Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it wasn't an issue then this wouldn't be happening: https://news.bitcoin.com/central-bank-of-nigeria-orders-bank...
An African central bank is suspicious of cryptocurrency. How is that somehow evidence that wire transfers are difficult? I guess if the use case is “I want to send $1M from Iran to an American who will distribute the money to Nigerian accounts”... Then yes, that is presumably easier to execute in crypto. But there are also pretty good reasons why countries want to keep an eye on that kind of flows.
Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)
231–240 of 330 posts
Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until you need international remittances or business payments. Then, Crypto at its worst is far better than international Wire Transfers, etc.
This claim is often made and it just makes no sense to me. Let’s say I’m invoicing someone abroad for $100k USD. Today they send me a wire transfer. It costs about 25 USD (fixed fee, but in this case 0.025% of the transaction, i.e. negligible) and normally completes the same day. The payment is made in the currency of my invoice, so I’m guaranteed to receive the right amount. (Any currency exchange is the sender’s re…
Your story about it being easy and cheap to do via remittances or whatever is pure fiction. Any traditional mechanism is at least two of slow, expensive, and onerous.
Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However the fact that we now have a global consensus over the ownership of digital assets that's something new and valuable. It's also completely contrived. Being digital means infinitely replicable, or thereabouts. Do we really need this game of artificial scarcity? People used to talk about things like property records, but if this realm of artificial scarcity is going to interface with the realm of actual scarci…
For the record, I don't think code will be law, ie. that blockchains will replace our current system of adjudication. Rather smart contracts will be changed to allow for an interface with the current system, for example via a master key held by the originator of the smart contract. Regarding your second point: Look into newer projects like Solana, Polkadot or Cardano which are already live and have much better scalab…
Cross border maybe, but then what court would you go to?
> Look into newer projects like Solana, Polkadot or Cardano
Are these newer projects more or less built with the same vision? What is their reason for being?
Censorship resistance would be nice, so would laws against private censorship in certain areas. Distributed mechanisms of censorship resistance would be more trustworthy and transparent. But people find information in centralized locations, be it a library, or Twitter, etc.
Is there legit headway towards combining beneficial aspects of distribution with the efficacy of centralized platforms? What are the mechanisms that keep it running and the incentives involved?
Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)
#234I think the #1 reason blockchain doesn't work is very simple - the technology is broken beyond fixability. This article is two years old, but the same variations of these excuses always come up when the crypto ideologues are grilled on why their utopiaic vision hasn't come about, for all of blockchain's existence. Blockchain is awful for most things compared to a centralized or distributed database: it is inefficient…
This is the number one model for valuation of Bitcoin-like cryptocurrencies. Say you live in Venezuela and dealing with custodial intermediaries in your local fiat currency is completely untenable. You can’t store money in gold or other precious metals. You can’t keep it in a bank account. You can’t transfer it (with fees) in a foreign exchange market.
All these things require dependency on the local fiat currency (plus more for custodial fees if dealing with anything like gold or stocks or bonds), not even factoring in issues of the fiat currency’s own extreme volatility and transaction fees. Banks being trusted central parties or Visa being able to process 40k transactions per second sure won’t mean shit to you at that point.
But with Bitcoin you can drive across the border and actually buy milk or medicine, no fiat currency involved. You’ll happily see the volatility and slow transaction process / high fees as a worthwhile overhead cost for independent purchasing power outside of your local fiat currency.
Now, of course this is a rare and small use case by volume and by market cap in comparison to normal functioning fiat currencies. At any given time only a small amount of the world demand for financial transactions would fall in some destabilized government zone where independence from local fiat currency is materially important and having a preemptive stock of cryptocurrency holdings really matters. And somewhat lesser there will be some small market for people with extreme risk aversion preferences or “prepper” outlook (eg, “What if the US dollar collapses?” - most of us don’t care to hedge that extreme tail risk, but some people do care).
The total demand for currency holdings like this will obviously be much lower than any total market cap of a major fiat currency.
But it may still be higher than the total market cap of cryptocurrency today - that completely depends on your personal take on forecasting and speculating.
In other words, there are several straightforward and uncontroversial reasons why buying and holding cryptocurrency rationally makes sense. You could happen to be wrong about the speculative future demand for this type of transaction capability. You could be wrong in the magnitude of the forecast. But being wrong doesn’t make it irrational hype or conceptually broken from first principles, as you foolishly assert. There are many very uncontroversial, directly obvious and rational reasons to speculatively buy and hold crypto, depending on your personal appraisal of that market and future demand for that transaction capability.
Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)
#235No, blockchains are not the future, they are really the reason why one transaction can happen at a time in the whole world. Even Ethereum 2.0 will have shards which will do away with this anomaly. The only reason flash loans even work with no collateral is because you can be sure nothing else is running on the “world computer” while your transaction runs, so you can roll it back with no risk except gas fees. Vitalik…
What's your opinion on Layer 2 technologies like ZK and Optimistic Rollups?
Unfortunately Bitcoin with Proof of Work will be around for a very long time as mining will be extremely lucrative for 100 years. Wasting more and more electricity for a legacy system to do store of value.
Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)
#236Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. The problem is there's virtually nothing that actually benefits from those things. A strong case case could be made for a truly decentralized global currency and maybe smart-contracts, but not "a store of value" or "revolutionizing supply chain bookkeeping".
Transactions between banks need clearing and settling. Many systems run on a periodict (like half an hour) net settlement, some are even slower. Blockchain is a perfect firt for those usecases. There is a reason JP morgan is developing quorum
Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there are cryptos like Nano that fulfill this original promise. Technology evolves over time. Just because its not perfect at the first go, doesn’t mean it should go in the trash.
> Just because it’s not perfect at the first go, doesn’t mean it should go in the trash The converse is also true; just because it’s an improvement over past failures doesn’t mean that it’ll actually work. My issue with crypto has always been fundamental; I don’t think crypto fans really have a good grasp on what motivates the average person, because most crypto fans[0] are ideologues, and like many ideologues they s…
Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "The only good use cases that come to mind is if there is some particular reason for you to evade the conventional and easier systems of communication and storage." * Nailed it * I've long said the killer app for blockchain already exists: international money laundering and untraceable transfers. This also happens to be the precise use case where folks want to "evade conventional and easier systems".
Until you need international remittances or business payments. Then, Crypto at its worst is far better than international Wire Transfers, etc.
To me it is unclear what issue there is to solve unless your country has messed up banks.
Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither of your examples are tradeoffs. Both my computer and my phone are excellent at their jobs with little in the way of downsides. Bitcoin is bad at it's job with lots of downsides. It only looks better than the alternatives if you live in a place where the economy is heavily mismanaged. If you're currency is only better than the absolute worst economies in the world don't expect all the people in better economie…
You keep moving the goalposts between "blockchain the technology" and "Bitcoin the currency". If you want a trustless auditable log, your best option is a blockchain. What's a better alternative?