161–170 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if Visa and Mastercard formed a duopoly and used their market power to extract fees from merchants to the point of warranting government action to cap the fees.
...and that still got to lower prices than bitcoin transactions Wild, isn't it ?
Visa and Mastercard have 1+% fee, so it's lower for some transactions than bitcoin but higher for others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI could barely put together a sentence a decade ago but I didn’t tell anyone to shut the fuck up about it, it was pretty cool still even if it barely worked. Almost like technology progresses.
AI had tangible use cases even when it wasn't developed to the point where it could be applied to those. The problems AI is used to solve, existed before the technology to solve them. Bitcoin, and all the other "crypto"-tokens, have been looking for a problem to solve for 14 years.
Another use case is domains and servers. When big companies like Porkbun, namecheap and vultr offer their services to be bought via Bitcoin there is probably some demand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those without rewards cards, and those who pay with cash, are the economic losers. Generally those living paycheck to paycheck - poor people.
That's right: > We estimate an aggregate annual redistribution of $15 billion from less to more educated, poorer to richer, and high to low minority areas, widening existing disparities. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2023007pap...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Imagine if your Visa card became hundreds of times more expensive to use during the Christmas shopping period. > My Visa card doesn't cost me anything to use Gp said imagine
0 * 1000 = 0 Actually, my card costs me negative money to use. I get cash back with no annual fee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those without rewards cards, and those who pay with cash, are the economic losers. Generally those living paycheck to paycheck - poor people.
If that's what you think the problem with credit cards is, there's a simple solution to it. Ban usury. They'll still exist, and they'll still work in nearly the same way they do today, the cashback rate will drop by half a percent, and the credit score cutoff for getting one will go up a couple hundred points. The working poor using them today will just end up using debit cards, instead.
I think you are conflating processor fees (2.9% + $.30) with bank loans (20+% for carrying a balance).
These are different companies in the system.
> We leave the conclusions to the reader. As someone who hasn't kept up with Bitcoin for the past few years, can someone share their conclusion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the tech. I even paid for my coffee with the Lightning network in El Salvador and went to BTC Miami. The things I'm still not sure about are: 1. When will the value become relatively stable? This flies in the face of the store of value argument. 2. How is Monero-like fungibility going to be added? Good cash needs to be fungible.
As to '2' I don't think that can be done without losing some other desirable properties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI had tangible use cases even when it wasn't developed to the point where it could be applied to those. The problems AI is used to solve, existed before the technology to solve them. Bitcoin, and all the other "crypto"-tokens, have been looking for a problem to solve for 14 years.
I recently paid a lawyer I had to hire in the US with USDC, rather than paying 40€+ on top of exchange fees for each time I wire him money. Another use case is domains and servers. When big companies like Porkbun, namecheap and vultr offer their services to be bought via Bitcoin there is probably some demand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NFTs are essentially bearer tokens, very much like literal Bearer tokens in HTTP. To take one of your examples- gating auth to a community.. the community is usually an off-chain centralized thing like Discord. Due to that, the auth logic sits behind closed doors. Verifying an NFT has no advantages over verifying a random string that only the intended user has. i.e. traditional bearer tokens of some sort. The only ad…
> Verifying an NFT has no advantages over verifying a random string that only the intended user has. i.e. traditional bearer tokens of some sort. I’m so tired of seeing people confidently post like this about crypto. There has been so much effort put into explaining, you really have no excuse anymore to parrot it. Very easy rebuttal: NFTs can be minted in exchange for currency and can be traded between owners later –…
> NFTs can be minted in exchange for currency and can be traded between owners later
The part of dApps that recognizes NFT ownership for releasing funds is just business logic that can be replaced with anything we can imagine - including but not limited to checking the storage for an Address->RandomString lookup (in fact, if you squint, that _is_ what's happening in transactions due to the step that verifies wallet signatures via cryptographic hashes)
There is nothing at all in the spec that allows for them to have any special meaning in terms of vouchers for currency
> More complex rebuttal: you can get peer-to-peer (and even peer-to-pool) loans using your NFT as collateral
I don't think you understand how NFTs work. This isn't even a more complex rebuttal, NFT contracts don't care if the owner is another contract or a human with a wallet. They only care about the owner to token id mapping. If anything, p2p loans is a _simpler_ example because you're moving the logic out of contracts and into, perhaps, humans who decide to act on nft transfers. It's a weird example imho, but regardless, it's only an extension of the above points.
> How is any of this applicable right now to a HTTP header?!
In HTTP, you acquire a random string (via some web app), and then you later provide it to prove authorization
In Blockchain, you acquire a random public/private keypair (via wallet generation), and you later sign data with this random key in order to prove authorization
In NFTs, you use the Blockchain infrastructure to sign transactions that associate you as the owner with arbitrary token ids.
Do you not see that it's fundamentally the same thing?
> Also, the only people I ever heard of mentioning “videogames fully on chain” are crypto opponents; they try to come up with the most bizarre scenarios, to “prove” that crypto is inadequate. It’s so irrational.
Ok. I mean, I've hands-on deployed CW721 contracts on cosmos with a Unity frontend for on-chain gaming demos. Your ad-hominem attacks are pretty weird from where I'm sitting and, frankly, reek of "dunning-kruger effect". But I don't want to get into a pissing contest, let's stick to facts:
1. Most chains require you to sign transactions all the time. It's a crappy UX. Near avoids this to some extent, and it's a clientside thing that can be skipped, but generally at the expense of security most users aren't comfortable with.
2. Transaction time is slow af compared to what you get with regular socket servers. I'm talking a difference of speed in terms of decades of progress. Not years. Decades.
3. Nodes go out of sync, you have race conditions, there are real problems to solve that robust game server tech deals with and blockchain doesn't concern itself with. Working around these are doable but painful and not out of the box.
4. Most games depend on randomization and/or hidden state that clients cannot be made aware of to prevent cheating. There are some chains like Secret Network that propose solutions to this, but overall, blockchain is transparent in ways that are showstoppers for on-chain games.
> Yeah, it’s almost like blockchains are designed to be financial infrastructure. At least you got the basics right, I guess.
Yup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they pushed up fees for everyone else (there is limited block space, so miners take the highest bids) Imagine if your Visa card became hundreds of times more expensive to use during the Christmas shopping period.
Imagine if Visa and Mastercard formed a duopoly and used their market power to extract fees from merchants to the point of warranting government action to cap the fees.