* Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously.
* Providing a source of funding North Korea's nuclear weapons program
* Allowing nation states to engage in global commerce despite sanctions because they won't stop killing innocent people
* Convincing older and gullible people to give their money to someone they don't know and a technology they can't explain
* It's the future!!
EDIT: Couple more
* Transactions are so energy intensive that the currency eclipses the carbon footprint of many countries
* Those transactions are also incredibly slow!
* Matt Damon!
I think there is a use for blockchain, but as a technology for everything from buying groceries to countries using it as a currency, no.
I don't see how this is any different than the bog standard "encryption lets criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously.". Should money/txns be fundamentally track-able/examinable/un-encrypted but your private data/messages not?
Surely this contention is something you also consider -- care to expand?
>* Convincing older and gullible people to give their money to someone they don't know and a technology they can't explain
I am surprised. My initial viewpoint was why would scammers bother to fish for bitcoin when bank transfers/gift cards are a lower barrier -- but seems you are right [1], the cat and mouse chase continues...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kitboga+bitcoin
The obvious difference is that encryption has many, many actually useful and productive applications.
So does crypto but likewise opponents of encryption disregard the positives and focus on the negatives to align with their preformed ideas. The only way out of this trap is to have an open mind and internalize the fact that all technologies can be used for good and evil and thus are relatively neutral overall. Humanity must take the good and bad and see where the path goes in order to advance as a species.
> So does crypto [...]
I'd wager that this is a lie. Please name one.
These systems are self referential. Great if all to do is speculate with value changes inside the system.
Other use cases? In short: no one has come up with any solution to the oracle problem.
As soon as you want to exchange anything crypto with anything but crypto (e.g. USD or a physical asset like a loaf of bread) you need trust.[1]
* Buying VPN relays anonymously, for connecting to through Tor, VPSes etc.
* Buying drugs.
* Donating to causes sanctioned by your country.
* Paying informants.
* Allowing you to prove you're the author of something, or knew a secret, later on.
* "Dead hand" schemes which release information if your wallet activity stops for more than a couple weeks. This keeps people from killing you to keep something from getting out.
* Online gambling.
* Evading financial controls to send money to your family abroad.
Some of this doesn't require any trust (e.g. proving you knew something before some date), most of the rest requires trust, but what makes crypto useful for these cases isn't lack of trust but auditability, anonymity and/or lack of control by authorities.
Honestly, using crypto for something like seems a bit nuts, like using a jackhammer to destroy a cardboard box.
Which is closely tied to the fallacy that using crypto(currencies) gives you anonymity.
Cash gives you better anonymity than any crypto currency currently in wide circulation for the applications you listed.
They are currencies. I've gotten paid for services in XMR.
> I'd wager that this is a lie. Please name one.
Alibaba ran a Foreign Exchange service on top of crypto. I don't know if it is still running or not. It functioned like Western Union. Customers sent local currency to Alibaba, Alibaba bought crypto with that local currency and in another country sold that crypto for foreign currency and then deposited it into the foreign currency account.
In any case, your argument presumes some desire to get rid of the correspondent banks. Most people don't have that desire, they just want the money to go from A-B reasonably cheaply, and there are existing great solutions for that except at the fringes — like criminals, avoiding sanctions, avoiding capital controls, etc — which is why crypto stays on those fringes.
Yes, it is for the fringes. One day Alibaba could find itself on the fringes, as collateral damage in some geopolitical dispute that locks it out of the centralized global financial system, as a result of which country it is based in.
I have no idea if this concern motivated Alibaba's reliance on crypto though.
Potentially the involvement of those banks is a feature and provides value?
Things to ponder...
I suspect cryptocurrency will be a store of value far further into the future than gold. Gold becomes plentiful once extracting resources from asteroids becomes economically viable.
The UN saved more than 40,000 USD per month in bank transfer costs by using blockchain.
It doesn't. Everyone who claims otherwise can't come up with a single credible example.
* Paying for VPN anonymously with Monero.
* Sending money for living to relatives that reside in countries that are sanctioned. What's more important? Knowing that your family is not hungry or following your government's doctrine?
