Line could go up, but if you aren’t extremely careful with processes that most people don’t and won’t comprehend—and don’t even realize are something you need to do—you can just straight up lose everything.
https://www.aura.com/learn/i-got-scammed-on-venmo-what-do-i-...
https://help.venmo.com/hc/en-us/articles/235171088-Cancel-Pa...
A fool and their money..
With Bitcoin, a small mistake or oversight and you money is gone, and unrecoverable. So you can point and laugh at people getting scammed on Venmo, but you need "normies" to adopt BTC.
There's really very little crypto-specific here, convincing someone to transfer funds to a scammer-controlled account is one of the oldest financial tricks in the book. It's still very common with bank wires.
Though, the industry is aware of this and working on it. There is at least one company (Chia Network) where the on-chain language (ChiaLisp) is both capable and secure enough to allow for the sort of management needed to allow for self-custody to happen in a safe, sane manner. GUIs for this sort of thing aren't ready for the general public yet, but are definitely on the way.
People who "closely study mistakes and successes of the past" are in a very rare supply in the crypto space, and for a good reason: because people who actually closely study mistakes and successes of the past don't want to touch that space even with a 10-yard stick.
The reasons were spelled out in no uncertain terms 7 years ago in https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ten-years-in-nobody-has-c... and followup here https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/decentralized-and-trustle... 17 years in, all those reasons remain the same.
Unless you're talking about people who are studying the mistakes and successes of crypto scams, and are working to refine them (the scams), then you can find a few.
Passwords, credentials and other high-risk high value intangible data are not associated with high-risk high-value AND our memory is not designed for random junk.
Maybe an anthropologist can study this phenomenon further.
We already have hints of that: our memory has evolved for thousands year to easily memorize places and spatial navigation, in thr past for food, water and danger. Today you go in a foreign place, just one visit and you know where everything is. At the same time, people can usually hold only ~7 concepts/numbers/objects in their head.
In memory competitions people leverage our spatial prowess with a technique called the memory palace, that was already used in ancient Greece and Roman Empire to recall anything, from bard tales to the Iliad and Odysseus.
So all you need to do then is learn a Lisp? That sounds worth the effort for most non-tech people...
That's why it's still early days.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
Things are the way they are because of interests, some people are making money on it. "Crypto bros" aren't rediscovering anything and you seem clueless as to what they want and are repeating old ass tropes you probably learned from others.
I remember only a year or 2 ago when HN was very much against K8S, you probably don't, being of short memory and not learning from others. But, guess what, we are using k8s and crypto and you are stuck and soon will be making apologies for your lack of sense and will be tired of repeating others' lies here.
Sorry but not sorry.
Yes, most don't discover anything, they just run scams. The tiny percentage who doesn't are busy re-discovering and te-inventing all the institutions and processes the world has.
> I remember only a year or 2 ago when HN was very much against K8S
Ah yes. Yet another comparison pulled out of thin air.
In 2000 neural networks had existed for more than 50 years. More than 20 years later their full potential is finally being realized, and many would say it is still early days.
It’s naive to think that you can predict the future course of a technology simply based on the fact that it has already existed for a certain amount of time.
It's a political experiment centred around replacing the existing financial system.
And the mistake there is that people in the crypto space are ignorant about how that world works. Namely that there is such a large overlap with the government that you're in essence trying to disrupt governments. Which is a losing battle.
Similarly, nobody doubted that neural networks were capable of very interesting things - the holdup was the level of processing power needed to run them. As soon as that changes, useful applications abounded.
Those make quite the contrast with bitcoin which has been universally available to a much, much larger population and had truly massive resources available, but almost no meaningful impact because it doesn’t give most people anything new or better. The few businesses which aren’t trying to market it and still accept it almost universally convert BTC into real currency as soon as they receive it, companies like Western Union and Visa haven’t felt the need to lower rates, and to the extent that PayPal is reconsidering screwing everyone so aggressively it’s because of Venmo and Stripe, not Bitcoin.
This is incorrect. AI has gone through multiple ‘winters’ where there were serious doubts and pessimistic attitudes toward its capabilities.
That’s where the contrast with Bitcoin is so pronounced: in that case, the limitation isn’t technical but political - it’s been available to anyone who wants it for 15 years but most people don’t want it because you have to strongly share a certain ideology to prefer a slower, less secure, more expensive financial system. There is no technical improvement which will suddenly boost Bitcoin adoption the way GPUs and smart algorithms boosted neural networks because the inefficiency is the point.
