Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonymoushn | Hacker News Reader

Hmm, seems like this guy wouldn't get his $3,000 stolen if he got paid SPL USDC. The transaction would also cost less energy than it did through Stripe.

View on HN

"Circle Confirms Freezing $100K in USDC at Law Enforcement's Request" https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/07/08/circle-confirms-...

Funny because you sound like a guy that could claim crypto is an unregulated far west full or scammers, while trying to prove that seizing 100K at law enforcement request is the same as randomly keeping 3K of your customers funds.

You seem to think "we can freeze your funds" isn't an appealing feature to scammers, which is odd.

https://www.circle.com/en/legal/usdc-terms

> If Circle suspects or determines that you or any of your authorized users or customers, as applicable, have violated this these Terms, including, but not limited to, attempting to transact or transacting with Blocked Addresses (as defined in Section 13) or attempting to engage or engaging in Restricted Activities or Prohibited Transactions, and you have a Circle Account, then Circle may be forced to terminate your Circle Account and you may forfeit any USD funds otherwise eligible for redemption.

The list of "Restricted Activities" this applies to is quite broad, including "provide false, inaccurate, or misleading information". The parent poster's claim this couldn't happen with USDC is readily proven false.

> The transaction would also cost less energy than it did through Stripe

Citation very much required.

Oh no, I can't google things.

https://solana.com/news/solanas-energy-use-report-march-2022

First, that's a random chain nobody cares about that recently had a massive controversy of them trying to steal a user's fake internet "money".

Second, i don't trust their numbers - how could they possibly know what type of electricity is used by their validators?

Third - even if we assume those numbers are true, I don't see a comparison with Stripe's per transaction CO2 emissions.

> recently had a massive controversy of them trying to steal a user's fake internet "money".

This is like saying that Ethereum stole from AnubisDAO contributors.

> Second, i don't trust their numbers - how could they possibly know what type of electricity is used by their validators?

I think most of the validators are hosted at Equinix through a deal negotiated by the Solana Foundation, but not all of them.

> Third - even if we assume those numbers are true, I don't see a comparison with Stripe's per transaction CO2 emissions.

If you can find any published numbers on this from Stripe (or any other Ruby shop) that would be great.

So how can you possibly say "The transaction would also cost less energy than it did through Stripe" if you have no idea how much energy a traditional transaction takes?

The linked page includes the energy cost of a Google search. I made an informed guess that operations done infrequently and deliberately written in extremely power-inefficient ways cost at least that much.

And what did you base that off of? Do you know the efficiency of a Stripe transaction, compared to a Google search? And what does "a Google search" even entail? How far down does it go? Where did that number come from?

How could you possibly compare the two?

At best, you're making a guess (I wouldn't exactly call it "informed") based on some randomly sourced data on a blog, which uses another blog for its source, which uses a third blog.

Easiest bet to win. It's always the same arguments : fud or concepts from 2010s

The ecosystem has vastly improved since

Reply on news.ycombinator.com