In defense of cryptocurrency • Hacker News Board

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#141

Post by gpspake » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:37 AM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #127

JackC wrote: post #98

"transaction reversibility is not about the ledger, but rather about the transaction rules that a currency uses. A reversible currency requires that someone anoint this trusted party (or trusted parties) and that they use their powers to freeze/burn/transact currency in ways that are at odds with the recorded owners’ intentions. And indeed, this is a capability that many tokens now possess" I think this is arguing th…

Many real world systems are "nearly trustless". Of course you still need some sort of court system if someone decides to break bad. But in the 99%+ of times you're in the happy path, economic transactions occur based on autonomous rules encoded in software. The analogy I like to use is what's harder to buy a $1 million house or $1 million of Microsoft stock? The former process takes weeks, and dozens of man hours fro…

I have a degree in finance. Never heard of Cede & Co and I just read the wiki. Cool. Thanks for the fun fact.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#142

Post by forum_ghost » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:40 AM UTC

thawaya3113 wrote: post #122

randomran01234 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This solves inter-bank transfers in EU but does not mean payments going out of, or into, the EU are solved. Crypto takes a different approach: a single protocol that is shared across all countries.

How is crypto any better at doing this than say, Western Union? Ultimately, as someone who finds blockchain technology really cool, what I struggle with is, in which scenarios is blockchain better than Postgres?

Postgres doesn't help with scenarios where you don't want your sovereign foreign reserves seized.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#143

Post by rvz » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:40 AM UTC

propter_hoc wrote: post #29

This article is a rebuttal to a letter, that in his interpretation, claims: >[...] that the entire technology field is worthless and cannot be used for any practical purpose. However, instead of addressing the core issue of whether cryptocurrency or DLT serves any practical purpose, the article instead cherry-picks specific issues that he thinks are resolvable: * Energy waste * Transaction speed * Privacy The author…

> Why doesn't he provide a real world use case for DLT? I'm still waiting for that.

Payments?

So why is Stripe [0], MoneyGram [1], Checkout.com [2], still using them? They seem to know that some of the ones that they chose have a use case?

Downvoters: What are these three examples of companies actually using this DLT technology doing then?

[0] https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-29/moneygram...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/07/checkoutcom-jumps-into-crypt...

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#144

Post by what-the-grump » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:44 AM UTC

abirch wrote: post #101

j_walter wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about real estate transactions. What fees are the average buyer and seller having to pay along with how many third party people have worked themselves into the fold to get their piece of the action? Why would you need title insurance when the blockchain holds all the information? Why would sellers need to pay up to 6% to a realtor and buyers pay thousands in closing costs...because there is a disparity in access…

The blockchain ownership may be flawed, just like the current paper one. That's why you'd still need title insurance. Sellers and buyers don't need agents right now. Thanks to Zillow, the price disparity is moot. I knew more than my past real estate agent when I purchased my current house (it was a corporate move or I wouldn't have used one.) Wire transfers should be instant and irreversible, that's why scammers use…

I’ve seen commercial banks reverse wire transfers within the first 30 days.

When you are moving large sums of money between well known institutions the money is very illiquid, mostly to prevent mistakes, fraud, etc. It’s why most fraud that you hear about involves movement of money overseas or into another type of asset or more liquid form, e.g bills, physical goods etc.

No one sits their stolen funds at chase bank… Makes blockchain and NFTs the perfect gateway for fraud.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#145

Post by randomhodler84 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:53 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #64

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No disagreement from me. He seems to think it could be viable. I've seen a few high profile cryptographers get into the crypto space recently. I can't really blame them, it's exciting to see new cryptography put into practice. Who knows, maybe they will solve it all, but I doubt it personally.

I'm not disputing the claims the article makes, I'm just saying: it's not an especially persuasive reason to support cryptocurrency; if the problem is simply "bring transaction costs down for the working poor", there are much simpler ways to do that. Meanwhile: the cryptocurrencies we have today are causing ongoing harm.

What harm?

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#146

Post by woodruffw » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:55 AM UTC

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #84

richardwhiuk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large amounts aren't settled by VISA - they are settled by bank transfer.

Depends. I buy electronics with my VISA card for thousands of dollar, and clients sometime prefer to pay my gigs with a card as well. Anything above 3000 will likely be cheaper using BTC. But I see your point.

The last time I transferred more than $3000, it cost me $0. I used ACH.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#147

Post by lbwtaylor » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:55 AM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #127

JackC wrote: post #98

"transaction reversibility is not about the ledger, but rather about the transaction rules that a currency uses. A reversible currency requires that someone anoint this trusted party (or trusted parties) and that they use their powers to freeze/burn/transact currency in ways that are at odds with the recorded owners’ intentions. And indeed, this is a capability that many tokens now possess" I think this is arguing th…

Many real world systems are "nearly trustless". Of course you still need some sort of court system if someone decides to break bad. But in the 99%+ of times you're in the happy path, economic transactions occur based on autonomous rules encoded in software. The analogy I like to use is what's harder to buy a $1 million house or $1 million of Microsoft stock? The former process takes weeks, and dozens of man hours fro…

>>The analogy I like to use is what's harder to buy a $1 million house or $1 million of Microsoft stock

It's interesting, both have registries, so why is one harder? Is it because the registry is better? No, it's because real property transactions are more complex:

- What condition will the property be delivered in and when? - What happens if the condition is not as specified? - what personal property is included in the transaction? What condition is it in? - Are there disputes over the property lines? - Are there easements? How do they work? - Are there third party consents needed? How do those work? - Will the seller vacate immediately, or will they rent back? - How will you pay for the property and when? - What happens if you don't pay? How much is the deposit and what are the terms of the deposit?

