After all as we all know: If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.
And look at how inefficient all these permissionless, trustless protocols are! What a waste! Let's just all trust a central authority and think of the savings and the children.
The author of the article skips over the question entirely, maybe he's addressed it elsewhere, but if the crypto skeptics continue to ignore one of its primary value propositions, I have to assume either ignorance or bad faith.
Trust will (continue to) come with time.
There are some with lower threshold tolerance of these attacks based on the idea that they're unlikely and the added threshold doesn't actually add security. I don't know about that but some people seem to think so.
But they have access to computers, internet, enough money to pay the tx fees of cryptocurrencies... amazing
I technically am the owner of (quite a few) bitcoin that were being processed by MtGox when they imploded.
The wallet they were in at the time was emptied and no longer exists.
I still receive the relevant court documents as the case continues still.
As far as the ledger is concerned - they are no longer mine.
---
So question to you: How do you reconcile the theft of my property with the ledger at this point?
It turns out I have no ability to do so at all. The ledger is distributed and impossible to meaningfully change.
So while I trust that the ledger can't be changed easily - I don't trust the ledger to accurately reflect ownership (it can only represent possession, not true ownership).
So now what?
Now it turns out I have to turn around and trust a central authority anyways! That authority being the government that is handling the prosecution of MtGox for fraud and theft.
In theory, DeFi can solve this. In practice it is hampered by poor UX and high transaction/gas fees. I think in the far future, the idea of ever having "your" assets in a wallet whose key you don't control will be seen as a ludicrous archaism. Sorry for your loss btw, that really sucks
You and me both - 41 bitcoin at $4.17 a piece. Admittedly, if they hadn't been stolen I was planning on buying a 1/4 of weed with them, so I probably wouldn't be rich either way... shrug
Fun story though - I can honestly say I spent more than USD 10 million in bitcoin on weed in college. Only about $500 at the time.
Turns out there is some utility to a central authority.
People usually want to trade stored value in exchange for goods and services (at least in a functioning value store - I don't really believe bitcoin serves that purpose at the moment).
So lets say we agree that I pay you 10k in bitcoin in exchange for you remodeling my bathroom (and ignore how unlikely this scenario is with real crypto currencies). I pay you 50% up front (to purchase materials), and 50% on completion.
Then you run off with my initial 50%.
Now what?
----
Every solution I've seen is riddled with pitfalls and gotchas
- Use escrow? Wait - now we're just trusting a central authority again.
- Use Eth contracts? Well, maybe - but it requires a perfectly written contract or you're open to all sorts of strange edge behavior and side effects.
- Sue over the theft? Now the central authority is just the government again, and we're back at square one!
You see the disconnect I'm getting at? Eventually, if disagreements occur about how value was traded, there has to be a reconciliation mechanism. Right now, even in modern crypto - that reconciliation mechanism is still a central authority: Your government.
Bitcoin is not designed to solve the counterparty risk, it's just a digital cash that has a fixed emission schedule. It can be stolen just like regular physical cash can be.
Smart Contracts try to solve the counterparty risk issue, but it's just an extra layer around cryptocurrencies, that has it's pros and cons.
Fraud is not going anywhere anytime soon. If you have no proposed mechanism to reconcile fraud, I'd argue there's not any true value stored.
If the proposed mechanism is "just use the existing government" then the whole house of cards in built on the back of that central authority enforcing ownership for you anyways in which case why not just use the currency that authority already sponsors and has a proven track record of enforcing?
It was designed to solve a specific set of frauds related with having a central authority though: censoring people from financial system, seizing your savings from your bank account and debasing the currency for the benefit of the political elite.
Counterparty risk is real, but there are other ways to solve it, besides having a central authority that has the power to revert transactions, which comes with it's own risks.
We started with:
"Anyone who says blockchain-driven assets don't have intrinsic value seems to ignore the value of trust - the ability to trust that the ledger is accurate seems extremely valuable."
Except the ledger doesn't actually provide any remedy to counter-party risk at all - I still have to trust a 3rd party at the time of exchange.
