281–290 of 396 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps that's not what I was talking about.
Then perhaps you should be specific?
People will disagree about which laws are immoral and which regimes are oppressive. It is fundamentally a matter of conscience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin will not freeze your assets for 90-180 days if you suddenly make twice as many sales.
That says you shouldn’t use PayPal, just as the billions locked or stolen by cryptocurrency exchanges says you should be careful about who you entrust with large amounts of money.
So you shouldn't use non-crypto convenient near-realtime payments? Stripe seems to have similar events regularly judging by the "Support HN" posts.
It's an issue that seems to arise from misaligned incentives, and regulators are looking the other way, as they do on many things in banking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin will not freeze your assets for 90-180 days if you suddenly make twice as many sales.
This is an argument for more regulation (of PayPal, and similar payment processors), not less, and certainly not for cryptocurrency.
Lots of things would be vastly improved if only improbable things would happen (Google fights SEO-spam! Fusion brings unlimited energy too cheap to meter! Humanity unites in peace!), but would you place your bets on them happening instead of assuming the messed up reality we're in an dealing with it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that crypto people will tell you with a straight face that the irreversibility of transfers is a feature and not a bug should be enough of a tell...
Crypto allows irreversible transfers, but traditional reversible transfers are also possible on smart contract chains, although definitely not the norm. The real bug is that irreversibility, and immutability in general, isn't possible in centralized systems. Which is why you can never be 100% sure that your bank account won't be empty next time you check. This doesn't happen in crypto.
Sure it does.
In crypto, you have two options when it comes to keeping your money safe:
1. You can try to keep your keys and devices safe from hackers (The equivalent of buying a safe. DIY security) 2. Or you can trust an exchange to keep your money safe.
In either case, don’t be surprised if you wake up and find your account empty.
Every now and then I read a press release from some organization about how they're using crypto or going to use crypto (aka blockchain) to solve some industry problem. For the life of me, I can't figure out how any of these ideas will ever bare any fruit. Does anyone know if companies are actually using blockchain for production, revenue generating business (real companies, not crypto companies)?
Quant Networks. The token is used as a license key for using the Overledger network. Clients pay in FIAT, Quant network uses this to buy the token and secure the use of the Overldger functionality. Overledger enables interoperability between distributed ledgers (permissioned and permissionless like BTC, ETH etc.) in use by banks today. IMHO this is a legitimate and specific use case and very very rare in the crypto w…
That sounds fancy, but who's actually using it in production? All these blockchain companies are highly self referential. It all sounds like 1) Build Block chain. 2)???? 3) Overledger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fallacy in this argument is that there's something special in crypto that makes this more likely to happen. I think this goes without saying: money and financial systems are regulated—to some degree—everywhere in the World. They are regulated by Governments, and there are real penalties for evading those regulations and getting caught. Many of these regulations were put in place to prevent the kind of shenaniga…
> In crypto, by design, there is no regulation, nor is it really possible. That's demonstrably untrue—at least, that it's not possible. (I'm perfectly willing to believe it was designed to be unregulatable; it's just that, as usual, programmers echo-chambering at each other about how they think the law works didn't actually take into account how the law really works.) Crypto is becoming regulated more and more as tim…
Beyond the protocol is the arena of application standards and legal jurisdictions, which is the subject of economics.
Some here are pathetically-misinformed regarding crypto's utility and social benefits. Read the Latin America section of Chainalysis 2022 report (Pgs. 19 - 27) before claiming "it's all a scam" (and so spreading mis-information): https://go.chainalysis.com/rs/503-FAP-074/images/2022-Geogra... For those not aware, the company that produced this report, Chainalysis, actively aids prosecution of illegality in the crypto…
As a Latin American the largest uptake I see is among criminal groups for money laundering.[0] But with an open mind I read the section you called out and I have several issues. The first is that the report doesn’t actually discuss or show the numbers. The country reporting only talks about inflation in those countries and percentage of transactions, how much volume and coins are these countries actually moving? They…
In the Mexico section it says:
> Bitso alone has already processed more than $1 billion in US-to-Mexico remittances in 2022 as of June, representing a year-over-year growth rate of 400% and a grip on 4% of Mexico’s remittance market.
A wee bit more than a couple hundred per week. Maybe Bitso cornered the market there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it would be embarrassing for him to admit that he tried to compete against Ethereum after Cardano destroyed his private blockchain startup. Stephen Diehl is also no better than the crypto maximalists with his extreme absolutism. You won't see him debate and test his arguments with a balanced panel discussion so that you can easily see how extreme his arguments are. He has a book to sell and is full time, 24/7…
> Not all cryptocurrencies, tokens will survive, but only a select few of them and their technologies will still be around to be used under regulations. No chance in hell. The only sustained market this technology has are illegal transactions/black market. To begin with: a regulated Blockchain is an oxymoron. The technology ceases to have any meaning if the government has the ability to regulate the chain. They'd be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...but ownership of property requires physical and/or legal protections, which they do not. This is not true for digital property. Digital property is just as "made up" as the NFT that proves its ownership. People hear "NFT" and for some inexplicable reason jump to physical art. If the network believes, by whatever consensus methods for proof of ownership that are employed by this network, that you own one coin then…
Digital ownership is enforced by the code that’s interpreting the data, so the app publisher is the organization responsible for enforcing property rights. Tokens signed by an app-trusted key solve the problem with almost zero resource cost.
>Tokens signed by an app-trusted key solve the problem with almost zero resource cost.
This ensures safety against access and not against copying. Of course I can not copy assets I don't have access to but the same is true for NFTs.