5 ms·

Cryptocurrency transfers are irreversible, publicly verifiable and pseudonymous. For a privacy focused application, these attributes make crypto a better choic

Cryptocurrency transfers are irreversible, publicly verifiable and pseudonymous. For a privacy focused application, these attributes make crypto a better choice than USD and the traditional banking system.

pizzafeelsright 1y ago
How? Irreversible is bad because mistakes happen. I lost ~$1,000 in a bad transfer because of a typo. Publicly verifiable -- not good because I don't want the public knowing what I buy. Pseudonymous is the worst of both. Is it or is it not me? them? I am thinking digital cash using pub keys on a network run from space on something like starlink sats.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  [flagged]
- dylan604 1y ago
  > I lost ~$1,000 in a bad transfer because of a typo. Was the option of doing a much smaller amount available to validate the account before following up with the full transfer? I've never understood not doing a test transfer first.
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    You can still make a mistake after the test transfer.
    - tshaddox 1y ago
      Or you can mistakenly think the test transfer worked as intended.
      - buzzerbetrayed 1y ago
        Not to mention that the necessity of "do a test transfer" already shows how massively broken the process is
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        Or maybe that "broken" design is just the result of the actual goal of decentralized P2P...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 1y ago
  Advice: next time pay attention before sending, all wallets ask for confirmation prior to sending, for what is it worth. Always double check, or triple check.
  - pizzafeelsright 1y ago
    and then what? I just got sent real estate documents because the sender used my uncommon firstNameLastName@ gmail, but because they had a typo of the last name it landed in my inbox.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      Are we talking about cryptocurrencies? Because they are not based on e-mail. In fact, I have no idea how your comment is relevant to losing money. You accidentally got someone else's document. How is that relevant to losing money? As a reminder, you said: "I lost ~$1,000 in a bad transfer because of a typo.". How can you lose ~$1,000 because of someone else's typo in which an e-mail landed in your inbox?
rtkwe 1y ago
Only pseudonymous so far as you never accidentally link yourself to a wallet then everyone can know your entire transfer/spending history. It gets people all the time just look at the investigations into various alt coin rug pulls or other fraud. Irreversible is also not a good thing just ask anyone who had their NFTs stolen during that craze. If someone hacks my bank account or skims my card and transfers the money out the bank can reverse a lot of those transactions. Irreversibility wipes out decades of consumer protection advances.
- _lvbh 1y ago
  > Only pseudonymous so far as you never accidentally link yourself to a wallet then everyone can know your entire transfer/spending history See Monero
  - rtkwe 1y ago
    That's not enough to get people to actually use Monero though given it's got 1/10th the transaction volume of BTC and that's just counting the directly on chain transactions for BTC not those happening on the lightning network. Being off most of the exchanges also makes it difficult for most people to consider using since it's disconnected from the normal market precisely because it's impossible to do KYC to the satisfaction of regulators.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
dylan604 1y ago
> For a privacy focused application, these attributes make crypto a better choice than USD and the traditional banking system. So is cash. What we really need are ways of scanning a piece of fiat currency that instantly transfers that money to an account while then disabling the physical copy from the registry as valid. That's how silly I see crypto for anything other than illicit transactions
- repeekad 1y ago
  USPS will happily exchange your cash for a money order without an ID as long as it’s under a certain amount, if you’re willing to take the risk you can mail the money order and transfer reasonably sized checks fully anonymously, there are good reasons large transfers of cash probably shouldn’t be anonymous
  - dylan604 1y ago
    If you’re really paranoid, you can mail cash directly if you’re willing that risk. I’m guessing the number of grandparents sending $5 for birthdays is getting smaller, but I’ve seen first hand the number of people willing to send cash to avoid having checks/credit card charges for specific places. There is no more anonymous method of payment than cash regardless of what cryptoBros tell you. This isn’t X-files where wanting to believe is enough
    - akimbostrawman 1y ago
      >There is no more anonymous method of payment than cash Very much depends. Cameras, fingerprints, banknote ids, cell tower/GPS or just people seeing you.
- pabs3 1y ago
  Cash is tracked via serial numbers in a lot of places, here is a recent article from Germany. https://netzpolitik.org/2025/bargeld-tracking-du-hast-ueberwachungsinstrumente-im-portemonnaie https://netzpolitik.org/2025/bargeld-tracking-du-hast-ueberw...
strangattractor 1y ago
Handing someone a $1 is irreversible if they won't give it back. All transactions are anonymous and private when using a physical dollar. Crypto has the primary advantage of allowing you to launder money by converting the "Coin" in criminal friendly countries to a fiat currency (dollars) that actually buys stuff. Especially useful when hackers hold your data ransom. Usually what people mean by not like "traditional banking system" is unregulated/lawless.
- throwaway290 1y ago
  People who don't like traditional banking system just want a system where they have more money. If they actually wanted to fix fairness etc creating a new system is not a way, you can make the old system fairer like you can make a new unfair one
  - immibis 1y ago
    The old system is a centralized one where there is one entity in charge which gets to set the level of fairness, unless you mean the meta-system whereby anyone can create a new system where they will be the dictator.
    - strangattractor 1y ago
      Nobody ever addresses the money laundering issue or wash trading that goes on that gives Bitcoin the illusion of liquidity. >".... one entity in charge which gets to set the level of fairness" Exactly what is unfair about the current system? The way we insure fairness is with laws and regulation. A system without those will suffer - well - lawlessness. How is it centralized? The vast majority of dollars only exist as bits in computers in multiple banks all over the world. Doesn't get more distributed than that. Not only that - if you don't like dollars trade it for Euro's or Yen - you can pay your rent, mortgage and buy things with them also. Other benefits of the current system. If someone steals my credit card I'm only on the hook for $50. My transactions are confirmed in a matter seconds pretty much anywhere in the world. I AutoPay many of my bills. If I set up automatic payments with Bitcoin I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. There are problems that Bitcoin could help solve - it just isn't replacing currencies. I see a technology in search of a problem.

