> Libra has no capacity for consumer protection mechanisms.
You can replace Libra quote above with your favorite cryptocurrency and that pretty much sums up what I feel on the crypto space.
You can replace Libra quote above with your favorite cryptocurrency and that pretty much sums up what I feel on the crypto space.
One can use the desired amount of third parties for fund protection.
The new thing about cryptocurrencies, is that some of these third-party services can be made non-custodial, so the third-party never has access to your funds. They arbiter, but not transmit.
Pick your favorite consumer protection mechanism, and I'll pick my favorite cryptocurrency and let's compare:
A) the up front implemention cost of the protection mechanism in fiat currency
B) the up front implemention cost of the protection mechanism in the crypto
C) the year-over-year cost in fiat
D) the year over year cost in crypto
I bet A and C are going to be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, while B is going to be in the tens of millions and D is going to be in the thousands of dollars.
Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:
https://www.ccn.com/cardano-to-help-ethiopia-grow-coffee-usi...
Consider the recent news regarding contaminated black market vape cartridges--that's going to be insanely expensive to fix, because there's nothing about high schoolers passing around dollars after school that gives those students any insight into the supply chain of the cartridges they're buying. But if some vape company did with their supply chain what Cardano is trying to do with coffee, they could provide consumers (and authorities) a way to trace their products back to their origins, a capability that already would have saved several lives.
It's not surprising that Libra is a dumpster fire, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Blockchains are irrevocable and unalterable, which removes two useful tools (reversing and changing transactions), and replaces them with nothing workable.
Also, there are limits on how old a transaction can be when a bank goes and rewrites history. In my experience the limit is about six months. Transactions older than than are considered settled.
If this is a feature that people want in a cryptocurrency, it shouldn't be hard to achieve with smart contracts. The problem right now is just that you need a solid settlement layer before you work on features supporting the politics of rejiggering unsettled transactions.
Also, provided there is community consensus (this differs based on whether your currency is proof of work or proof is stake) blockchains can be altered after-the-fact to undo a threat. It happens: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/ethereu...
It's just that for most currencies, it's currently a political affair that occurs at a risk to the stability of the overall system. But there are (what appear to be) good technical solutions to that (decred, for example, has a neat approach to post-fork-attempt stability https://medium.com/decred/detailed-analysis-of-decred-fork-r...).
As far as deciding whether a transaction ought to be settled in the first place, people are experimenting with some really interesting approaches (https://particl.wiki/learn/market/mad-escrow for instance).
It's probably not time to forget your bank password and switch to crypto, but if we want to eventually have good solutions to our fraud problems then we should be working to shape crypto into the system we want, not dismissing it as inflexible.
The rest of the things on the list aren't in significant use at the moment, and might never be. Measures that are not ready for prime-time are as good as nonexistent. We're talking about money here!
That's not how technology works. To become fruitful it requires patience and investment. Nobody is saying you have to be an early adopter of these currencies.
> We're talking about money here!
...and particularly whether it's current feature set is amenable to fraud prevention. I work at a traditional payments company and the waste is infuriating--there has to be a better way.
This here is probably the source of our disagreement. As far as I can tell, tons of people actually are saying "get in now", which means we're no longer in the patience and investment stage, and any deficiencies in the cryptocurrency ecosystem have real consequences.
I'm interested in the tech and I want to work on it--so I'm just arguing that we shouldn't dismiss it.
If you have the interest, now might be a good time to diversify in that direction, but it's nowhere near ready to compete with fiat currency in terms of usage by the masses.
But so are events in the real world. When you think about "reversing or changing a transaction" what you really mean is creating a new transaction that brings an equivalent amount back to the person that paid it.
This is done in the real world by knowing the identity of the receiver person or entity and threatening them with consequences if the money is not returned. It seems to me more a problem of being able to identify the parties in a transaction rather than of mutability of the ledger.
1. A scammer cheating someone out of their life savings through social engineering
2. A central bank "unjustly" inflating currency and giving the newly printed money to specific industry/people etc
3. A person paying for merchandise with a stolen credit card or refusing payment after services/good is delivered.
Fiat solves 1 and 3 (recovery) does not think 2 is a problem.
Crypto solves 2 and 3. People say it is meant for solving 1.
Credit card fraud is regulated such that the consumer is protected after a manageable amount of theft, $50 in the US last I looked. If you use a bank you receive some protections but at that point the implantation is abstracted and not that relevant.
IMO Cryrto is significantly worse in case 3.
You can set a withdrawal limit of say, $50 and you can set a few recovery addresses (of friends, family or other personal wallets).
