6 ms·

Here are just some of the use cases 1. 100x cheaper, faster cross-border transfers 2. Immutable, digital, accessible, secure ownership of music, video, real-e

Here are just some of the use cases 1. 100x cheaper, faster cross-border transfers 2. Immutable, digital, accessible, secure ownership of music, video, real-estate, cars, gaming assets, health data 3. Instant access to nearly all possible financial products (loans, lending, startup investments etc.) without a middle man There are many, many more use cases. Crypto drastically increases accountability, transparency, accessibility, trustworthiness for every kind of use case. It seems like you are creating a lot of straw men to not see that, for example an impossible standard such as saying not all of crypto is 100% decentralized, so it's centralized, which just makes no sense and is a very strong logical fallacy.

smt88 4y ago
1. Transfers of what? The recipient has to convert to fiat to do anything useful. Cheaper and faster don't seem to be happening either, at the moment. 2. You can never digitally own a physical object. Your ownership is centralized in the real-world legal system. You say "secure" as though people are going around stealing houses from each other by snatching their deeds. Ownership of all of those things is already secure enough. 3. In the US at least, none of this is true. Users still have to go through KYC and there is almost always a middleman involved. Crypto has escaped neither institutionalization nor regulations in developed countries.
- nullc 4y ago
  I agree that the whole NFT whatever crap is 99.99% bull, but XKCD386 compels me: > You say "secure" as though people are going around stealing houses from each other by snatching their deeds. https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-man-charged-with-stealing-14-homes-through-deed-theft/ https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-man-charged-with-stea... (not that blockchain woo would add much or any value to this problem, but title fraud is an actual thing)
yashg 4y ago
1. Nope. Still need to convert it to real money for buying something. Gas fees > transfer fees. 2. Nope. It doesn't grant any ownership. It's a just a pointer to a file on third party server. Ownership is enforced by a central authority. Code is not law. 3. Nope. Without an underlying economic activity it's all a ponzi scheme. There is no finance in DeFi. Just scammers running pump and dump schemes and rugpulling starry eyed idiots who think centuries old financial principals are useless and want to make a quick buck without doing anything. Trust me when I say this, I did a lot of research and reading in earnest. I really hoped there was something of substance in it. I really wanted to embrace web3 and its promise of an open distributed web. I am a programmer. I am always open to learning about and adopting new technologies. I tried hard. I started by reading the original Bitcoin whitepaper by Satoshi. I looked at the web3.js framework. I read as many whitepapers as I could. I looked at many of the projects. Things just don't add up.
- shafyy 4y ago
  Couldn't have said it better myself!
- Tenoke 4y ago
  >3. Nope. Without an underlying economic activity it's all a ponzi scheme. There is no finance in DeFi. Just scammers running pump and dump schemes and rugpulling starry eyed idiots who think centuries old financial principals are useless and want to make a quick buck without doing anything. There's plenty of projcts ran by people who are clearly not trying to scam anyone. Time will tell whether they will actually be successful but you are clearly biased again and not even attempting to be objective.
  - harel 4y ago
    There is a lack of balance here. Yashg is not wrong in his assertions, and nor are you, that time will tell if the non-scammers are successful or not. I was laughing at the concept of bitcoin when it was mere cents to the coin and some pizza was bought. I'm not laughing now, but I'm also well aware that if you need to explain why something is NOT a Ponzi scheme, it's a Ponzi scheme. I've done a fair bit of work in the NFT space, and saw myself how riddled with fraud it is - not the operation itself, but the punters trying to scam the platform for a free token. I also saw how brittle the concept really is. In many cases, the smart contract is simply saying address X owns the number 4. That later gets translated to some URL which is not guaranteed to be there in 10 years time. Storing the actual asset on the chain would have been preferable but is not practical. So where does that leave us? How does one's ownership of the number 4 translates to them owning a deed to a building or a picture of a monkey, in the sense that you could explain it to your grandma? I'm on the fence here. I want this to work, but I also understand how it works and know that it's not a simple task.
    - genge 4y ago
      If it helps you understand, there's blockchains being built with close to none tokenomic concept to it. Meaning, there's no value on investing on their token but on using the platform. In some cases it's posible, in others it's not since you need to leverage costs/incentives in some way (but they still manage for it to remain low price through inflation, etc).
Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
1) would be just as expensive if taxed properly, so not cheaper just illegal 2) immutable is a pretty shitty property for some of those assets, also its a pretty negative turn of society to go and try and make fungible products like music listening into private non fungible ownable assets 3) The middle man is usually there for a number of reasons. Same way exchanges showed up almost immidietly after crypto, you would also have crypto banks to handle loans etc. Add the financial constraints the goverment needs, for lawful contracts to be enforceable and now you just have a more expensive, volatile and environmentally destructive banking system. Like it seems most of the ideas of things "crypto works for" is just what banks used to do before regulation was added. And the regulation is there for a reason, for every extra fee you pay to do cross border money transfer, some money is not being laundered. For every notary you pay to get a deed in a house or doctor to check your health data, some will or some medical anomaly gets corrected. For every fee you pay in a loan someone elses gets secured and has no extortionate shark loan fees. With crypto right now you lose all that protection in exchange for a slow, expensive gas fees, environmentally destructive proofs of work and absolutely no legal protection if you get scammed in the end. Its an extremely silly proposition and I am not surprised it is being peddled by the likes of Jordan Belfort because he seems to like to do old medieval scams on new targets.
- everfree 4y ago
  > immutable is a pretty shitty property for some of those assets Because smart contract chains allow for turing complete code, mutability can be programmed in to particular tokens at the smart contract level. > regulation is there for a reason, for every extra fee you pay to do cross border money transfer, some money is not being laundered. It shouldn't be my personal financial responsibility to pay for a corporation to double check my own assertion that I am not breaking any law. > With crypto right now you lose all that protection in exchange for a slow, expensive gas fees, environmentally destructive proofs of work and absolutely no legal protection if you get scammed in the end. I'm breaking this down. > slow Taking Ethereum as an example, payments generally go through within 15 seconds, compared to several hours for a same-day wire transfer or several days for an ACH payment. > expensive gas fees Gas fees are expensive because too many people are using it. Ethereum processes over a million transactions daily, not including Layer 2 and side chains which have increased that capacity and lowered gas fees in practice. > environmentally destructive proofs of work Proof of Stake reduces energy consumption by over 99%, and most blockchains currently use it. > absolutely no legal protection if you get scammed in the end The standard way to send money abroad, international wire transfer, also gives you next to no legal protection if you get scammed.
xeyownt 4y ago
Wow, what a brain wash. Are you Matt Damon?