* Hide money from abusive relatives.
In summary: Doing transactions without having to ask your principal for permission or having to reveal them. Seems quite empowering to me, but apparently not everyone thinks that being empowered is valuable.
We all agreed on the rules as a society, if somebody wants to empower themselves above them than that's not cool imo.
Of course, in authoritarian governments your point stands, but then the trade-off is undermining democracies as collateral damage.
Actually we didn't. None of us chose to be here. None of us has a choice over when or where we're born. We all arrive and grow up in societies structured and governed in ways that we've had no say over, and over which very few of us will have meaningful influence during our lifetimes. Some of this is OK, some of it isn't. Some places are more or less OK than others. But don't act like we should all simply accept everything about systems we've had no agency in building purely because we might live in a democracy.
What if you cannot find an existing system that is open for you and acceptable enough?
Ah, pretending that "work, family, studies" don't depend on political systems is peak HN.
> What if you cannot find an existing system that is open for you and acceptable enough?
Life is a series of compromises
Not strictly. Especially not if you switch four times.
> Life is a series of compromises
Of course it is. That's why living in a democracy and fiat system while also using crypto is totally fine.
It's splitting hairs now. Your original claim was, and I quote, "did you do so in order to enjoy different political systems, or more because of unrelated things like work, family, studies"
- Work is a spectrum between "you're forced to work at the collective farm and you don't even have documents to travel anywhere" (e.g., USSR, until about 1960s) and "move to whatever place you want and start your own company" (most of the modern world).
- Family is a spectrum between "divorce is fully forbidden, punishable, or fined" (most countries with heavy religious influences, even today) to "you're free people, do what you want". And not to mention things like child care and support, rigths of husbands and wives, rights of children etc. etc. etc.
- Studies is a spectrum between "women and/or non-believers and/or non-priviledged classes have no access to education" (really most countries until modern times, some countries even now) to "yeah, go ahead and study whatever you want" (most of the modern world).
And so on. To pretend that major things in life are not affected by politics is disingenuous at best. There's literally, right now, a huge ongoing debate in the US about healthcare (affects family) and student debt (affects studies).
Many people move, because they are following opportunities (and of course these are also affected by politics). Some people move from A to B and back to A. Sometimes from democracies to dictatorships. It does not automatically mean that they do so, because they prefer one or the other system. Some people accept a political downgrade when they move.
"I'm moving to A because my kids can go to school there without incurring heavy debt" is influenced by politics even if it's not explicitly acknowledged. Or even if the person doesn't think it's influenced by politics.
> Some people accept a political downgrade when they move.
Yes, they do. Because the reasons may be [1] "I don't want my kids to be subjected to gay propaganda, I'm going back to the country that upholds traditional values", and this is again is influenced by politics even if it's not explicitly stated and the person doesn't understand that.
[1] I know of some people who moved back to Russia for this stated reason.
Horrible
> Buying a subscription to gay.com from Syria.
That is not a credible example. Here are some reasons:
1) Paying for porn? Paying for porn when the implication is that it's illegal and could get you in trouble? Who would do that?
2) Cryptocurrency isn't anonymous, and is usually highly traceable.
3) And even if it was anonymous, what good will it do when your DNS lookups will divulge you're looking at gay porn?
4) Oh, so now someone's supposed to be using some elaborate TOR/VPN setup in a repressive country, just so they can pay for porn?
5) What, exactly is the process for converting Syrian Pounds into cryptocurrency again?
6) etc.
> Your on the clock..
Why were you so confident in your non-credible example?
>> Why were you so confident in your non-credible example?
> The other poster is probably very confident because gay.com redirects to https://lalgbtcenter.org, which is an LGBT advocacy group in Los Angeles.
I doubt they knew that. It's inconsistent with their thought of "buying a subscription to gay.com," and it raises the question of why someone in Syria would even be interested in a LA-focused advocacy group. Plus in their reply indicated they thought of it as a porn site. What kind of advocacy group has a paywall that someone would want to see behind?
