Bitcoin discussion and news
- Thread starter camouflage
- Start date
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
God. Jazzz will be up to his armpits in this, won’t he? 
"Things" is a very sloppy word when it comes to regulation.
It's about people and companies. They can be regulated. Computer code is akin to free speech and should not be regulated.
No regulation for companies and people is bad for society. Yes, some people do get rich at the expense of vulnerable people.
Good regulation for companies and people is beneficial for society as a whole.
Bad regulation for companies and people is as bad, if not worse than no regulation.
You complain that cryptos and blockchains aren't regulated, but one big reason you give is weak: AML.
Anti money laundering regulations don't actually even work with professional money launderers able to launder 99% of their money. (Source: The Case Against The Anti-Money Laundering Rules)
As I've stated before, it's not unregulated blockchains that are the problem, there is no need to regulate them and more than we need to regulate https.
It's companies and sometimes humans that deal with public blockchains that need to be regulated.
There also needs to be honesty from people, who are anti-crypto as an ideology.
One common trait is that they are against good cryptocurrency regulation and the excuses are absolutely shocking.
It's very circular.
Anti Crytpo : "It's crypto itself isn't regulated, because this bad thing happened."
Pro Crypto : "That bad thing happened, because a company walked off with the crypto or was hacked, that wasn't on the chain because people gave them custody of their digital assets, the chain wasn't the problem, the company was. Let's regulate the company."
Anti Crypto : "We can't regulate a company because there is no one to go to if there's something that goes wrong on the chain!"
Pro Crypto: "The chain isn't the problem, the company that nicked the money is. What's your answer?"
Anti Crypto : "The chain is something we can't control. Ban companies and people from dealing with crypto. Stop the world and make this crypto thing go away, let's keep our country backward!"
269 pages dedicated to shitcoin. Amazing.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
have you read any of them before landing in your size 12's??269 pages dedicated to shitcoin. Amazing.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
269 pages dedicated to shitcoin. Amazing.
To be scrupulously fair, the majority of posts in this thread are critical of the idea. It also wouldn't be nearly as long/busy a thread if it weren't for less than a handful of fans stridently promoting/defending crypto nonsense.
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
I can't really disagree with either point. If companies and some of the humans who access the blockchain are regulated, that sounds great. At the moment there are not. If the inputs and outputs of the blockchain are regulated and Smart contracts are properly analysed/audited by accredited people then everyone knows what's going on.
TBH this seems to go against much of what many Crypto fans want.
You have said that DAOs are not regulated and cannot be.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
I wonder if there's anyone alive who thinks crypto is a great idea, who isn't actually invested in it? I get that blockchain tech has neat uses in automated processes, ledger and inventory and shit like that, but cryptocurrencies? Nobody has yet dropped by here at least, who advocates cryptocurrencies without seeming either to own some, or be considering owning some. Not that I recall anyway.
Apropos of nothing really except what a scam it all is.
Apropos of nothing really except what a scam it all is.
Smart contracts are already analysed and audited when the market deems them a big enough concern.
Accreditation for auditors is problematic because who is supposed to give accreditation to the auditors? A good government today could go bad tomorrow. And there are plenty of governments around the world, do developers have to take into account the laws of every single last one of them when they cut their code?
The last thing governments should be doing, is to create barriers for developers with limited resources, who want to launch their products.
What pro-crypto (or at least what I feel is the majority of pro-crypto) people want, is for good fair regulations for the entry and exit ramps between the blockchain, centralised exchanges and the banks. We also want good and fair legislation concerning stablecoins.
DAOs should not be regulated themselves, there is no need to regulate them HOWEVER, regulations that affect DAOs should come from all the other sectors.
For example, if I am just running a Christmas club with my friends, then it's impossible to do harm as long as everyone accepted that the code is fine.
However, if people are running a DAO as some kind of trade union or political party, then legislation needs to be brought up to date to deal with that, so that the appropriate regulator has legal guidance on how to deal with an organisation that wants to run itself as a DAO.
There are different types of crypto-currency advocates.
Hard core bitcoin maximalists are pretty nutty - because they believe only bitcoin will be left standing and bitcoin can't be regulated. They can't be reasoned with.
There are those who we nickname as "degens" short for degenerate. I would class them as in the "I don't give a fuck as I'm as I'm making money!!!" crowd. They are quite happy to trade or speculate on complete centralised junk if it means making a quick buck.
I'm in it for a mixture of reasons. There's the ideological reasons, I love the whole decentralised thing and I don't believe the middle ground will survive. In 20 years, we'll either be decentralised or living under a centralised dystopia, there will be no inbetween. I don't believe the bitcoin maximalists will win.