So the value of bitcoin is entirely dependent on the risk of the counter-party (because I have to pay to offset that risk, whether that's insurance, a private militia, legal contract enforced by a gov that I pay taxes to, simply eating the lost coins, etc)
Which means the intrinsic value of bitcoin is dependent on my ability to offset that risk - which I realistically (as a law abiding citizen) have to rely on the government to do, because the government has a monopoly on violence and imprisonment.
Which means the intrinsic value of a bitcoin is entirely at the whim of government control anyways. (which we already have an intuitive understanding of - this is why the price will fluctuate so much when news about government regulation or enforcement breaks).
Sure, the state can declare that the Bitcoin you own is not legitimate. It might do so because you're unable to prove the source of funds or maybe because it doesn't like your race or something else about you.
The cool thing about Bitcoin is that it is money that is separated from the state, the same way like Gold is. So as long as you can find a jurisdiction that considers your funds valid, you can escape your state violence. Of course this has it's pros and cons, but that's how it works when you separate money from the state.
This is the 5th comment that I'm making with this throwaway account, after which, I believe, I'm going to be rate-limited and unable to reply for a day. So, sorry for not being able continue this conversation :D
But this is true of all assets!
Bitcoin's only tangible value is that it weighs nothing (which is actually a nice property if you're fleeing your current government - gold is heavy!). But I don't think that's enough to make it a good long term value store for the amount of capital pouring into it.
And just like other assets - I believe its value is entirely based on having a government somewhere that will enforce a code of conduct around exchanges of that asset, and a definition of ownership.
The government issues the currency because the government is able & willing to do absolutely anything in order to resolve disputes between parties that involve real assets - up to and including killing people, killing corporations, or even trying to kill other governments.
Without that commitment, bitcoin sits in a really strange place. I don't believe it will hold value if the governments of more major economies stop supporting it.
Either way - Appreciate the conversation! Thanks for helping fill some time on an otherwise boring afternoon before the holidays!
If I'm understanding this thread, you're saying that bit coin is simultaneously designed to allow for this kind of seizure and not.
Swap the mtGox hacker with the government.
It's useful keeping the two problems connected though, since both are features of competing payment methods
You hinted that somehow a general user of bitcoin might have the power to influence or extort a third party to offset risk - but the reality of the situation is that the only entity I'm in contact with that can provide the resources to influence or extort a 3rd party is my government (doubly so if we assume I'm still bound by my local laws and rote violence isn't an answer).
Possession is ownership on the Bitcoin network. Not ownership in the sense of it is written down in some legal document somewhere but ownership in the sense that you have the power to perform a transaction with what you say you own.
You were trusting a central party all along. If you didn’t you wouldn’t be in the position you are in.
Even the silk-road used an escrow service that required that the seller trust the buyer, and both parties trust the silk-road. (a buyer places coins in escrow with the silk-road, the silk-road confirms it has the coins to the seller, the seller ships the product, the buyer unlocks the coins escrow upon receipt)
So the whole things boils down to "trust" and it turns out that the ledger can't actually provide any trust.
Present forms of digital cash do not offer this. A payment can be reversed if the buyer claims the transaction was fraudulent and the banks involved agree to reverse the transaction. Money can be accidentally withdrawn from my account and I have to ask the bank to return it. In both these cases if the institutions involved refuse to return my money then I have to take the issue to court and I am deprived of using or investing this money in the meantime.
If consumer protections are your concern these laws exist in many countries regardless of the payment medium.
Lets say you and I decide right now that we're going to use these comments to make an exchange. I will give you $5 of bitcoin in exchange for you mailing me a postcard.
Now what? How do we proceed in a meaningful manner?
How do we go about making that exchange happen if we assume that either party is self-interested, and not interested in actually completing the deal?
If I send the bitcoin first? - the second it hits your account you know for sure it's yours: No need to bother sending the postcard - that's just cash out of your pocket.
If you mail the postcard first? - Well, job's done for me, no need to send any bitcoin at all.
What if we both agree that we trust Bob, and you send him the postcard, and I send him the bitcoin, and he only forwards them along after he gets both? - Oops, now Bob can do all those things you complained about letting the bank do! He can send that bitcoin back and I won't ever get a postcard. He can mail the postcard back and you won't ever get any bitcoin (Transaction reversed!). Worse, he can take anything you give him and do what he wants while he has it (like disappear!) - or hold them much longer than you'd like after he gets them. (Freeze it).
