abi…
Perhaps, but my original question was around digital assets across the internet (and ideally on a global scale). If you are trading a plush toy for a coconut the "atomic swap" could be done with each party's two hands.
In the generic form, blockchain/DLT cannot solve the double spend there either. Selling a picture for a token does not magically delete all copies or makes it impossible for me to sell it again (yes, someone could look in some blockchain, but that might not even deter another buyer - even fake goods trade).
Basically, for on-chain assets, a blockchain solves double spend and also ensures that on-chain funds/assets are correctly delivered (malicious attacks aside). This also exists outside of blockchains, for example in payment vs payment settlement in FX. Banks created CLS precisely to avoid having one part of an FX transaction settle while the other was still outstanding - so other ecosystems with immaterial goods and risky settlement found other solutions/created their own "middle man mechanic".
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a Merkle hash tree. You can call that a blockchain if you want, but we already have a much older and more specific term for it: Merkle hash tree.
Sure, I just wanted to point out that building merkle hash trees, or blockchains, or whatever you want to call it, isn't "all rubbish". There are some valid use cases.
My point was that people who talk about blockchain typically refer to something other than a Merkle hash tree - they refer to a hash tree plus some consensus mechanism for trustless addition. I don't know of a term other than "blockchain" that can be used to refer to this concept.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
> technology does not solve technical problems that havent been solved better Critics like Diehl repeat this often, but without ever referencing the solutions. What non-blockchain solution solves the double spend problem when transferring digital assets in a peer-to-peer network? Or, in the case of Ethereum, providing solutions to general-purpose decentralized computation and state (rather than only peer-to-peer paym…
Yes, Blockchain does indeed solve the problem it creates.
These problems (the desire to find peer-to-peer systems to transfer and record digital assets) predate blockchain/crypto.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty stupid argument; WoW and FF14 gold are not assets defined on the network. The goal of Ethereum is to record Ethereum-based assets (e.g. ERC20, ERC721), not to record the exchange of every asset on the web. > I can already trustlessly sell a piece of copper in World of Warcraft for gold without involving any other third party. In this case the third party is Blizzard Entertainment, who can control the…
> In this case the third party is Blizzard Entertainment, who can control the state and data. And in the case of two Ethereum based assets, the third party is the Ethereum network, which can be forked to control the state and data (as it was after the DAO fiasco).
A company like Blizzard that might define ERC20WoWGold can fork the blockchain to try and alter a record on their contract, but it would have little effect.
A successful fork requires a consensus across the majority of developers and users in the network.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd go one step further: the few legal purchases done with crypto currencies are mostly done by people unaware they're paying that price
I am one of those people that uses cash and bitcoin for privacy and reliability and for 100% legal use cases. I have experienced bank accounts of mine and those I know be frozen, emptied without warning due to identity theft, a false criminal accusation, forgotten debts, etc. I also know very well that banks have data sharing relationships with Visa, etc, that form a full map of where and when you spend money to aid…
How are you purchasing bitcoin with cash? I know it happens but I don't know how it's happening. Is it safe?