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

Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

concerned.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 149 posts

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#11

Post by roenxi »

pavlov wrote: post #7
roenxi wrote: post #4

> We strongly disagree with the narrative — peddled by those with a financial stake in the crypto-asset industry — that these technologies represent a positive financial innovation... This is a little bit unfair. When I became convinced that cryptocurrencies represented a positive financial innovation I immediately went out and bought some. Obviously the more potential someone sees the more they will be involved. Thi…

> “Obviously the more potential someone sees the more they will be involved” This sentence summarizes why crypto is so peculiar. It’s all about belief in some potential, not utility or returns. And you’re supposed to get “involved”. When you buy a stock or a bond or a derivative or a currency hedge, it doesn’t usually become a way of life. But crypto isn’t a practical financial product so much as a club membership. B…

People can (and have) said the same thing about gold for thousands of years. The evidence is in, cryptocurrency is some sort of asset. It is unclear how big the crypto market is, but at this point it seems a safe bet after the last decade that there there is enough interest to sustain a billion dollar market in cryptocurrency even under the most pessimistic of scenarios. It is probably going to be quite a bit bigger.

The next real question is how to value it. That'll take a recession to figure out by clearing out the scams, but it'll become clear in time.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#14

Post by ghuntley »

rvz wrote: post #9

I can only predict that both the people signing this letter and the crypto maximalists are going to be very disappointed that this will somehow be the end of all cryptocurrencies or the full adoption and dismantling of the current system with one cryptocoin being a reserve currency. An example of such is where the critics were screaming over the so-called NY bill on 'banning' of PoW [0], but it turns out that not onl…

Re: [1] if you are familiar with the developments in the Haskell space (https://medium.com/@kim_crawley/web3-nfts-and-cryptocurrency...) where circa eight years back what we see today happened in Haskell - concerns for the future of language due to over exposure of risk. It makes more sense and you’ll understand beginning of the entire story arc better of how we got here today. Specifically re: [2] if you haven’t touched blockchain then your opinion is discarded but if you have touched blockchain then your opinion is also discarded. There’s no winning in this space. All critique is off limits because people are concerned that it will devalue their magic beans.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#15

Post by politician »

DonHopkins wrote: post #13
politician wrote: post #8

Disappointing and misguided. It’s especially sad to see Bruce Schneier indirectly advocate for back doors.

"Indirectly", huh? But not actually? Exactly how is he doing that?

> "The claims that the blockchain advocates make are not true," said Bruce Schneier. "It's not secure, it's not decentralised. Any system where you forget your password and you lose your life savings is not a safe system," he added.

His tweet. He clearly identifies the problem as “lost password” implies disaster. This line of thinking is what the government uses to argue for back doors in cryptography software. The position he is taking leads to the argument that we need our cryptographic keys backed up by the state/corporations so that we don’t lose our life savings.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#16

Post by zaudo »

DonHopkins wrote: post #5
roenxi wrote: post #4

> We strongly disagree with the narrative — peddled by those with a financial stake in the crypto-asset industry — that these technologies represent a positive financial innovation... This is a little bit unfair. When I became convinced that cryptocurrencies represented a positive financial innovation I immediately went out and bought some. Obviously the more potential someone sees the more they will be involved. Thi…

Quoted post unavailable.

Boy, that escalated quickly... Can we not critique content in submissions now?

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#17

Post by FabHK »

politician wrote: post #8

Disappointing and misguided. It’s especially sad to see Bruce Schneier indirectly advocate for back doors.

Presumably you meant Bruce Schneier. I don't think he is advocating for backdoors, what makes you think so? He is just advocating against cryptocurrencies, as he laid out in his article linked from the open letter: "Cryptocurrencies are useless. Blockchain solutions are frequently much worse than the systems they replace."

https://www.wired.com/story/theres-no-good-reason-to-trust-b...

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#18

Post by FabHK »

politician wrote: post #15
DonHopkins wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Indirectly", huh? But not actually? Exactly how is he doing that?

> "The claims that the blockchain advocates make are not true," said Bruce Schneier. "It's not secure, it's not decentralised. Any system where you forget your password and you lose your life savings is not a safe system," he added. His tweet. He clearly identifies the problem as “lost password” implies disaster. This line of thinking is what the government uses to argue for back doors in cryptography software. The p…

You are conflating money and messages. It is perfectly compatible to argue, simultaneously, against cryptocurrencies, and for e2e encrypted messages.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#19

Post by DonHopkins »

politician wrote: post #15
DonHopkins wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Indirectly", huh? But not actually? Exactly how is he doing that?

> "The claims that the blockchain advocates make are not true," said Bruce Schneier. "It's not secure, it's not decentralised. Any system where you forget your password and you lose your life savings is not a safe system," he added. His tweet. He clearly identifies the problem as “lost password” implies disaster. This line of thinking is what the government uses to argue for back doors in cryptography software. The p…

Have you considered the possibility that maybe he's simply advocating for a customer service representative who can reset your password in the sql database after verifying your identity, instead of going back on everything he's ever said and repudiating his life's work as a well respected security professional, and that perhaps Bruce Schneier is not just an unethical hack like the crypto bros he's criticizing?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Edit:

politician> Without the man coming on HN and explaining his apparently incongruous position, though, who can say?

Bruce Schneier explains why he's not coming on HN and explaining his apparently incongruous position to you:

Bruce> Honestly, I can't care very much about random conversations that misrepresent me. Life is too short.

Don> Am I right to presume you don't directly or indirectly advocate for backdoors, and your position on cryptocurrencies is not incongruous with that? ;)

Bruce> Of course not. I don't even understand how "blockchain is useless" has anything to do with backdoors.

Don> If so, could I share that fact, and have you written any articles about your position on backdoors that I could link to please?

Bruce> This might be my latest:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/12/scaring_peopl...

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#20

Post by amelius »

DonHopkins wrote: post #5
roenxi wrote: post #4

> We strongly disagree with the narrative — peddled by those with a financial stake in the crypto-asset industry — that these technologies represent a positive financial innovation... This is a little bit unfair. When I became convinced that cryptocurrencies represented a positive financial innovation I immediately went out and bought some. Obviously the more potential someone sees the more they will be involved. Thi…

Quoted post unavailable.

Also: the enabling of ransomware and other criminal activities.
Post reply on HN