smt88 4y ago

1. Transfers of what? The recipient has to convert to fiat to do anything useful. Cheaper and faster don't seem to be happening either, at the moment. 2. You can never digitally own a physical object. Your ownership is centralized in the real-world legal system. You say "secure" as though people are going around stealing houses from each other by snatching their deeds. Ownership of all of those things is already secure enough. 3. In the US at least, none of this is true. Users still have to go through KYC and there is almost always a middleman involved. Crypto has escaped neither institutionalization nor regulations in developed countries.

nullc 4y ago
I agree that the whole NFT whatever crap is 99.99% bull, but XKCD386 compels me: > You say "secure" as though people are going around stealing houses from each other by snatching their deeds. https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-man-charged-with-stealing-14-homes-through-deed-theft/ https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-man-charged-with-stea... (not that blockchain woo would add much or any value to this problem, but title fraud is an actual thing)

yashg 4y ago

1. Nope. Still need to convert it to real money for buying something. Gas fees > transfer fees. 2. Nope. It doesn't grant any ownership. It's a just a pointer to a file on third party server. Ownership is enforced by a central authority. Code is not law. 3. Nope. Without an underlying economic activity it's all a ponzi scheme. There is no finance in DeFi. Just scammers running pump and dump schemes and rugpulling starry eyed idiots who think centuries old financial principals are useless and want to make a quick buck without doing anything. Trust me when I say this, I did a lot of research and reading in earnest. I really hoped there was something of substance in it. I really wanted to embrace web3 and its promise of an open distributed web. I am a programmer. I am always open to learning about and adopting new technologies. I tried hard. I started by reading the original Bitcoin whitepaper by Satoshi. I looked at the web3.js framework. I read as many whitepapers as I could. I looked at many of the projects. Things just don't add up.