Guy's research team have nailed it again concerning central banks and CBDCs. Regardless of your views of cryptos, please take this seriously:
Full CBDC working paper: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2713~91ddff9e7c.en.pdf
What The Central Banks Want
https://youtu.be/7Lu0uhrueWI Facebook Libra Diem Explained
https://youtu.be/6nDyizNCKWo Coinshares Crypto Mining
https://youtu.be/UCwLIE62iWg BIS Future Of Finance
https://youtu.be/To5ek8F7zIQ BIS DeFi Regulation
https://youtu.be/CIRsEOBYxbA Stablecoin Collateral Analysis
https://youtu.be/TxcTDNHSS-U EU MiCA Bill Summary
https://youtu.be/UUivXWUoQCY WEF Davos Meeting
https://youtu.be/I6lma4DXqok
Last edited:
I guess the kind of person you are looking for, that knows a lot about crypto, but doesn't own any, is working for the North Korean government in a basement in Pyongyang.
The more you know, the more you want to buy crypto and experiment with it.
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
This is from the EBC website and the main reason for wanting CBDC is to stop private entities fucking the economy for the masses.
Why should a Union be regulated and not a company or DAO?
This is post is pretty much a reversal of your previous post.
Why should a Union be regulated and not a company or DAO?
This is post is pretty much a reversal of your previous post.
So you are advocating further atomisation of society and end up with a situation where friends can't even trust each other. This is meant to be better for humanity.StakerOne said:
The ECB have listed many reasons why they want a CBDC.
If you get all of them together, you will understand that it's about full spectrum control of people's lives, the (normal) people (or plebs) who have to use retail CBDCs as opposed to wholesale CBDCs (big finance, big business, super-rich - who will still launder like they do now).
This includes negative interest rates by way of taking money off you at the rate of negative interest and limiting what people can save or spend their money on.
Stablecoins can be regulated so as not to be a threat. That's what the US government has been doing with USDC.
It depends what the DAO is actually doing. In it's basic form a DAO is nothing more than a multi-sig wallet. Why would that need to be regulated? It only needs to be regulated when it's used for more complex purposes, so to be it seems logical that if for example a trade union wanted to use a DAO to store the money and conduct votes, then it would be trade union legislation that would need to be updated to accomodate that.
A DAO may act like a company, it may need regulation, then it again it might not, it depends what business it's in. If it's providing some kind of digital service that's fairly simple, to those that interact with it, then it might not need regulation. However, if for example it's in the retail business, then long distance seller laws would apply and I guess it may need to interact with other entities that would need to be regulated.
I'm open minded, but my gut feeling is that DAOs never need regulating, but sometimes and entity which the DAO "owns" or is associated with, would be what needs regulating depending on what business it's in.
What? You're not making sense. Friends may want to use a DAO for convenience, as trust is very subjective.
You would trust your best friend with a few grand right? What about £250,000? .... No Christmas club would have £250,000k in it, so it would be about convenience.
But a DAO that's for a community project, a political group or a trade union might. So it would be awfully nice if 2 people didn't have the ability to embezzle the whole lot.
Besides, DAOs can be used for many things. It's silly to try and regulate a DAO directly. DAOs can be regulated when they are shaped for use in certain ways and are used by certain types of organisations or companies that are already regulated.
Glad to hear it
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
North Korea, check.
Basement, check
Drugs, check
OK now what should I do with my brain? Seems like dead weight tbh, is there a blockchain version to do my thinking for me?
Cid
Proper break this time
Linkedin learning? what fresh hell is this?
newbie
undisambiguated
So, we are told that the game is about to be upended because Etherum will move to PoS at '1% of the energy that the current PoW system uses'. That's good, my little sum based on the Digiconomist figures shows that each will be equivalent to just 137,000 Visa transactions. Ethereum themselves explain that each transaction will be verified in 32x12s, = 6 minutes ish, so it's all looking better and better. The world will be safe and our new friend will be able to use it to buy stuff in supermarkets.
Of course, the whole changeover is sufficiently incomprehensible that no-one appears sure who is most likely to be cheating who but in the faith based crypto world where Eth is valued at $22 billion and miners made $600 million last month I'm sure everyone is honest, really.
Now, coincidentally the Guardian published some paid-for greenwash which says that Unilever want to use something called GreenToken to trace sustainable palm oil through the supply chain “One kilo of palm fruit becomes a thousand tokens,” says Veale. “Each of those tokens has the farmer’s ID, the date the fruit arrived, and the RSPO [Roundtable on sustainable palm oil] certificate.” Their pilot traced 188,000 tonnes of oil (bit under 10% of their annual total), so at a million grams per tonne (of oil, not fruit) that is a blockchain of very significant size.
The company running GreenToken produce a blockchain explainer (which includes their ambitions in other sectors) at What is blockchain technology? | SAP Insights, but it doesn't mention the underlying proof mechanism, or indeed energy consumption at all. I'm going to presume they use PoS ( or some sort of Proof of Authority) to update their permissioned chain. I have to assume, when I tried asking their chatbot it told me I wasn't worthy of an answer- maybe they'd answer on twitter but I'm not going to sign up to find out.