How do you get your stuff back from Bob? Same way you would from a bank - appeal to the government.
Basically - Bitcoin without enforcement is only a ledger. The thing that keeps it in check with reality is an appeal to an authority somewhere, who provides trust that both parties in an exchange aren't getting screwed.
Correct. Who said it was?
"How do we go about making that exchange happen if we assume that either party is self-interested, and not interested in actually completing the deal?"
We don't make that exchange in that case. Or like you mentioned we both acknowledge that we don't trust each other and get a trusted third party involved who we both trust more that the each other. No payment method is immune to this. Notice though that regardless of how much trust that we have or don't have for each other we can both trust that if you do send me $5 of Bitcoin I will receive it. Provided I've taken the necessary steps the transaction will not be reversed. Also note that if I wish I can also be certain that no one can erase whatever I rightfully claim is mine from the ledger or transfer it to another address once I have received it. This cannot be said for any non crypto digital payment system currently.
Bitcoin is a shared digital ledger hosted on a transaction network that is not controlled by a single trusted third party. The thing that keeps the ledger in check with reality is the correctness that it guarantees to those who are using the network to send and receive payments.
If you say you are going to send me a 1700 sats to post a postcard to you and I deliver as promised but in reality you don't perform your part of the deal the ledger is still correct. You still owe me 1700 sats according the deal we made and I can confirm this by checking the ledger. The ledger itself does not know about the deal we made but we both know we made a deal and according to that deal you still owe me 1700 sats. Now with a traditional bank what happens if you claim you sent it and the bank says you didn't. How can I verify that the transaction took place? I can't. I have to trust what you or the bank tell me and I don't know who is telling the truth. Maybe the transaction got lost. Maybe you didn't send it. There is no way to discover the reality of the situation without having to make an uninformed choice about who I trust.
At present Bitcoin is still clunky and has many issues both technical and non-technical to overcome. It is unknown whether these issues can or will be overcome. It has a far way to go if it is to realise the creators vision in a meaningful way by gaining mainstream adoption and use as "digital cash".
Because the bank is acting as the (government approved) escrow service! Basically - The bank is arbitrating the dispute to resolve it (whether you like how the bank resolves that dispute is mostly irrelevant here).
Let me ask you to follow up, given what you've said:
> If you say you are going to send me a 1700 sats to post a postcard to you and I deliver as promised but in reality you don't perform your part of the deal the ledger is still correct. You still owe me 1700 sats according the deal we made and I can confirm this by checking the ledger. The ledger itself does not know about the deal we made but we both know we made a deal and according to that deal you still owe me 1700 sats.
Now what? Fill me in on how we resolve this situation in your mind, once we've reached this point.
In the example you gave whether we chose to transact in cash, wire-transfer or bitcoin the result would be the same. I would have to rely on layers, civil or criminal courts, police, insurance companies, debt collectors, thugs or myself to physically retrieve the funds (or equivalent) if possible. If that was not possible some form of fair physical or financial punishment would be dealt to you or not. Honestly for that amount of Bitcoin I wouldn't be bothered and wouldn't follow it up. I would just never do business with you again and from that point forward never relinquish physical custody of goods for sale prior to receiving payment.
"Because the bank is acting as the (government approved) escrow service! Basically - The bank is arbitrating the dispute to resolve it (whether you like how the bank resolves that dispute is mostly irrelevant here)."
Trusted third parties will always be an issue where there is no trust between the buyer and seller. Sure multisig helps but the difference is Bitcoin gives us power to choose who we involve in the transaction. I and the other party I am transacting with combined are not forced to involve any one individual, company or nation state in the transaction if we do not wish them to be part of it.
I think you are conflating trust in the Bitcoin network with trust in the humans transacting over the network. Regardless of the medium of exchange in order for transactions to occur we as humans need some level of trust in the party we are transacting with, trust in the network we are using to perform the transaction and trust that other humans are going to continue to value the medium being exchanged. Not everyone's level of trust in these aspects are going to be the same and people are going to value some aspects more than others.