pizzafeelsright 1y ago

How? Irreversible is bad because mistakes happen. I lost ~$1,000 in a bad transfer because of a typo. Publicly verifiable -- not good because I don't want the public knowing what I buy. Pseudonymous is the worst of both. Is it or is it not me? them? I am thinking digital cash using pub keys on a network run from space on something like starlink sats.

johnisgood 1y ago
[flagged]
dylan604 1y ago
> I lost ~$1,000 in a bad transfer because of a typo. Was the option of doing a much smaller amount available to validate the account before following up with the full transfer? I've never understood not doing a test transfer first.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  You can still make a mistake after the test transfer.
  - tshaddox 1y ago
    Or you can mistakenly think the test transfer worked as intended.
    - buzzerbetrayed 1y ago
      Not to mention that the necessity of "do a test transfer" already shows how massively broken the process is
      - akimbostrawman 1y ago
        Or maybe that "broken" design is just the result of the actual goal of decentralized P2P...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 1y ago
Advice: next time pay attention before sending, all wallets ask for confirmation prior to sending, for what is it worth. Always double check, or triple check.
- pizzafeelsright 1y ago
  and then what? I just got sent real estate documents because the sender used my uncommon firstNameLastName@ gmail, but because they had a typo of the last name it landed in my inbox.
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    Are we talking about cryptocurrencies? Because they are not based on e-mail. In fact, I have no idea how your comment is relevant to losing money. You accidentally got someone else's document. How is that relevant to losing money? As a reminder, you said: "I lost ~$1,000 in a bad transfer because of a typo.". How can you lose ~$1,000 because of someone else's typo in which an e-mail landed in your inbox?

rtkwe 1y ago

Only pseudonymous so far as you never accidentally link yourself to a wallet then everyone can know your entire transfer/spending history. It gets people all the time just look at the investigations into various alt coin rug pulls or other fraud. Irreversible is also not a good thing just ask anyone who had their NFTs stolen during that craze. If someone hacks my bank account or skims my card and transfers the money out the bank can reverse a lot of those transactions. Irreversibility wipes out decades of consumer protection advances.