shafyy 4y ago
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Tenoke 4y ago
>3. Nope. Without an underlying economic activity it's all a ponzi scheme. There is no finance in DeFi. Just scammers running pump and dump schemes and rugpulling starry eyed idiots who think centuries old financial principals are useless and want to make a quick buck without doing anything. There's plenty of projcts ran by people who are clearly not trying to scam anyone. Time will tell whether they will actually be successful but you are clearly biased again and not even attempting to be objective.
- harel 4y ago
  There is a lack of balance here. Yashg is not wrong in his assertions, and nor are you, that time will tell if the non-scammers are successful or not. I was laughing at the concept of bitcoin when it was mere cents to the coin and some pizza was bought. I'm not laughing now, but I'm also well aware that if you need to explain why something is NOT a Ponzi scheme, it's a Ponzi scheme. I've done a fair bit of work in the NFT space, and saw myself how riddled with fraud it is - not the operation itself, but the punters trying to scam the platform for a free token. I also saw how brittle the concept really is. In many cases, the smart contract is simply saying address X owns the number 4. That later gets translated to some URL which is not guaranteed to be there in 10 years time. Storing the actual asset on the chain would have been preferable but is not practical. So where does that leave us? How does one's ownership of the number 4 translates to them owning a deed to a building or a picture of a monkey, in the sense that you could explain it to your grandma? I'm on the fence here. I want this to work, but I also understand how it works and know that it's not a simple task.
  - genge 4y ago
    If it helps you understand, there's blockchains being built with close to none tokenomic concept to it. Meaning, there's no value on investing on their token but on using the platform. In some cases it's posible, in others it's not since you need to leverage costs/incentives in some way (but they still manage for it to remain low price through inflation, etc).

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

1) would be just as expensive if taxed properly, so not cheaper just illegal 2) immutable is a pretty shitty property for some of those assets, also its a pretty negative turn of society to go and try and make fungible products like music listening into private non fungible ownable assets 3) The middle man is usually there for a number of reasons. Same way exchanges showed up almost immidietly after crypto, you would also have crypto banks to handle loans etc. Add the financial constraints the goverment needs, for lawful contracts to be enforceable and now you just have a more expensive, volatile and environmentally destructive banking system. Like it seems most of the ideas of things "crypto works for" is just what banks used to do before regulation was added. And the regulation is there for a reason, for every extra fee you pay to do cross border money transfer, some money is not being laundered. For every notary you pay to get a deed in a house or doctor to check your health data, some will or some medical anomaly gets corrected. For every fee you pay in a loan someone elses gets secured and has no extortionate shark loan fees. With crypto right now you lose all that protection in exchange for a slow, expensive gas fees, environmentally destructive proofs of work and absolutely no legal protection if you get scammed in the end. Its an extremely silly proposition and I am not surprised it is being peddled by the likes of Jordan Belfort because he seems to like to do old medieval scams on new targets.

everfree 4y ago
> immutable is a pretty shitty property for some of those assets Because smart contract chains allow for turing complete code, mutability can be programmed in to particular tokens at the smart contract level. > regulation is there for a reason, for every extra fee you pay to do cross border money transfer, some money is not being laundered. It shouldn't be my personal financial responsibility to pay for a corporation to double check my own assertion that I am not breaking any law. > With crypto right now you lose all that protection in exchange for a slow, expensive gas fees, environmentally destructive proofs of work and absolutely no legal protection if you get scammed in the end. I'm breaking this down. > slow Taking Ethereum as an example, payments generally go through within 15 seconds, compared to several hours for a same-day wire transfer or several days for an ACH payment. > expensive gas fees Gas fees are expensive because too many people are using it. Ethereum processes over a million transactions daily, not including Layer 2 and side chains which have increased that capacity and lowered gas fees in practice. > environmentally destructive proofs of work Proof of Stake reduces energy consumption by over 99%, and most blockchains currently use it. > absolutely no legal protection if you get scammed in the end The standard way to send money abroad, international wire transfer, also gives you next to no legal protection if you get scammed.

xeyownt 4y ago

Wow, what a brain wash. Are you Matt Damon?