I have. However you illustrate an important point about cryptocurrency: it's an exercise in political ideology without practicality.
> The debt ceiling grows every day.
If you're that worried about inflation, shiny gold seems like a better option.
Try that trick with some digital currency :-)
Crytocurrency is difficult and costly to trace and exchange identifying not available to Syria.
VPNs would be used
Same process for other currencies on Binance and other exchanges.
1. Deposit your money in a bank. Wire it to Binance. Buy Bitcoin.
2. Go to a McDonald's.
3. Hire a gig worker through an app, pay them in cryptocurrency to buy a Big Mac with fiat and give it to you.
4. Eat your $55 Big Mac, and wonder at the amazing real-world utility of cryptocurrency.
That's objectively worse.
By using crypto the person now has written a public record of that payment. An attacker now can use correlation attacks to try to identify the user.
It's worse in almost every way for that user.
Public record that Syria cannot easily track with bitcoin or no trail with Monero.
I'll give you a bitcoin wallet address can you tell me who owns it?
It depends on the address. But assuming the person is using the same address for multiple transactions then the attacker only has to be able to correlate one address with a person (or a person's device if they have access to it).
This could be a completely innocuous transaction, including something as seemingly innocent as signing into a Dapp.
Compare that to a non-blockchain transaction, where if the attacker hacked an random ecommerce site (say a supermarket) that doesn't automatically allow them to tie all records to transactions on the site that is a problem.
> Worse than a credit card? How?
If I buy something at my supermarket with my credit card, even with home delivery AND even if the supermarket kept the credit card number there is nothing tying that transaction to gay.com.
- buying drugs/porn/VPNs/etc in a country that has a backwards stance on them
- anonymous donations
- purchasing services (eg commissioned art) without revealing your identity
- sending money to friends and family during hyperinflation/freedom from government (mis)management of currencies
Freedom of speech (eg cryptography) is not worth much without the ability to actually use said freedom to drive a change (e.g. requiring work, thus requiring money.)
- Not having anyone watch out for you
- Buying slaves/child porn/weapons in countries with a “backwards stance” on them
- You don’t need crypto for that. A lawyer could do it for you.
- See above
- Use any other currency that’s not undergoing hyper inflation
- Not having anyone "watch out" for your communications
- the ability to pirate or download content illegally
- can have a lawyer handle secure communications
- just use a different messaging service
Clearly we value the freedom and privacy provided by encryption to ignore these arguments.
Encryption is EXTREMELY useful, as history has proved. It has a great many beneficial uses, or at least benign. Yes it can be used by criminals, but that’s hardly its only use.
Cryptocurrency doesn’t seem to provide anything but something to speculate on, a way to sell hardware, and an unfathomable waste of resources. When people point out things it’s “better” at they always seem kind of sketchy, of require you to old the same values (independence from central government above all else). I see no inherent good after 14 years, just massive problems.
So no, I don’t think they’re comparable myself. I don’t find them similar at all for the purposes of the point I’m trying to make.
- Be banked;
- Live in a country with a somewhat stable currency, in which exchanging to another currency is legal;
- Live under a regime that does not impose authoritarian censorship on whom you can exchange value with;
- Use payment processors that only abuse your privacy when you aren't looking.
These conditions are not the case for everyone, everywhere. Is it so difficult for you to imagine that:
- Crypto, once matured, could enable the ~2 billion people that are unbanked to own their own money?
- Someone living in a country with a hyperinflationary currency, that bans currency conversions and precious metals, would like to use crypto to preserve their life's savings?
- Someone might want to donate to an entity opposing an authoritarian, human-rights abusing government, without painting a target on their back? (And no, we both know lawyers are not viable for this.)
Throughout human history, there has not been a single government that has not egregiously failed its people or abused/destroyed the wealth of its citizens.
You seem to think that we have arrived at some special time where this will never happen again. That is not the case. Encryption protects your speech, and cryptocurrency protects your wealth, from governments that will inevitably fail you as surely as the sun will rise.
https://blog.chain.link/44-ways-to-enhance-your-smart-contra...