Personally I think if bitcoin doesn't overcome some of its hurdles soon it will probably just turn into a form of the existing banking network through legislation. It's already beginning to look like that with most individuals storing their Bitcoin on exchanges. Private wallets will be banned, transacting with non KYCd entities will become impossible using regulated custodians and any Bitcoin received from (or linked to) non KYCd addresses will be automatically seized by the government. At that point the supply can be artificially inflated. The number of Bitcoins in your account doesn't actually have to reflect the amount of bitcoin the custodian holds for you. The surveillance apparatus will become hyper focused on the Bitcoin network and everyone interacting with it. Like Ross Ulbricht you may be able to resist seizure of your Bitcoin but it will just result in a lengthy prison sentence. It may not stay like this forever though.
So do you want a postcard? :)
Ok - I think we're pretty closely aligned here.
I'm further along that trajectory than you, mainly because I think this isn't really an optional outcome that might be avoided, but rather the only functional end state of a currency: The currency is only as good as the government that mediates its exchange.
If mediating that exchange incurs costs, then the government will take steps to either stop mediating those exchanges (ex: China - where all crypto exchanges are illegal by default, so the legal system can no longer be used to offset the cost of those exchanges at cost to itself) or it will bring that currency under control so that it can make those costs predictable and acceptable (ex: The US - where crypto is getting "all the bad bits" added back through legislation)
Which means the original intent of crypto only works in this honeymoon period (which I actually think ended not too long after the silk road went down) where it happens to get treated as an asset by a government that hasn't yet found out that they're essentially mediating exchanges in a foreign currency for free (not something most governments want to do).
That's an interesting way to conceptualise it but I see it from a different broader perspective: A government is only as strong as its ability to issue/acquire meaningful amounts of a valued currency.
Anything that negatively affects these activities will be killed or subjugated to contribute towards them. Bitcoin in its intended form is detrimental to both of these activities so it will be sabotaged by governments one way or another until it is not.
Bitcoin has unique properties that drive it's adoption but all these properties can be diminished or undermined by laws.
"Which means the original intent of crypto only works in this honeymoon period"
If Bitcoin had managed to gain widespread adoption and a large enough percentage of its users held their private keys then it would have been too difficult and unfavourable for governments to start attacking it.
The unsolved technical issues hindered adoption so Bitcoin has been relegated to a volatile store of value giving government the time to realise the threat and act accordingly. Regardless of how unreasonable, harsh or onerous a set of laws are they can be effectively implemented if the portion and power of people they affect is small enough.
To be candid, you are generally trusting the contracts you're interacting with to be bug free, but you are able to audit the code just as easily as anyone else, and verify that the contracts are as advertised. Unlike dealing with a bank portal, all the logic running on the blockchain is visible and verifiable.
So to answer your questions. Although possible, no reconcile is the pure spirit of a trustless network. Now? you make sure to avoid custodian services and keep your keys safe. or stay away from crypto until/if it becomes as ubiquitous as the Internet.
Which is entirely true, and there are some useful properties to that, but the whole thing falls down the second you have a real dispute over the trade of goods for value (which I might remind you, outside of the pure speculation/gambling that occurs in bitcoin pricing, is the point of actually holding a currency).
So how do I go about safely spending these things? Oh - it turns out that still only works in the context of a central authority and the legal system they support.
Spending these things? I can show you how to hold securely some wallet with your own private keys (no custody), receive then "spend" these things for a few pennies per transactions and with the guarantee nobody will interfere with our exchange. from wherever you happen to reside. there is no central authority able to (practically) control many of the blockchain networks out there.
Yes, and because no one can interfere in the exchange, no one can prevent either party from abusing the other, and no third party can later reconcile the dispute without an outside framework.
I find it pretty unbelievable how comfortable the crypto crowd is about just dismissing reconciliation, when it's literally some of the oldest history have, and one of the more important roles of a functioning government (we literally have 4 thousand year old stone tablets dealing with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir)
so the same thing as "code is law", which is a fundamentally bad idea.
You deferred to a trusted party to secure your wealth and because that third party was untrustworthy, you have to defer to an intermediary.
Had you deferred to yourself to secure your wealth you wouldn't be in this situation. The ledger would be the canonical one of ownership and possession, and you wouldn't have to defer to anyone.