Try counting the number of times people mention phrases like “combinatorial explosion” or other limitations like the single/multi-layer perceptron argument, which are the kinds of problems we’re talking about where the issue was feasibility on the hardware available, or things like “expert systems” which were dead ends unrelated to neural networks.
Now, you can try to change the topic again to hypothesize that some non-blockchain technology will become popular but that’s no more relevant to this thread than the 80s expert systems people were to modern machine learning systems. Different technology and implementations having different results isn’t exactly disproving criticism.
> Now, you can try to change the topic again to hypothesize that some non-blockchain technology will become popular but that’s no more relevant to this thread than the 80s expert systems people were to modern machine learning systems.
Practical ZKP and accessible circuit programming is definitely relevant to blockchains; it is one example of technological advancement in crypto that has led to significant advancements. If the only technology you look at is Bitcoin, which is stagnant and hasn’t progressed in many years, of course it will look like nothing in blockchain technology has progressed.
Hint: neural network and AI are not synonyms. You were corrected after conflating the two.
> If the only technology you look at is Bitcoin, which is stagnant and hasn’t progressed in many years, of course it will look like nothing in blockchain technology has progressed.
This post is about Bitcoin so it’s unsurprisingly discussing that, especially since that’s where most of the usage is. Neither of the things you mentioned solve the underlying architectural problems inherent to blockchains, although the ZK stuff does help with privacy somewhat, but again I would remind you that the comparison to the early internet still runs afoul of lack of demand for blockchains. People didn’t need a FOMO sales pitch to see that going online was useful; for a payment system to become popular it needs to offer an advantage on price, performance, or security – the ceiling for how much most people will pay for a cryptocurrency is whatever it costs to use Venmo or Square so the focus needs to be on outcompeting the status quo and setting realistic expectations for how much shaving a point or two off of a transaction price will really change the world.
TBL released his paper and source code for the WWW on April 30, 1993. On that date, all that existed was an idea and a command line browser. Most people only knew the web in those early years as "that thing you could reach by telnet to info.cern.ch".
Even given this modest start, fifteen years later, in 2008, nearly 75% of adults used the internet according to a Pew research study (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/06/26/americans-in...). In 2008, we already saw the emergence of the e-commerce market, with upstart Amazon already commanding a 1% share of the entire retail market (to put in perspective, that grew to ~6% by 2019, according to Census and Morgan Stanley data: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chart-shows-just-big-amazon-r...). Heck, by 2008, you could watch a movie instantaneously on your TV without renting or buying the DVD! (https://web.archive.org/web/20080525201828/http://www.netfli...)
So yes, you can determine something about the relative strength of a particular technology by the speed it is adopted in the marketplace. Fifteen years is a long time, and even taking into account the slow Internet speeds between 1993 and 2008, people found enough value in the Web to use it on a daily basis. I don't see the same adoption curve for cryptocurrencies.
This is more of the same. The base rule in crypto has always been “not your keys, not your coins” and to keep your recovery seed offline and only enter it with the utmost of caution.
The history of scams is long, requiring periods of societal learning and transition as e.g. credit card, identity fraud, and wire fraud have taken center stage.
Private keys will be something that a certain amount of the population will eventually be required to understand in my estimation, even if simplified as much as can be. The alternative is more middle ground solutions putting ultimate trust in a separate party managing the keys.
There isn’t much use for most first world citizens in maintaining direct control over their digital wealth, so they are best served by staying away or dollar cost averaging a small percentage of their portfolio into an offline wallet. Those who want to experiment with smart contracts can do so with much smaller amounts.
The ability to memorize 12 words and have direct ownership of your wealth anywhere with an Internet connection, independent of any party save those facilitating the network and the one accepting your payment, and the ability to cross a border or transfer to the other side of the globe without seizure, is already tremendously powerful to hundreds of millions of people who lack trustworthy financial services.
And governments have enacted laws to protect people. With cryptocurrencies, they - by definition - cannot. Once you got scammed, your money is all but gone (sans a very VERY few exceptions).
> The ability to memorize 12 words and have direct ownership of your wealth anywhere with an Internet connection, independent of any party save those facilitating the network and the one accepting your payment, and the ability to cross a border or transfer to the other side of the globe without seizure, is already tremendously powerful to hundreds of millions of people who lack trustworthy financial services.
That's a societal problem, it can only be solved by society, not by cryptocurrency peddlers and tech-bros. And in any case: at some point that "wealth" has to enter the real world, and it's there that governments can step in and seize said wealth.
Rollbacks being impossible doesn’t mean the government cannot legislate.