Because bank transfers at least are inherently traceable. It just requires a sufficiently motivated government agency or prosecutor to go after them. On Gift cards, there's a lot publicity regarding scams and stores are increasingly flagging scams.
Crypto for now at least is far safer from a scmer POV as it requires far higher level of investment and expertise to trace and unmask, so only the ultra big fish seem to get chased
There are place in the world where these things don't exist because society doesn't get along.
Should decentralized and anonymous communication, like TOR tries to be, exist? Should a decentralized currency exist? Should and open, free and decentralized internet exist?
For some of us the answer is clear but complex. Between black and white there are many shades of grey
https://www.crowdstrike.com/cybersecurity-101/ransomware/his...
Note that in 1989 Panama was a narco-state, so running a scheme like this via there made some sense.
Doesn't cash do the same thing?
I refer the learned gentleman to, er, the global economy. How much more scaled up would you like?
Meanwhile crypto transactions have to go through a single common blockchain with pitiful throughput. Even the enhancements like lightning are laughably slow compared to the global banking system.
But I should have really said: cash doesn’t scale down. Escobar can put people with briefcase on planes to pay his suppliers on all continents. But any smaller outfit would struggle with those logistics.
The most important technology since the internet.
Changes the foundation of trust, governance, economy, incentives.
New operating system for humanity.
(and there is no way to stop it, countries who will ban it will go into dark ages while other will prosper)
It is all entirely benefiting criminals. /s
> In fact, it's the proponents of widespread unbreakable encryption who want to create a brave new world, one in which all of us – crooks included – have a guarantee that the government can't tap our phones. Yet these proponents have done nothing to show us that the new world they seek will really be a better one.
> In fact, even a civil libertarian might prefer a world where wiretaps are possible. If we want to catch and convict the leaders of criminal organizations, there are usually only two good ways to do it. We can "turn" a gang member – get him to testify against his leaders. Or we can wiretap the leaders as they plan the crime.
> ...
> If unescrowed encryption becomes ubiquitous, there will be many more stories like this. We can't afford as a society to protect pedophiles and criminals today just to keep alive the far-fetched notion that some future tyrant will be brought down by guerrillas wearing bandoleers and pocket protectors and sending PGP-encrypted messages to each other across cyberspace.
> ...
> As encryption technology gets cheaper and more common, though, we face the real prospect that the federal government's own research, its own standards, its own purchases will help create the future I described earlier – one in which criminals use ubiquitous encryption to hide their activities. How can anyone expect the standard-setting arms of government to use their power to destroy the capabilities of law enforcement – especially at a time when the threat of crime and terror seems to be rising dramatically?
https://www.wired.com/1994/06/nsa-clipper/
My take on it as an outsider is that these are bridging technologies that will probably die off once the rest of the world moves to a secure private digital currency system analogous to cash, since we will no longer need these "wildcat cryptocurrencies" any longer. Like how modern banking progressively evolved from distributed roots.
Plenty of scams happen right there in the open. With all the traceability that fiat currencies provide, gift card, advance-fee and other scams are still plentiful and the victims are very unlikely to ever see their money back. In the UK, even when reported by the financial institution to the National Crime Agency, they often do nothing and the institution is forced to return the money even in cases where it's very obvious it is part of a scam. A lot of people I know are still getting constant scam calls trying to get them to send fiat money to them under various excuses so clearly these people are able to launder that money and evade the law just fine, and I doubt they're using crypto for that.
> criminals
The other problem with considering every "criminal" as bad is that the definition of "crime" depends on who's currently in power. Beyond the obvious violent crimes that the majority of people will agree are bad and should be prevented/punished, there's also a huge "grey area" - Russians who disagree with the war (or even call it a war instead of a "special military operation" as is the official party line) are now considered "criminals" by their government. Do you agree with their assessment that those people are bad and should be punished?
> Providing a source of funding North Korea's nuclear weapons program
The fact that there are people working (or rather, being exploited) on the ground in Poland and Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPjKs8NuY4s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQDLoOnkdI suggests that moving money is not the issue when they seem to be able to transport people just fine.
