7 ms·

Bitcoin solved the double spending problem in a decentralized system. This has numerous consequences, among them the possibility of creating a currency that doe

Bitcoin solved the double spending problem in a decentralized system. This has numerous consequences, among them the possibility of creating a currency that doesn't rely on a centralized authority, trust minimization, immutability, etc. To me this has the potential to automate many jobs.

hannasanarion 6y ago
Not relying on a centralized authority, trust minimalization, and immutability are all bad things for a monetary system. The ability to dispute and undo transactions and track fraud is a crucial feature of banking systems that blockchain eliminates by design. Blockchain will not automate any jobs because it is technologically no different from a database. The fact that transactions are recorded digitally is not a new invention, banks have been doing that since the 60s.
- georgesC 6y ago
  A blockchain is a database. But a regular database doesn't really minimize trust, that's the point of public blockchains. The need of not relying on a centralized entity or third parties in the digital space does exist.
  - hannasanarion 6y ago
    Minimizing trust is not a good thing. I don't understand where this obsession with it comes from. EVERY transaction requires trust. I sell you a pair of shoes, you pay in bitcoin, oops! the box is actually full of cat poop, too bad, sucks to be you, you can't get your bitcoin back, shouldn't have trusted me. Trust in the transaction system is not a dangerous component of commerce. Sure, you can trust Paypal to do the transaction for you (and also get benefits like chargebacks, disputes, and ID verification in return, not to mention the sub-second transaction speed), and what happens if they betray that trust? Well that's what governments are for, the two-ton hammer of the law will make sure you get your money back. Not to mention, blockchain is the least trustworthy transaction system of the modern age. Over a billion dollars in crypto has been stolen out of people's accounts via exchange hacks and smart contract exploits in the last ten years. This has never happened to any US bank since the introduction of FDIC in 1933.
    - georgesC 6y ago
      Trust minimization doesn't equal no trust. Also the trust that a currency works as intended and that a transaction goes through isn't the same kind of trust than trusting a vendor, which is why there will probably always be other systems in place for that particular issue. Some people are interested in that because their trust has been abused by a centralized authority. And we're not only talking about the transaction systems, but also about currency. All in all it's all about the choice and preferences of individuals.
      - hannasanarion 6y ago
        When has the centralized authority, the banking system, ACH, Visa, Paypal, etc. ever "abused trust" by failing to record a transaction? And why is that very minimal trust in the ability of your money to get from one account to another worth risking all your money by putting it in an account with a single point of failure with no recourse in the event of a breach? In 88 years, no bank in the Untied States has ever lost a customer's money. To date, there are more bitcoin exchanges that have lost their users' money than there are that haven't.
        Vecr 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point was a thing, trying to get banks to not "record transactions" in your words.
        hannasanarion 6y ago
        Did you actually read any of that article? The allegations in Choke Point were that banks were approving transactions they shouldn't have, without doing enough investigation to check for fraud, not that they were failing to move money from one account to another, the "problem" that blockchain is supposed to "solve". In what way is blockchain supposed to prevent fraudulent transactions? It is impossible in blockchain to even check for fraud, because every transaction is automatically irrevocably approved by-design, no matter how fraudulent. edit: unless, what you meant to imply, is that the banks weren't supposed to approve those illegal transactions and so the government stepped in to punish them, and that bitcoin is good because it will never deny an illegal transaction and is therefore useful for committing crimes? well then thanks for admitting it, I guess.

hannasanarion 6y ago

Not relying on a centralized authority, trust minimalization, and immutability are all bad things for a monetary system. The ability to dispute and undo transactions and track fraud is a crucial feature of banking systems that blockchain eliminates by design. Blockchain will not automate any jobs because it is technologically no different from a database. The fact that transactions are recorded digitally is not a new invention, banks have been doing that since the 60s.

georgesC 6y ago
A blockchain is a database. But a regular database doesn't really minimize trust, that's the point of public blockchains. The need of not relying on a centralized entity or third parties in the digital space does exist.
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  Minimizing trust is not a good thing. I don't understand where this obsession with it comes from. EVERY transaction requires trust. I sell you a pair of shoes, you pay in bitcoin, oops! the box is actually full of cat poop, too bad, sucks to be you, you can't get your bitcoin back, shouldn't have trusted me. Trust in the transaction system is not a dangerous component of commerce. Sure, you can trust Paypal to do the transaction for you (and also get benefits like chargebacks, disputes, and ID verification in return, not to mention the sub-second transaction speed), and what happens if they betray that trust? Well that's what governments are for, the two-ton hammer of the law will make sure you get your money back. Not to mention, blockchain is the least trustworthy transaction system of the modern age. Over a billion dollars in crypto has been stolen out of people's accounts via exchange hacks and smart contract exploits in the last ten years. This has never happened to any US bank since the introduction of FDIC in 1933.
  - georgesC 6y ago
    Trust minimization doesn't equal no trust. Also the trust that a currency works as intended and that a transaction goes through isn't the same kind of trust than trusting a vendor, which is why there will probably always be other systems in place for that particular issue. Some people are interested in that because their trust has been abused by a centralized authority. And we're not only talking about the transaction systems, but also about currency. All in all it's all about the choice and preferences of individuals.
    - hannasanarion 6y ago
      When has the centralized authority, the banking system, ACH, Visa, Paypal, etc. ever "abused trust" by failing to record a transaction? And why is that very minimal trust in the ability of your money to get from one account to another worth risking all your money by putting it in an account with a single point of failure with no recourse in the event of a breach? In 88 years, no bank in the Untied States has ever lost a customer's money. To date, there are more bitcoin exchanges that have lost their users' money than there are that haven't.
      - Vecr 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point was a thing, trying to get banks to not "record transactions" in your words.
        hannasanarion 6y ago
        Did you actually read any of that article? The allegations in Choke Point were that banks were approving transactions they shouldn't have, without doing enough investigation to check for fraud, not that they were failing to move money from one account to another, the "problem" that blockchain is supposed to "solve". In what way is blockchain supposed to prevent fraudulent transactions? It is impossible in blockchain to even check for fraud, because every transaction is automatically irrevocably approved by-design, no matter how fraudulent. edit: unless, what you meant to imply, is that the banks weren't supposed to approve those illegal transactions and so the government stepped in to punish them, and that bitcoin is good because it will never deny an illegal transaction and is therefore useful for committing crimes? well then thanks for admitting it, I guess.