Basically, you kept your bitcoin in a traditional, legally enforceable arrangement instead of the bottom layer, algorithmically enforced environment and now have to defer to the traditional system to restore possession.
I owned no bitcoins at the time I desired to trade bitcoins for a physical product (in this case: ~7g of Cannabis)
What recourse do I have that does not require trusting a third party?
I do not own the required compute power to mine it myself (not technically true at the time, although certainly true today)
I'd like to have you walk me through the exact set of steps to acquire my bitcoin and use them to purchase that physical good, where I can magically avoid placing any trust in a 3rd party.
Which is hilarious. Because that's actually all that bitcoin was good for: black market deals/trades, where enforcement is left up to you anyways.
Unfortunately, that makes it a (fucking terrible) medium of exchange for absolutely anything else, unless you add back in all the government regulation that the crypto folks hate.
The coins would sit in the wallet for as long as it took me to figure out how to place an order on silk-road again, where I would buy down to as small an amount of bitcoin as I could.
I got unlucky the last time through and hit it right when the service went down.
Which is funny - because the attitude that I should be hiding my coins away as tightly as possible is exactly why I'm so non-plussed on bitcoin: It's no longer an medium of exchange, it's a speculative asset with price completely unhinged from utility (which in my opinion is basically just buying black market goods).
2) move it to the private key.
When you're ready to spend it, spend it. Those places where you were looking to buy cannabis have escrow services, at the time you'd have had to trust the platform only upon purchase, nowadays multisig escrow is standard, which requires significantly less trust in a single party.
However you can.
Any time you make a purchase, of anything, you're trusting the seller. Leaving it in their custody is where you screw up. Imagine you bought bitcoin from me, but then asked me to hang on to it for you for free. Or a car. Or anything. It's absurd.
So again - the entire value of the medium is predicated on having a legal system you can use to resolve these disputes.
Following - that legal system requires all sorts of control to actually resolve those disputes: Many of the things bitcoin advocates actively rail against are just methods of reconciliation (Funds freezing, reversed transactions, 3rd party control of assets, etc).
So either
1. The legal system will stop supporting exchanges of that medium (see: China)
or
2. The legal system will add back all those controls (see: Legislation in the US)
Basically - My entire point is that bitcoin only has value if current governments support its exchange, and they WONT do that if it's a negative to them (and it is, unless they can tax and control it).
Authorities must find whoever received those bitcoins and make them transfer the funds back to you.
Maybe it "seems" valuable, but why exactly is it valuable? For what use case and which situation (besides crime)?
I think the issue is that many don't see value in its "primary value proposition" because the features they want from banks are already there (stability, FDIC insurance). The only thing I personally see missing is no/low-fee instant transfers, but crypto hasn't solved that either (too slow and/or high fees).
Sure, but (like it or not) that's covered under the umbrella of "crime".
Any other fiat currency already provides this such as usd, euro, Israeli currency etc and they are at least currently far easier to aquire and done have any gas feeds other than consumption tax if any
On Lebanon where electricity is unreliable seems like a particularly bad idea to use any sort of Crypto, let alone the user friction as a consequence of network gas prices
On real world scenarios, if a country is having issues relating to inflation or is a small market to begin with, consumer prices are denominated on Usd or some other currency anyway
A fortune in Bitcoin in a conflict/disaster zone is no more useful than a fortune in dollars in a bank if you can't access it readily. Your fortune means shit if you can't buy a loaf of bread.
Even if you can access the infrastructure necessary to spend cryptocurrency to buy a loaf of bread they provide no protection against localized inflation. Prices of goods in a conflict zone increase significantly due to dangers/difficulty associated with the supply chain or lack thereof. Sometimes they increase due simply to greed. Transacting in a cryptocurrency doesn't help at all with this. Your Bitcoin fortune can be wiped out just feeding your family since your only other option is to starve to death.
First you have to define "crime." If by "crime" you mean "any activity outside the purview of regulatory authorities" then you're defining everything that isn't a bank account as crime. It is circular logic. "Its only use case is crime because using it is crime." If you more narrowly define crime as criminal acts besides just unregulated financial activities, then you can start to see the value proposition.
I'm genuinely not sure what a use case for unregulated financial activity would be that doesn't fall into those buckets.