> Allowing nation states to engage in global commerce despite sanctions because they won't stop killing innocent people
I disagree with punishing average people and making their life hell because their government, over which they have no power over is doing something stupid. The vast majority of these people don't intend to hurt anyone and were just unlucky to be born at the wrong time and in the wrong place. If your solution to stupid governments is to make the life of their citizens impossible, may as well just nuke said country and be done with it?
I'm no crypto fanatic. I don't believe in Web3 and call BS on whatever new crypto project comes out (and so far I have been right the vast majority of the time - every time as far as I know, but leaving the benefit of the doubt). I don't want crypto to take over the world because it's inefficient compared to competing solutions. But cryptocurrencies are a useful tool in certain situations just like end-to-end-encrypted messaging or anonymity tools such as Tor, and their benefits outweigh the cons even if they can be used to facilitate "bad" things.
Like as if it's the reason North Korea has a nuclear missile program, give me a break?
https://qz.com/2147694/ukraine-is-selling-nfts-like-war-bond...
Beyond the state's fundraising efforts, many in Ukraine were only able to take their wealth with them when they fled the country because they had it in the form of crypto.
>>* Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously.
And encrypted chat applications give criminals and scammers the ability to coordinate their scams anonymously.
Centralization via mass-surveillance (Total Information Awareness) is not a solution to social problems. It's putting all of society's eggs in one basket, and hoping the basket doesn't fall into corruption.
>>* Allowing nation states to engage in global commerce despite sanctions because they won't stop killing innocent people
And according to this pro-centralization philosophy, a million people dying in Iraq due to sanctions is "worth it".
So are all the people who "starve" due to this philosophy's AML mass-surveillance laws:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/money-reimagined-starve-ugly-...
Ukraine was not cut off from the global financial system and had no issue receiving donations in fiat currency—I myself sent them some fiat. It was quick and it was easy and the Ukrainians lost a hell of a lot less of my donation to transaction fees than they did of the ETH.
Donating to Ukraine in ETH is a higher-fee way to do something you can already do (this is typical of purported blockchain “use cases”). If you actually care about the recipient of the donation, you should want as little of the donation to be siphoned off as transaction fees as possible.
I suppose you can consider the transaction fees marketing budget.
It is far easier to donate from your browser, using your MetaMask wallet, than by visiting your bank branch to effect an international wire transfer. It can potentially also be safer, in letting you not have your identity recorded anywhere in association with a donation to a party to a conflict.
And the problem of identity being linked to payments, and the risks this can engender, is not a solved problem in traditional finance.
Ah yes. Because those "$100 million in crypto" can be definitely used to buy gas, food, water, transportation etc. in the country...
You are totally missing the point. Having to rely upon central banks was the fundamental problem being solved.
> The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.
-Satoshi Nakamoto [0]
Getting central banks out of the picture is original philosophical motivation for developing a digital currency. All of the "cashless society" convenience aspects are secondary features. Everything that follows, regarding ledgers/records/blockchain/double-spending/trust-less is what's needed to make a digital currency work without a centralized authorities that mint money and validate transactions.
> A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.
-Satoshi Nakamoto [1]
Next up, the irreversibility of transactions is a feature, not a bug.
> For many purposes, reversal and arbitration is highly desirable, but there is no way anyone can compete with the arbitration provided by Visa and Mastercard, for they have network effects on their side, and they do a really good job of arbitration, at which they have vast experience, accumulated skills, wisdom, and good repute. So any new networked transaction system has to target the demand for final and irreversible transactions. [2]
[0] http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-sour...
[1] http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-sour...
[2] https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/th...
Replace "bank" with "cryptocurrency exchange" and the quote still applies verbatim.
I identify many more pressing problems than than central banks, and trying to eliminate trust as a requirement is a naive and anti-social approach.
despite the fundamental conceptual limitations of bitcoin, its genius is its memetic tendency to coopt human social dynamics and create a whirlwind of FOMO and greed. It actually highlights what our actual problems as a global society are, and less trust is not the answer.