This is a double edged sword - the benefit and the drawback are inextricably linked. Caveat emptor. Do you want absolute control of your funds? If so, you can memorize 12 words and travel the globe. If not, look to custodial partners, ETFs, or multi-signature wallets.
> That's a societal problem, it can only be solved by society, not by cryptocurrency peddlers and tech-bros. And in any case: at some point that "wealth" has to enter the real world, and it's there that governments can step in and seize said wealth.
What? I assume by “this” you mean people who don’t have quality trustworthy financial institutions?
This is Hacker News. We brainstorm technological solutions to real world problems all the time. This particular problem can only be solved be “society” at large, not technology, because you say so?
You want to disparage those trying as “tech-bro peddlers” - do you simply mean any technology inclined entrepreneur who doesn’t present female? This is an absurd emotional invective.
I’d bring up Monero RingCTs and stealth addresses as an intermediate step and the offramp of direct purchases which that community has been building, as well as tools like Bisq, but I doubt the utility of continuing to reply.
People escaping oppressive regimes don't have time for their society to solve it, they need to leave to a different, less messed-up society. And this is one of the few ways that they can bring a decent fraction of their assets with them in a form that's not very easily stolen from them.
This is because blockchains have no way of enforcing laws, including property rights. Therefore it comes down to this. Imagine that whoever got hold of your car keys, automatically became the owner. This is what "not your keys, not your coins" means.
If people want a system where this as well as excessive inflation are close to impossible, they now have an option, with the clear caveat of that ownership.
It’s not like there aren’t other options to choose - custodial services and multi-signature wallets. Banks are custodial services too, and that’s fine.
Fraud. Transaction rollbacks. Consumer protection laws.
A much smaller fraction should be using open source and audited hardware wallets as well as offline paper wallets.
People will have the option to shoot their foot off with real, direct control, yes. That option or ‘genie’ doesn’t go back in the bottle, not permanently.
The "not your keys, not your coins" is more the fact that someone else holding your stuff happen to them and your stuff goes away. Or they never had it to start with. i.e. Counterparty risk.
`Cash` doesn't inherently have any mechanism for enforcing rights either. The difference is that real-world identities are easier to establish in situations where cash transactions go awry.
Common mistake. The original saying was "Possession is nine points of the law". Over time it's been bastardized to "nine-tenths".
Those generic arguments can be applied to literally everything we already have. People get scammed via their bank accounts every day too, people literally get scammed by the phone. You have to use your brain when it comes to _anything_ that involves a real world value these days, saying 'crypto bad cause scams' is pointless as there are way more scams involving real world money everywhere.
Crypto, on the other hand, is specifically designed to evade regulation (permissionless setting), is useful for very little else, and you can do easily without it.
The story is not much different in Traditional Finance; though in some cases you can recover your money. The US (and to some extent EU) have some protection, but for the rest of the world it's not much different than crypto.
Do you have any citations to your survey of global consumer protection laws? Examples would be especially relevant if you know of cases where a bank granting access to a scammer left the victim with no recourse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Bank_robbery
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-57520169
Not perfect, but 90-something percent better than no recourse. More importantly, it’s also not a given that individuals lose everything as opposed to higher operating costs for a bank. The kinds of crimes we see in the cryptocurrency world tend to leave individuals with no recourse other than very expensive private investigations, whereas a major financial institution at least had the resources to go after the money without going bankrupt.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/spelling-mista...
Note that the rest of the money disappeared quite effectively.
No, I’d suggest reading the article I shared. Some of the money was laundered successfully but they recovered tens of millions and the bank in the Philippines which didn’t help was heavily fined. The SWIFT system developers also took this very seriously and added additional safeguards, which seems like a better sign of safety for a financial system than mocking them for having poor opsec and saying they should have used a hardware wallet like the cryptocurrency world tends to do.
> purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required [...]
Reality: The world's biggest financial institutions hold BTC as an intermediary for clients through trusted third party custodians for speculative purposes (rarely payments).
Of course bitcoin is rarely used for payments yet. Why would you sell the hardest money in existence, when you can sell junk dollars instead. And why would you price goods in something that's growing so quickly that its price changes dramatically month to month? It makes no sense.
Stage 1: prove ability to store value
once the value has grown to the point that it's stabilised enough to be a unit of account we will naturally move to
Stage 2: medium of exchange
The fact is we never even have to move to stage 2 for bitcoin to still be worth millions of dollars per bitcoin. Even if bitcoin only matches the market cap of gold, it will be worth ~$600,000/BTC and bitcoin has way better store-of-value fundamentals than gold.
If they were ready btc would be $1m and they would be widely used.