_lvbh 1y ago
> Only pseudonymous so far as you never accidentally link yourself to a wallet then everyone can know your entire transfer/spending history See Monero
- rtkwe 1y ago
  That's not enough to get people to actually use Monero though given it's got 1/10th the transaction volume of BTC and that's just counting the directly on chain transactions for BTC not those happening on the lightning network. Being off most of the exchanges also makes it difficult for most people to consider using since it's disconnected from the normal market precisely because it's impossible to do KYC to the satisfaction of regulators.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

dylan604 1y ago

> For a privacy focused application, these attributes make crypto a better choice than USD and the traditional banking system. So is cash. What we really need are ways of scanning a piece of fiat currency that instantly transfers that money to an account while then disabling the physical copy from the registry as valid. That's how silly I see crypto for anything other than illicit transactions

repeekad 1y ago
USPS will happily exchange your cash for a money order without an ID as long as it’s under a certain amount, if you’re willing to take the risk you can mail the money order and transfer reasonably sized checks fully anonymously, there are good reasons large transfers of cash probably shouldn’t be anonymous
- dylan604 1y ago
  If you’re really paranoid, you can mail cash directly if you’re willing that risk. I’m guessing the number of grandparents sending $5 for birthdays is getting smaller, but I’ve seen first hand the number of people willing to send cash to avoid having checks/credit card charges for specific places. There is no more anonymous method of payment than cash regardless of what cryptoBros tell you. This isn’t X-files where wanting to believe is enough
  - akimbostrawman 1y ago
    >There is no more anonymous method of payment than cash Very much depends. Cameras, fingerprints, banknote ids, cell tower/GPS or just people seeing you.
pabs3 1y ago
Cash is tracked via serial numbers in a lot of places, here is a recent article from Germany. https://netzpolitik.org/2025/bargeld-tracking-du-hast-ueberwachungsinstrumente-im-portemonnaie https://netzpolitik.org/2025/bargeld-tracking-du-hast-ueberw...

strangattractor 1y ago

Handing someone a $1 is irreversible if they won't give it back. All transactions are anonymous and private when using a physical dollar. Crypto has the primary advantage of allowing you to launder money by converting the "Coin" in criminal friendly countries to a fiat currency (dollars) that actually buys stuff. Especially useful when hackers hold your data ransom. Usually what people mean by not like "traditional banking system" is unregulated/lawless.

throwaway290 1y ago
People who don't like traditional banking system just want a system where they have more money. If they actually wanted to fix fairness etc creating a new system is not a way, you can make the old system fairer like you can make a new unfair one
- immibis 1y ago
  The old system is a centralized one where there is one entity in charge which gets to set the level of fairness, unless you mean the meta-system whereby anyone can create a new system where they will be the dictator.
  - strangattractor 1y ago
    Nobody ever addresses the money laundering issue or wash trading that goes on that gives Bitcoin the illusion of liquidity. >".... one entity in charge which gets to set the level of fairness" Exactly what is unfair about the current system? The way we insure fairness is with laws and regulation. A system without those will suffer - well - lawlessness. How is it centralized? The vast majority of dollars only exist as bits in computers in multiple banks all over the world. Doesn't get more distributed than that. Not only that - if you don't like dollars trade it for Euro's or Yen - you can pay your rent, mortgage and buy things with them also. Other benefits of the current system. If someone steals my credit card I'm only on the hook for $50. My transactions are confirmed in a matter seconds pretty much anywhere in the world. I AutoPay many of my bills. If I set up automatic payments with Bitcoin I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. There are problems that Bitcoin could help solve - it just isn't replacing currencies. I see a technology in search of a problem.