371–380 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can have 99% of validators on Ethereum censor your transaction, and you'll still be eventually included. With 12 second block times, your transaction would be included in roughly 20 minutes.
What is the thinking behind that? Can't the majority of validators can't just orphan blocks with your transaction?
Actually even then I still consider it nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds great, but every time I see this argument, I end up going down the rabbit hole of actually studying how stablecoins operate. And every time, I come to the same conclusion: they always rely on trust in an off-chain oracle or custodian. At that point, a shared ledger implemented with traditional databases / protocols would be faster, easier, and more transparent. Bitcoin (and possibly a few others) is one of…
> At that point, a shared ledger implemented with traditional databases / protocols would be faster, easier, and more transparent. Except they are frequently _not_. I dislike crypto on principle, but you can't look at the exorbitant transfer fees and latency that a lot of banks charge for common transactions (Visa/MasterCard are especially bad) and say that crypto has no potential. Yes, it would be easier if we could…
Because literally the only point is to avoid the existing banking system and you can do that with a postures database with much less cpu involved.
> Tempo is a neutral, permissionless blockchain open for anyone to build on. > A diverse group of independent entities, including some of Tempo’s design partners, will run validator nodes initially before we transition to a permissionless model. > Protect your users by keeping important transaction details private while maintaining compliance standards. Sounds like it actually has potential. This could enable global…
If it will really be permissionless, what value is Stripe adding? Why not use any other fast, low-lost L1 like sending USDC on Solana?
The one that really stands out to me is
“ 03 :: Predictable low fees
Transform your cost structure with near-zero transaction fees that are highly predictable and can be paid in any stablecoin.”
I question why some of large companies that are named here as partners would want this.
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…
When your algorithm freezes a legit business's funds, you hold them indefinitely and can invest them for your own profit. The only recourse you offer is mandatory arbitration with an arbitrator Stripe chooses.
How is that a fair system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
good questions - and your questions are, or could be, actually rhetorical. Yes, they are the validator and thus they control the transactions. It could be as simple as having a Database at the end ... Well I can think of two things: 1- they start by owning all validators, maybe they expect to open validators to other entities at some point in the future. If these entities don't collude together, we could expect some…
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…
It sounds great, but every time I see this argument, I end up going down the rabbit hole of actually studying how stablecoins operate. And every time, I come to the same conclusion: they always rely on trust in an off-chain oracle or custodian. At that point, a shared ledger implemented with traditional databases / protocols would be faster, easier, and more transparent. Bitcoin (and possibly a few others) is one of…
Tether claiming they have the ability to back up their coins with USD lets crypto people claim their nonsense actually has value.
Of course the entire thing rides on the “trust me bro” guarantees offered by tether. They could erase a lot of the stink by going through an audit but for some reason they won’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Over the last few years, stablecoins have become a preferred means to hold and move money (for convenience, etc). For avoiding regulation.
screw regulation when a bank transfer isn't instant and the bank can do all kinds of checks and hold your money hostage for days or weeks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin makes the least sense of any of these schemes. Proof of work is just proof of sota ASIC ownership, which is just proof of stake by another name. Why not just use POS like everyone else and avoid dumping the carbon? Bitcoin is going to be one of those things in the history books that will seem utterly incomprehensibly irresponsible to future generations.
Bitcoin makes a lot of sense, if you don't want central banks to print your monies and devalue it. If you don't care about that, then it doesn't make sense for you. But really, the 21M cap is about only point that matters about BTC, the other features have to be there but are secondary.
It makes no sense in the real world.