So if I have $10,000 in my ethereum wallet and I post my private key in every forum and every chatroom on the internet then the most I lose is $50. Before 24 hours pass I send my remaining $9,950 to a pre-defined recovery address which is excluded from the withdrawal limit.
Consumer protections are actually pretty good. The trouble is getting these tools in the hands of users.
So, this is strictly worse than using a credit card.
I don't think I ever spend that much in a single day though. The limit will differ from person to person.
>The independent ability to send all your money to a recovery address is a new security risk.
It's not new and it's not a risk. You could always send all your money to another address. And the recovery addresses are meant to be trusted. I could send my money to a secondary wallet sitting in a safe or to a trusted family member. That isn't a risk.
>Further, you need to notice the issue which means you could be our far more than 50$ unless you happen to be checking how much is in the wallet constantly.
Your balance is printed in big letters whenever you open the wallet. It's hard to not notice really. There's also these things called automatic notifications, not difficult to set up.
>So, this is strictly worse than using a credit card.
But this is supposed to replace cash not credit cards. It is objectively better than cash in terms of consumer protections.
> objectively better than cash
Many people don’t use cash just credit cards. They might keep 50$ or less in their wallets, but that’s about it.
Further, Billions of people can hack my PC, only those I come into contact with can take my cash.
>Many people don’t use cash just credit cards. They might keep 50$ or less in their wallets, but that’s about it.
Because they value convenience over privacy and freedom.
>Further, Billions of people can hack my PC, only those I come into contact with can take my cash.
Even if someone managed to gain access to your wallet they would still have to decrypt your private key. So, it isn't an issue if you use a strong password.
It's difficult to argue that low and predictable rates of USD inflation has had more of an adverse impact on holders of USD over the last few years than crypto fraud on holders of crypto.
Indeed, given that most cryptoassets have actually lost significant amounts of value against the USD since the end of 2017, it's difficult even to argue that the crypto world has adequately solved 2
A reputable supplier of vape cartridges gains nothing from having a verified supply chain - people trust them anyway and they maintain a supply of good cartridges to protect that reputation.
A non-reputable supplier of vape cartridges doesn't care, and only sells to people who don't care what they're buying. Their lack of good reputation doesn't matter, and their lack of a verifiable supply chain won't matter either.
If the customer wants a dodgy black market vape cartridge, that's what they'll buy. If they want a quality one from a reputable source, they can already do this.
But still, the perpetrators here are not technically capable of pulling off a convincing forgery, so if the kids were sensitive to this issue in the first place then I guess there would indeed be no reason to insert a blockchain into the situation.
So let's take a scenario where the middle men are indeed capable of convincing forgeries: sneakers. Cardano is working on a supply chain integration there too:
https://beincrypto.com/new-balance-to-use-cardano-technology...
And my wife's students (she's a teacher) are really into their sneakers. They're also largely unaware that chain/web of trust type measures exist at all for validation of product authenticity--but if Nike started doing this, they'd become experts overnight. And then, after school, when offered a sketchy vape product, they might think twice.
Maybe that's a weak argument too. Still, I like the ability to use the same channels you money would flow through to determine if your upcoming purchase came from where you think it did, and I think that that's a capability that's going to be hard for fiat currency to mimic.
Why would blockchain be required for that? In case of drugs and food there recalls are being done using batch number of day of production.
> Joe runs the factory and gave this cartridge to Bob. Bob have it to Mary.
The assumption is that if you buy it then the site will then say:
> And Mary gave it to aiCeivi9
What reason do you have to believe that the website contents are accurate or that people accepting vape cartridges from Joe Bob and Mary are still alive?
In the blockchain case, you can see that Joe Bob and Mary have sold thousands of these and that very few of the transactions are in dispute over authenticity. Also, rather than trusting some faceless 4.6 star rating you can see which of the people that supplied the rating are ones that you know, and which of those are ones that you trust. You can also see if you trust people who trust Joe Bob and Mary. This let's you make a more informed decision about the quality of the thing you're buying.
Bitcoin is incredibly wasteful. If we're talking about digital transactions we already have credit cards and digital transfers. A block chain isn't required for those benefits.
Supply chain tracking is interesting but literally no one is talking about that. Its also an even harder problem. Its really not verifiable at all because you're now relying on data from outside the chain, ie how many widgets were created, whether the label on the real life widget is unique or forged, etc.
Also, what kind of consumer protections would you want to see in a currency? It seems to me that ensuring that you actually got what you paid for pretty much sums it up but I'm probably overlooking something.