I personally would start from a different point of view. Given that privacy is impossible, and it is futile to try to support the illusion that the world is a limitless and open system, we should double down on trust, and create systems that make it easier to discriminate between actors as more or less trusted, and which improve our ability to reach consensus and maintain it. Systems which make trust more secure.
unfortunately these solutions are unlikely to be embedded in computer networks, but in my opinion will arise from genetic engineering.
These scandals were found out by using the very books they had. There's no such thing as an uncookable book. As long as I can lie about information going in, I can manipulate it. Even in the crypto space, you have wash trading and the like.
Yup. As all the scams have proven, it's easy to track and get the money back.
And that's before we get into nuggets like this [1]:
--- start quote ---
A clever operator found a vault containing five Bored Ape NFTs, which had unclaimed $APE associated with them since they were locked up in the vault. They used a flash loan to purchase a large amount of the vault's token, redeem the five BAYC NFTs, claim the airdropped tokens, return the BAYC NFTs, sell back the tokens, and repay the loan, all in one transaction that cost them nothing but netted them 60,564 $APE, which they then swapped for 399 ETH ($1.1 million).
People were somewhat split on whether this could be classed as a vulnerability in the $APE airdrop, since (as with many crypto hacks and scams) the person was operating completely within the rules set out in code.
--- end quote ---
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAirpass#Profitability_investi...
Correction: this is exactly why MONEY is such a disaster.
There has always been scams involving money since, well, since money was invented. You guys portray crypto as being particularly terrible, but the truth is there are hundred times (or more) more money being lost to scams involving the US dollar or the Euro. Crypto is no better or no worse in this regard. Some people will always make dumb mistakes with their money. For example just in the US alone, last year, $5.8 billion was lost to fraud: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/22/consumers-lost-5point8-billi... that's excluding 7.6 billion people outside of America, or money lost to causes other than fraud (eg. theft), etc, etc
Very clearly 'traditional' finance is far safer. There's a reason financial institutions are annoying and stodgy -- they have centuries of hard-lessons-learned. Crypto 'disruption' is mostly throwing away that painful experience.
> This is exactly why the cloud is such a disaster. Every week there is yet another scam where people losing their money. The feedback from cloud hosting enthusiasts is well look at those idiots for putting their money into some scheme <insert unintelligible jargon filled insanity statement here> or you are not smart enough use this thing. Look "nobody" understands what you are talking about. These technical systems are inscrutable and the problem is getting worse. You are building systems that are ruining peoples lives and making things worse for everyone. Please think about what you are doing and create system of value and meaning which improves humankind.
----
This line of reasoning is what may very well lead to a ban on end-to-end encryption and public access to non-backdoored general computing.
Don't invest more than you can afford to lose, it's the basis of any investment strategy. If someone puts enough money into highly risky, speculative assets such as these that it would ruin their life, then they only have themselves to blame if you ask me... People have to take responsibility for their own choices.
Edit: -4 that's a new record for me, thanks guys!
If crypto wants to replace dollars, they are going to have to do better than this.
Would you tell someone who's dollars are stolen 'don't have more dollars than you can afford to lose'?
AXS's value is derived from a pseudo-feudalistic share cropping model called 'play to earn'. People in low income countries put up their real assets to borrow AXS tokens and NFT's to play the game to earn an income and farm items to sell to western players who can't spend all day grinding. Imagine if Blizzard designed WoW's monetization around exploiting all the Gold farmers?
Our frustration stems from our inability to get both of you in the same room to duke it out once and for all.
If only the world were such a simple place where there is only one right and one wrong answer.
And for the record, the argument I’m perceiving from you (“crypto is a speculative investment, invest carefully, enjoy it if you win”) is the closest to reality of all of these arguments IMO. But I do also believe that highly speculative things like this make for bad day-to-day currencies, and have not yet been convinced otherwise.
I mean, you must agree it is good advice in hindsight to not hold all your eggs in one basket in this case. I do.
Now with that said, someone may respond to mention that it’s key feature is actually [a store of value/decentralised digital money/new gold etc] and that person will be wrong.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-fal...