So is this the shape of things to come, the blockchain future where every granular part of every supply is verified by burning energy at quite absurd rates, 137,000 times a secure but centralised conventional database. Or are my assumptions wrong by many orders of magnitude?
Of course, the whole changeover is sufficiently incomprehensible that no-one appears sure who is most likely to be cheating who but in the faith based crypto world where Eth is valued at $22 billion and miners made $600 million last month I'm sure everyone is honest, really.
Now, coincidentally the Guardian published some paid-for greenwash which says that Unilever want to use something called GreenToken to trace sustainable palm oil through the supply chain “One kilo of palm fruit becomes a thousand tokens,” says Veale. “Each of those tokens has the farmer’s ID, the date the fruit arrived, and the RSPO [Roundtable on sustainable palm oil] certificate.” Their pilot traced 188,000 tonnes of oil (bit under 10% of their annual total), so at a million grams per tonne (of oil, not fruit) that is a blockchain of very significant size.
The company running GreenToken produce a blockchain explainer (which includes their ambitions in other sectors) at What is blockchain technology? | SAP Insights, but it doesn't mention the underlying proof mechanism, or indeed energy consumption at all. I'm going to presume they use PoS ( or some sort of Proof of Authority) to update their permissioned chain. I have to assume, when I tried asking their chatbot it told me I wasn't worthy of an answer- maybe they'd answer on twitter but I'm not going to sign up to find out.
So is this the shape of things to come, the blockchain future where every granular part of every supply is verified by burning energy at quite absurd rates, 137,000 times a secure but centralised conventional database. Or are my assumptions wrong by many orders of magnitude?
I suppose if you're going to try and win an argument about a subject matter that you don't know much about, rather than establish truths and untruths, it would be better to just stuff words into your opponents mouth like some kind of strawman's.
At this time, most cryptos are unsuitable for use in supermarkets. I expect in future that there will be a decentralised payment method, but whatever form it takes, it will have to have the ability to handle refunds.
Mastercard has been working on a mechanism to allow for crypto payment refunds, but I fully expect to see this still in the local currency. There is a market for people who want to be able to hold pounds and pence within a smart contract, with that smart contract linked to a debit card, furthermore, with the ability to link many different smart contracts to a debit card.
Visa is using Ethereum for backend settlements. In some cases, USDC is used all the way through from customer to the merchant, but it depends on the Visa card issuer being a crypto firm.
There's all sorts of people that wants all sorts of things. Things have moved on the past 12 years.
Someone finds the basics of the crypto-market incomprehensible. You are refferring to "Ethereum Classic" - it's an old Ethereum fork. Nothing to do with Ethereum proper that is moving over to proof of stake in September.
It's proof of authority. It's in the Whitepaper - They say it's energy efficient, similar to a MongoDB database.
I don't have enough facts in front of me to comment on the permissioned side of things as I have no idea how the permissioned side of it works. But as I said, the whitepaper claims that it doesn't use much energy and I'm inclined to believe them on that point because a permissioned blockchain wouldn't need to have many nodes compared to a public one.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That seems to be an example of a potentially legit use of blockchain tech. It's exactly the kind of use that was discussed on this thread many years ago, btw, so it's not news that blockchain tech could be useful when tracking goods across a supply chain.
But a permissioned blockchain is a very different beast from decentralised permissionless blockchains whose tokens are touted as 'currency' and whose rising prices are given as evidence that they are good investments, inflation-proof, immune to government manipulation, great for protecting your savings, etc, etc.
But a permissioned blockchain is a very different beast from decentralised permissionless blockchains whose tokens are touted as 'currency' and whose rising prices are given as evidence that they are good investments, inflation-proof, immune to government manipulation, great for protecting your savings, etc, etc.
Point taken, which is why we need draconian laws to stop you wasting energy on the things you think are important, so that I can put it to good use on the things that I think are important. /s
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Do crypto evangelists have to go on a course to be this boring? Does that show on your etherium skills wallet?
newbie
undisambiguated
You've concentrated on a throwaway quip and ignored the main thrust, just as you've ignore the article about grift and the Merge, published day-before-yesterday, to concentrate on something from some years ago.
Fair enough, you don't know much about permissioned chains, yet you keep telling us how blockchain technology is not just about speculation and currency. OK.
You see I wonder how a sidechain (which is how PoA based validation is usually described) has any advantage over a centralised, trusted Mongo or SQL based database, especially if it is 'governed by' a single actor who can specify not only who can validate but also who their energy supplier is. The whole point, as you keep explaining, is decentralisation with no requirement for trust among those involved. PoA satisfies neither of those criteria. What's the point of it?