In general the need for consumer protection mechanisms is of course already a failing of the justice system. Virtually every case where consumer protection is useful is covered by existing laws and shouldn't require anything from the payment facilitator.
...except a lawyer, more money and a non-trivial part of your life.
I don’t know of any state that has ever tried to optimize for a low-overhead justice system “in the small” (e.g. many, more efficient, more convenient small-claims courts; or the introduction of another triage layer of “medium-claims” courts, where most all civil contractual disputes would land) which is an interesting fact all by itself. Speedy+cheap justice goes somewhat hand-in-hand with things like red-tape reduction, in that both are attempts to “oil the wheels” of the state apparatus—yet you’d never hear the same people (e.g. libertarians) espouse both.
Both small-claims courts themselves and rules giving effect to binding arbitration agreements are attempts to do that, as are many specialized, domain-specific administrative forums.
But sure, other than all those things.
A lot of money and research has gone into this, and the tech is being tightened up all the time.
> which increases the risk profile, and thus cost.
Except the cost isn't actually higher.
> You can do this in traditional approaches because you just pass on these costs and there's no need to improve beyond what people are willing to pay.
In the US perhaps, not in places where these costs are regulated.
> Crypto represents...
A much more expensive and more risky way to do basically anything, because you have neither solved security nor trust problems, you've just moved them.
Yeah, but it's not being deployed at consumer level, nor are the savings being passed on.
> A much more expensive and more risky way to do basically anything
Risky, yeah. Like any new technology. But transaction cost is cheaper.
Sorry, I didn't mean to get involved in some holy war. I can see there's people with a lot vested in both sides of the debate. I'm neither. Just pointing out the obvious.
It absolutely is, not sure where you're getting your ideas from here.
> Risky, yeah. Like any new technology. But transaction cost is cheaper.
It's not risky because it's new technology, it's risky because you've passed all the risk to the end user and their opsec. The cost per transaction of something like the VISA network is utterly tiny compared to most cryptocurrency transactions, particularly if you factor in the externalities (mining) and it's a pretty small cost to the merchant as well in places where regulation has been put in place (i.e. not the US). To the consumer it's free. See also bank transfers in most advanced economies.
> Just pointing out the obvious.
You're not pointing out anything that's actually true though.
This was exactly my point. With pervasive crypto end users can assume this to a greater degree, whether you believe that appropriate or not.
Visa e.g. requires specialist terminal equipment, complicated issuer and acquirer and banking relationships and is heavily dependent on legal enforcement wherever you use it. Try using mastercard or visa in a third world country.
For “actual” money transfer, compare with western union where toure talking about ~10% fee.
> ... nothing that’s actually true
Oh you’re a rude one. But I’m sure to somebody you’re very special. Good boy.
It's not a point you made before this, you just said it was "more secure" and "cheaper" without qualification. Now you're just trotting out 'coiner memes about the third world and Western Union.
(You can use Visa in 200 countries by the way)
Have a nice evening, I'm done here.
No, it's not, because the problem being addressed with consumer protection is power imbalance in the marketplace; mutually voluntary mechanisms cannot be the answer to it.
Also, escrow notionally solves exactly the same problem as cryptocurrency: providing the ability to rely on a transaction with an untrusted counterparty. If you need escrow for anything with cryptocurrency, the cryptocurrency is not doing the one thing that is it's defining purpose. So, why cryptocurrency at all?
It's basically the same how a business would recover money from a bad supplier. With small claims court it's even somewhat efficient for small sums, but of course still orders of magnitude more work than a credit card dispute.
As a parent of children, consumer protections are overall a "good thing" to help prevent bad actors from doing harm. It goes for any space that can do harm to you or your family in any way.
It's why you have exchanges like Gemini in place that seek to be the "most regulated" crypto exchange - to instill trust in the service and market... and your investment.
That being said there is still a ways to go... it will be interesting to see if the market can solve some of these issues through natural growth and competition.
Personally, I want orphans (as defined as minors with no living parents) to be well-cared for regardless, either by relatives or by an outside agency ("orphanage" or foster home).
Even when everyone's an adult, consumer protections can be very important -- e.g. to prevent things like lending crises.
Invoking family to make an ethical point is something I see often, in many different circumstances.
1. Inflation eats 2-4% of everyone's purchasing power each year, disproportionately affecting the poor. This inflation is desired by the central planners.
2. The American system of banking regulations introduces systemic risk into the financial sector.
Sure, if you can prove that your transaction was fraudulent, you can get a couple thousand bucks back into your savings account. But you'll have to gamble your money in the market to beat inflation just to break even. And then, every so often, the entire system will collapse and destroy trillions of dollars of wealth.