The complexity of the transaction derives from the complexity of the subject matter. Sure, if you could standardize those items, you could make property more like stocks, and people are trying to do that, which so far limited success. But for the average person, this is a huge investment, and they will want to spend time and create a transaction that works for them.

Almost none of the complexities related to the transfer of real property relate to issues with the county registry. Sure registries could improve, but very little would change.

One of the expenses is paying for title insurance. Sure in some sense a perfect ledger would obviate the need for that insurance. But given there seems to be more fraud in blockchain than in normal US real estate transactions, not sure the insurance price goes down, rather than up...

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#148

Post by strofcon » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:55 AM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #135

Ologn wrote: post #130

> it argues that the entire technology field is worthless and cannot be used for any practical purpose Which I concur with. Cryptocoins are worthless, the idea Bitcoin has a market cap of $5-6 hundred billion is absurd, and maybe the increasing fed funds rate etc. will pop this speculative bubble more than it already has (Bitcoin had the even more absurd market cap of $1 trillion toward the end of last year). Why is…

Well your Mac is worth ‘something’ because of what people are willing to pay for it. It would be worthless to certain people, just as you find bitcoin worthless. What’s the difference?

No, the Mac is worth something in and of itself. It is a tool of productivity, entertainment, education, creation, etc. And, failing all of that, it's valuable for its parts.

A bitcoin is an ID number pointing to pretend money. It has zero intrinsic value.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#149

Post by e63f67dd-065b » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:57 AM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #127

JackC wrote: post #98

"transaction reversibility is not about the ledger, but rather about the transaction rules that a currency uses. A reversible currency requires that someone anoint this trusted party (or trusted parties) and that they use their powers to freeze/burn/transact currency in ways that are at odds with the recorded owners’ intentions. And indeed, this is a capability that many tokens now possess" I think this is arguing th…

Many real world systems are "nearly trustless". Of course you still need some sort of court system if someone decides to break bad. But in the 99%+ of times you're in the happy path, economic transactions occur based on autonomous rules encoded in software. The analogy I like to use is what's harder to buy a $1 million house or $1 million of Microsoft stock? The former process takes weeks, and dozens of man hours fro…

Tell me you’ve never bought a house without telling me you’ve never bought a house.

Buying houses are expensive because:

- Realtors are a state-sanctioned monopoly for real estate transactions and suck up a % of the costs. They also provide the necessary service of aggregating information about the market and negotiating on your behalf - Due diligence on the state of the property. This means inspecting that there’s no mold growing everywhere, checking that proper maintenance has been carried out, etc - Property law developed over literal centuries to provide the legal framework that we have now, if you damage something as you move out I can sue you to recover costs involved, we have statements about property state before closing, if the building doesn’t meet code we negotiate about who pays the costs - Property registries matter because legally speaking that’s a part of how you prove ownership. The county knows who to send the tax bill, if you default creditors can impose a lien, these are legal technologies that developed over time

This is why you can’t just pledge your house as collateral and borrow against it in a HELOC like you can borrow against your stock portfolio. The bank needs to verify that nobody else has a claim on your property and that the property actually exists and is worth as much as you say it is.

A house NFT has none of the legal protections of a SPA and all of the risks. If it’s not up to code you’re fucked, if the county has a tax lien there’s nothing you can do, etc. Us engineers like to think that everything is an engineering problem, and that’s often true, but law seldom works that way.

Re: In defense of cryptocurrency

#150

Post by Nursie » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:57 AM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #127

JackC wrote: post #98

"transaction reversibility is not about the ledger, but rather about the transaction rules that a currency uses. A reversible currency requires that someone anoint this trusted party (or trusted parties) and that they use their powers to freeze/burn/transact currency in ways that are at odds with the recorded owners’ intentions. And indeed, this is a capability that many tokens now possess" I think this is arguing th…

Many real world systems are "nearly trustless". Of course you still need some sort of court system if someone decides to break bad. But in the 99%+ of times you're in the happy path, economic transactions occur based on autonomous rules encoded in software. The analogy I like to use is what's harder to buy a $1 million house or $1 million of Microsoft stock? The former process takes weeks, and dozens of man hours fro…

As with many proposed blockchain solutions - what's important there is that you've wrapped everything in a legal vehicle that makes fast transfer possible, NOT the fact that the record sits on a blockchain. That record could sit anywhere. A database perhaps.

It's not really the NFT that's the 'win' there, if indeed it is a win.