Someone mentioned retaining assets in countries with hyperinflation. To me it appears a central bank digital currency would be more appropriate there.
"Blackmarket purchases" has the same problem "crime" does, it's self supporting.
This is in contrast to fiat currencies which their various governments offer guarantees that they will honor.
NFTs, on the other hand, make even less sense to me. They seem like they are just cryptocurrency in disguise trying to fool people who otherwise question the concept of inherent value by claiming (falsely) that they are equivalent to ownership of digital goods[3].
[0] I have yet to hear a use case for which they are actually better than traditional alternatives, but I can imagine that one might exists.
[1] read: greater fool.
[2] Leaving aside all the energy wasted on PoW.
[3] And that's before we get into my conviction that attempts to force artificial scarcity into a post-scarcity space are backward and perverted.
I'll reiterate: the number in the database represents an amount of tokens guaranteed to be accepted by the government of the country I live in. Cryptocurrency 'coins' carry no such guarantee, only the possibility of greater fools.
In the end, it's just a question of whether you trust a centralised authority that's ultimate accountable, however imperfectly, or decentralised authorities that are accountable only to themselves and have no enforcement power.
If you give me bitcoin and I don't give you goods in exchange, or vice-versa, aren't you going to run to that central authority?
There's many other ways than inserting a monopoly on violence dispensing political authority into the loop and still ensuring that transactions are suitably reliable.
Big sticks just aren't a very efficient solution.
Which if the last decade plus of cryptocurrency has taught us anything, we ought to be able to thoroughly discard by this point in time.
I am aware that the political orthodoxy of the time is popular and the view that it should be discarded is unpopular, aside from observing that this would be true of basically any time and place, I have no further comment on that. My point is that the alternative simply flat out works better. I have zero care or interest in what is popular.
Imagine a way that you could look up the blockchain with your key (SSN?) that is somehow one-way-hashed to show you the result of your vote. The value param would be plain-text. Someone else wouldn't be able to see your vote without your key, but you could confirm yours was recorded properly. Anyone could tally the values to get the final value.
Because the blockchain is trustless and distributed, you wouldn't have to worry about an election machine flipping your vote.
Apart from currency, this seems like a great use-case! Are there any flaws in this basic structure?
Maybe I'm mistaken or confused here, but in that specific case you could just give any random 9-digit sequence and it would suffice? A non-SSN voter ID would work just as well for a key.
Are people threatening others based on their votes these days?
EDIT: /u/ninjanomnom brought up a good point regarding heads-of-households, which I hadn't thought of before. I suppose some sort of method would be necessary to obfuscate your vote in some situations.
So any system that allows you to verify a vote needs to come not only with a way for you to validate it, but also with deniability built in. Because if it's not then you can a) sell your vote or b) be intimidated into showing how you voted (which may result in a firing/beating if you did it wrong).
There are, I think, one or two ways to achieve this, but it's a non-trivial problem.
This is also why taking a picture of your ballot will nullify it if you're caught doing so. Not as punishment, but so you can vote again with potentially different choices and a valid excuse for having no verification.
In what jurisdiction is this the case? I have never heard of it.
But what about a Sybil attack? How do you ensure "one person == one or zero votes"? I could submit a jillion votes for Donald Duck and how would you ever know that those votes were all cast by the same person? Any sort of election scheme has to deal with messy real-world identity, and there's no cryptographic solution to that, only various weak social network approaches that are pretty much the norm.
To the second point--I would imagine you would vote in the same way we do today for MVP, in-person / mailing, etc. So the main function would be to verify that your vote was properly recorded and counted.
Verifying your identity is outside the blockchain. Thus it can provide no value for voting.
You mean, other than trusting elected representatives to oversee the election you'd rather trust miners?
The legitimacy of voting outcomes depends critically on everyone understanding and in principle being able to verify how it works, and it being resistant to tampering at scale.
Very few people would understand a blockchain based voting mechanism well enough to really verify, and any implementation error could give an attacker complete and untraceable control over the results.
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2030/
Practically speaking these can just be anything from conflicting jurisdictions (buying weed in a state where it's legal but the Federal government is skeptical), to "crimes" like circumventing KYC or AML -- things that look like structuring (like sending > $10k) even if they are not in furtherance of criminal activity.