As an aside, you also get the bonus of having political control of banking relationships, so you can conveniently freeze and take the money of those who find the political winds aren't blowing their way.
Edit: PLEASE don't take this is an argument for Libra (sorry I wasn't clear), merely an argument for sound monetary policy and decentralization.
Inflation is an incentive to invest. If you invest in literally anything other than cash under your mattress inflation stops mattering completely to you, and all you have to think about is constant dollar returns. That’s why we have it. So long as your wages track inflation (broadly they do) you benefit from implicit depreciation in your debt obligations. It costs you nothing if you don’t hold cash like you’re supposed to, and it costs you effectively nothing if you hold money in a savings account as many offer 1.8% interest these days, matching inflation.
What nobody arguing for a deflationary currency can tell me is why they think money should be worth more later solely by virtue of them having gotten it first. A risk-free guaranteed return at the expense of the next generation! It makes no sense.
This is basic ECON 101. High school level home ec probably. Not some big conspiracy perpetrated by the central banking cabal.
As I mentioned before a dollar today should be worth more than a dollar next year since, if you are smart, you can make that dollar work for you for a whole year.
Hence the inflation.
You have not explained why; you've explained why you think we should have inflation. And why someone thinks something should be is a long way from explaining why something is.
The same amount will be worth less in the future! That's really all there is to it. A certain amount of money is not value, money is a number that has a value associated with it, that value will continuously change depending on what you can do with it.
Inflation (deflation) simply reflect the change in value for doing something today versus tomorrow. When the economy works well you have inflation, when the economy works badly it becomes deflation.
This is backward, actually. If the economy is working well then withholding consumption (i.e. saving) means that more goods are available for others to either consume or invest. The portion that ends up invested should result in higher future productivity and, in the absence of currency supply manipulation, decreasing prices (deflation), a natural reward for producing more than one consumes.
Only in an economy which is consuming capital—investing so little that productivity is actually decreasing—should prices increase over time. In that case we need more investment to bump up production—the investments don't need to be all that good to be better than the status quo, and anything with a positive return is superior to just waiting for prices to increase further. In the deflationary case, however, we should be more selective about where we invest. It's better for the economy to simply hold our funds in reserve rather than actively compete against more competent investors to expend resources—not just money, but the labor and material it represents—on ventures that will provide lower-than-average returns.
If we expand the currency supply to manufacture inflation and thus make it look like we need more investment when we actually don't then the net result is malinvestment, wasted resources, and a lower average rate of return. It's not good for the economy or the average citizen, but the extra transactions and higher nominal prices directly benefit the bankers and tax collectors with influence over monetary policy.
Low inflation is a good thing - it is a sign of a properly functioning economy. A dollar today should be worth more than a dollar tomorrow.
Too much inflation is not a good thing is usually sign of systemic failures of trust in a system.
The two stages are usually conflated in many discussions.
But as you say, inflation is a tool; it motivates investment. Expropriation is a tool; I don't see how eliminating it is appealing at all to the billions of people with no savings at all. They may want to take money from the wealthy at some point.
If there's ever a point where "the masses" really understand bitcoin, and how a few HODLers possess most of it's value, they're not going to want it.
I don't know where you live but I doubt it's western Europe. In the Netherlands for example, the highest interest rate available [1] is a lousy 0.2%.
Because it is my choice? If you want to use an inflationary currency, go ahead. But other people should have the option of opting out, and using a different currency, with different properties
My justification is freedom of choice. Or, in other words, the reason is "because I want it to, and I am justified in making my own free decisions".
I believe it is people's right to choose which money system that they want, and you should not have the right to prevent other people's voluntary choice to use a different money system.
I am justifying why people should be allowed to make their own decisions about what money system that they use.
Freedom of choice is a valuable principle in and of itself.
You cannot just dismiss this important concept of freedom of choice. It applies to all parts of society.
The only justification I need, is that I do not want people's freedoms to be infrindged upon.
You're intentionally not answering my question which is: explain to me what benefit to society could potentially arise from money being worth more over time?
I'm not saying you can't do it I'm asking you why. It seems you and everyone else can't point to anything other than making yourselves wealthy.
Long version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21457114
Freedom is something that many people care about and value.
The benefit is also that different people want different things in their own money system, and a diversity of things and monetary systems is good, merely because of the money systems being different.
There is value in having differing money systems with different properties (merely because they are different!), and letting the market decide which one is best.
So a direct answer to your question is "because it is different from what we have now", and more diversity in monetary properties is a good thing.