341–350 of 1001 posts
I wonder if that's intentional or left in from debugging the animation when it was being created. As-is felt like a nice easter egg and I appreciated it being included.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the technology of blockchain is irrelevant. If something can be accomplished on the blockchain, which requires N nodes, a business can probably replicate that same objective with less than N nodes because they don't have to pay the cost of verifying that nodes are acting honestly. This business is incentivized to be honest because otherwise they lose their business. Someone has to pay those costs for the N no…
I don't like Blockchains mostly but the technology of the Blockchain here is not irrelevant, it is a way to use peer to peer liquidity. That is there is no need for a central entity to have liquidity in many different circuits because you can trade with other coin holders directly in many different exchanges. Sort of like banks use customer money to offer loans to avoid the need of centralised liquidity. The Blockcha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with all that, is the fact it remains possible to create a protocol with N big institutions (governments and large tech companies, big non profit organizations and so forth) signing every block, to create a collaborative system that is perfectly suited for the same task. The system can make progresses as long a given fractions of the participants is available and so forth, there are a number of well known…
> signing every block, to create a collaborative system that is perfectly suited for the same task. Indeed you can! We even have a name for that! Its called a blockchain. > This maintains many benefits of the blockchain and lacks many issues (fast, simple, near zero cost, controllable to a given extent -- no takeover possible, ...). Blockchains can do all of these things. Perhaps you are thinking of "bitcoin", instea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why can a traditional bank not solve this? In Europe you can wire money across borders for free, you just need to know the account number. Arrives in seconds at 0 cost. I feel like a lot of the fintech in the US is purely a result of a lack of regulation. For the example of Argentina, the real reason that business is using crypto is because their currency is unreliable. It might be a good fit there but trading in…
I’m as cynical about crypto as any sane person but I think you’re hand-waving away the challenges of international business. How can you transact in dollars if you’re a business in Argentina? As you say, if you’re operating in Europe, this is a solved problem, but lots of businesses are operating across borders that don’t have the same payment options. Banks could solve this problem but they haven’t and this is what…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m as cynical about crypto as any sane person but I think you’re hand-waving away the challenges of international business. How can you transact in dollars if you’re a business in Argentina? As you say, if you’re operating in Europe, this is a solved problem, but lots of businesses are operating across borders that don’t have the same payment options. Banks could solve this problem but they haven’t and this is what…
I'm trying to point out that most US people are unaware that days for selling a transaction should be outrageous, yet it's the norm. And a wire, which is as close to sepa as I think you can get, costs 10s of $ each time. Basically, the international business problem is real. The Argentina case is mostly lack of a domestic stable currency though. These are legit use cases, fast and cheap transactions aren't.
If you actually offered those US businesses with instant, verifiable transfers that cost nearly nothing, do you actually think they wouldn't move to that?
There are lots of crypto skeptics on HN (and we ourselves were disappointed with crypto's payments utility for much of the past decade), so it might be interesting to share what changed our mind over the past couple of years: we started to notice a lot of real-world businesses finding utility in stablecoins. For example, Bridge (a stablecoin orchestration platform that Stripe acquired) is used by SpaceX for managing…
Bitcoin (and possibly a few others) is one of the few uses of blockchain that actually makes sense. The blockchain serves the currency, and the currency serves the blockchain. The blockchain exists to provide consensus without needing to trust any off-chain entity, but the blockchain relies on computing infrastructure that has real-world costs. The scarcity of Bitcoin (the currency) and arguably-fictitious reward for participation in mining is the incentive for people in the real world to contribute resources required for the blockchain to function.
Any real-world value given to Bitcoin is secondary and only a result of the fact that (1) mining infrastructure has a cost, and (2) people who understand the system have realized that, unlike fiat, stablecoins, or 1000 other crypto products, Bitcoin has no reliance on trusted, off-chain entities who could manipulate it.
You trust your stablecoin's issuer that they hold enough fiat in reserve to match the coin? You might as well trust your bank, but while you're at it, remind them that they don't have to take days to process a transaction - they could process transactions as fast as (actually faster than) a blockchain. But I imagine most banks would point to regulation as a reason for the delays, and they might be right.
So what are stablecoins really trying to do? Circumvent regulation? Implement something the banks just aren't willing to do themselves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem with all that, is the fact it remains possible to create a protocol with N big institutions [...] This maintains many benefits of the blockchain and lacks many issues (fast, simple, near zero cost) That's more or less exactly what this is. Stripe is launching an EVM L1. The Ethereum Virtual Machine part gives it a mature tech stack with experienced developers and auditors. Plus, well-tested smart contra…
I don’t get it yet. If we skipped the whole blockchain part, wouldn’t it be faster, simpler, cheaper? What value does the whole blockchain, EVM, L1 offer? Don’t they fully control the network? Don’t they decide “everything” anyway? I’d love to understand it, I’m not a hater, just a developer who don’t quite get this announcement.
That can mean different things.
It can mean anyone can use it without needing to sign up.
It can also mean anyone can host a node, i.e. become part of the network, without needing to ask anyone for permission.
The question is how far they went with that and why people wouldn't use another L1 that offers similar features without having Stripe looming over it.
There are lots of crypto skeptics on HN (and we ourselves were disappointed with crypto's payments utility for much of the past decade), so it might be interesting to share what changed our mind over the past couple of years: we started to notice a lot of real-world businesses finding utility in stablecoins. For example, Bridge (a stablecoin orchestration platform that Stripe acquired) is used by SpaceX for managing…
I completely understand that there are markets and customers that can find real utility in it, but I wonder how many businesses will really ever benefit from stablecoins.
We're in higher education, and potentially our international clients could avoid hiccups with regulation, delays, compliance, and more using stablecoins, but it's really a guess. In the meantime, the pricing model of stripe seems to prioritize bigger and bigger clients.
That being said from Stripe's perspective stablecoins an easy bet to make. They win by building payment infrastructure within the traditional payment ecosystem and win by providing an alternative completely outside of it.