Fair enough, you don't know much about permissioned chains, yet you keep telling us how blockchain technology is not just about speculation and currency. OK.
You see I wonder how a sidechain (which is how PoA based validation is usually described) has any advantage over a centralised, trusted Mongo or SQL based database, especially if it is 'governed by' a single actor who can specify not only who can validate but also who their energy supplier is. The whole point, as you keep explaining, is decentralisation with no requirement for trust among those involved. PoA satisfies neither of those criteria. What's the point of it?
newbie
undisambiguated
aye, I've been reading this thread since it started. But I was stuck by the granularity and the scale- every individual gram of oil throughout millions of tonnes of supply chain. Roll that out across all the different sectors and every nanowatt matters, and the whole point about decentralised trust/permission is that it costs far more energy to validate transactions than a simple SQL database with a password which, sfaics, achieves the same thing as PoA without all the fuss.
Everyone/thing who connects to an online database is assumed to be untrustworthy until they demonstrate differently with whatever password etc mechanism is in place. I'd like to understand what blockcahin brings to the supply chain party.
If you put a gun to my head, I'd pick bitcoin and ether over the £ any day of the week.
Anyway, even permissioned networks need to work with the outside world and the only way they can do that securely in a trustless manner is through public blockchains and back around in circles this debate goes.
Bitcoin was invented to fight inflation. But Ether wasn't set up to be a "currency" that competes with fiat money.
I have to labour this point again: You can't have a secure trustless public smart contract blockchain based on one national currency and expect the world to use and trust it, because one nation could hold it to ransom. If the world doesn't use and trust it, then it wouldn't be less secure.
These things have been thought through and tested to death.
Also, Ethereum is an eco-system that has evolved. It has become a multi-tiered blockchain with other blockchains on top of it.
Many predict that the Ethereum will only be running settlements for the layer 2 blockchains that sit on top of it.
Some of the genuine apps such as supply chain tracking, are already live on Ethereum. One of them, Unibright, uses a protocol callled "Baseline", invented by Microsoft, to settle private transactions between companies.
Since SAP is part of the Baseline project, they will no doubt use Baseline from their private blockchains, to settle on Ethereum, if their clients need to do business with other businesses across the Ethereum.
I do apologise, after reading a few paragraphs, I thought it was about Ethereum Classic, but it appears to be mentioning Ethereum Classic as a backdrop to a possible proof of work fork on the Ethereum network.
The last line of defence in any public blockchain is consensus. If for example all those, including miners (or stakers in the case of PoS), developers etc, takes a blockchain in teh "wrong direction" where a substantional amount of people don't like it, they can of course fork the blockchain, kinda similar to someone forking open source software.
It really doesn't matter at all and as such, I don't understand how people running a fork can be called "grifters".
No matter how good or bad a fork is, it really doesn't matter to those who already held the crypto before the fork.
The reason being is that such people would have access to both forths with their assets existing on both. Of course the fork could somehow devalue the crypto on the main original, but that doesn't matter, because people have access to the assets on both.
Because ANY type of asset can exist on Ethereum, most assets would be worthless on the new PoW chain.
It would probably die a death quickly so it would be important to some that they sell their forker PoW ETH as quickly as possible, just at the right time.
Personally, I don't care, I can't see it being worth a lot and it's a big if as to whether they will be able to fork Ethereum as they would have huge hurdles to overcome for not a lot in return!
As I said, I don't know how the exact mechanism works for authority. It's a big assumption to assume that there is only one entity controlling it. It's much more likely that there's a whole bunch of companies on it and it would take a vote of 51% of those companies to kick another one off it, so the very important advantage would be that once data is written to their blockchain, it cannot be tampered with.
I'm not critisizing you, but many many people underestimate how imporant that is. In business, that is so important, it changes things a lot ... because then businesses can be confident, that in such a secure system, the money flows through the blockchain with the goods and materials.
There would be no business case to delete the data. Even if they wanted to "reverse" something, that would take an additional transaction, you know, like when you read your bank statement for a failed DD, you see money going out then coming back, rather than nothing! All the players involved, would not want a blockchain where transactions could be deleted, out of the box, deleting or amending transactions, has to be impossible and that can't be done with a normal database.
Well I admit that I'm here because you're really funny. Have you ever considered becoming a professional comedian?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I guess it's a case of watch this space wrt the Great Ethereum Fork that's coming up.
I sincerely hope it fucks the whole thing up and confidence in the entire ethereum ecosystem (ugh) collapses.
And I don't think you get why I hope that. I'll give you a clue. It's not for any of the reasons you have given so far for people to be anti-crypto.
I sincerely hope it fucks the whole thing up and confidence in the entire ethereum ecosystem (ugh) collapses.
And I don't think you get why I hope that. I'll give you a clue. It's not for any of the reasons you have given so far for people to be anti-crypto.
Similar threads
