Bitcoin discussion and news

[StakerOne]

But Crypto gets more complicated and also slower the more you reduce the risk

There is absolutely no correlation between risk and the speed of the blockchain.

and not having to deal with trust L2 companies in a trustless system and having to pay massive gas fees if not using a l2 system.

This doesn't make sense. I think you've got some typos here.

So until it is properly regulated it's going to be a plaything of the true believers so they can feel special and have the secret knowledge and speak the magical jargon of the blockchain.

On chain transactions do not need regulation. Users of crypto just need on and off ramps.

When most people just want a place to safely store their hard earned money and spend it at will knowing that the institution stores their cash is well regulated and if the institution fucks that up there is an entity to bail them out and it's not some DAO where no-one even claims responsibility with no clear infrastructure and the customer's hard earned wages I'd off to Tornado.cash on it's way to be another Lambo in the actual project owners collection.

You're not being fair here. Banks and other intermeditaries can screw up, yes, but you need to give examples of what can go wrong in the cryptoverse.

In the cryptoverse we are talking about completely different risks.

Every risk you've highlighted in the past, both qwerty and myself have told you how to mitigate,.

Once blockchain find actual use cases and banks issue their own Crypto the cool kids will be off to the next big thing to be true believers about.

There's a million use cases for crypto, when people on here tell you the different use cases, you dismiss every single last one of them.

There are algorithms that detect Sybil attacks so they are either crap and don't work, or try to reduce people's anonymity so squeaking about the lack of privacy in Crypto issued by bank is more BS and FUD.

Please give an example of Sybil attacks being a problem in the cryptoverse. Thanks.

As said upthread; Capitalism especially in it's current form is pretty shit, but Crypto takes the worst elements of that and makes it oh so much worse.

It patently doesn't. Crypto was invented to defeat the worst aspects of capitalism.

 

[NoXion]

Crypto itself, doesn't need to be regulated.

Whether a project is good or bad should come from an entity or entities that are by decentralised withi the on-chain ecosystem, not from regulators.

Of course crypto needs regulation. People are throwing around significant amounts of money on account of promises made by people running crypto projects. Self-regulation never actually fucking works when money is at stake.

 

[kabbes]

In crypto you can have individual accountability, but where it's appropriate.

I'm sorry, but you're making a genralisation that is so vague, I can't possibily get my teeth into it and counter it.

It’s not about “countering” anything. It’s just a fact that post-2008, regulators have focused on making individuals accountable for failures within financial institutions. This has had the effect of aligning powerful individuals to actions that promote good controls and motivations. It’s one of many tools that regulators have in their kit, which is why consumers remain protected even in scenarios of extreme stress.

Why would you want to “counter” that? Are you really that ideologically desperate?

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Crypto goes completely the opposite way. No individual is accountable for anything, nobody can be held responsible for decisions

In Bitcoin, you are accountable for everything; you are held responsible for every decision you make and every move is recorded on the blockchain for all to see.

Scary huh?

 

[NoXion]

In Bitcoin, you are accountable for everything; you are held responsible for every decision you make and every move is recorded on the blockchain for all to see.

Scary huh?

Is that why ransomware attackers often demand payment in Bitcoin in return for unlocking your computer?

 

[pbsmooth]

In Bitcoin, you are accountable for everything; you are held responsible for every decision you make and every move is recorded on the blockchain for all to see.

Scary huh?

yes, this is why no rug-pulls have ever happened and no crimes have ever been committed involving crypto.

 

[kabbes]

In Bitcoin, you are accountable for everything; you are held responsible for every decision you make and every move is recorded on the blockchain for all to see.

Scary huh?

You don’t understand what “accountable” means. It doesn’t just mean losing a personal investment. It means that you are responsible for other people and to other people for decisions you make on their behalf, including qualitative and social decisions that cannot be reduced to a quantity in an algorithm. It means that trust has been placed in you. Which is the basis of building a society.

 

[pbsmooth]

christianity x blockchain x nft = the holy grift

 

[gosub]

In Bitcoin, you are accountable for everything; you are held responsible for every decision you make and every move is recorded on the blockchain for all to see.

Scary huh?

Not so much if you move to country without extradition treaties

 

[StakerOne]

Of course crypto needs regulation. People are throwing around significant amounts of money on account of promises made by people running crypto projects. Self-regulation never actually fucking works when money is at stake.

If it can be regulated it's not proper crypto.

Centralised entities can AND SHOULD be regulated, decentralised entities can't and no attempt should be made to.

 

[StakerOne]

You don’t understand what “accountable” means. It doesn’t just mean losing a personal investment. It means that you are responsible for other people and to other people for decisions you make on their behalf, including qualitative and social decisions that cannot be reduced to a quantity in an algorithm. It means that trust has been placed in you. Which is the basis of building a society.

I totally 100% agree with this. This is why the others don't understand the importance of the monarchy. They think it's all privilege with no accountability.

 

[StakerOne]

It’s not about “countering” anything. It’s just a fact that post-2008, regulators have focused on making individuals accountable for failures within financial institutions. This has had the effect of aligning powerful individuals to actions that promote good controls and motivations. It’s one of many tools that regulators have in their kit, which is why consumers remain protected even in scenarios of extreme stress.

Why would you want to “counter” that? Are you really that ideologically desperate?

It is. For starters countering those who want to debase the national currency.

Please. The only things regulators appear to be doing is deliberatly ignoring bad crypto projects, going after the good ones and creating structures to esnure we pay for the next banking crisis not the banks,.

 

[StakerOne]

yes, this is why no rug-pulls have ever happened and no crimes have ever been committed involving crypto.

It's very easy not to get inviolved in a rug pull. Potentioal rug pulls are easy to spot.

If the smart contract relies on admin wallets rather than something more elaborate such as a vote within a DAO - then avoid.

 

[StakerOne]

It's quite dissapointing and telling that some (or even many) people want blockchain technology to be used by banks to secure any future CBDCs but would rather crypto died a death, be controlled by some kind of authoritiy or even banned.

It wasn't the banks that created blockchains. It was a lot of programmmers who didn't even know whether they would be paid well for their hard work.

If you don't want to self custody even so much as the most uiser friendly crypto wallet there is and you want to use a bank then that's fair enough. Just leave the rest of us alone to innovate.

But then to take a load of the security benefits of crypto, but to protect the status quo with banks, while stifling innovation within crypto, is quite hypocritical and selfish, especially when some banks want to use blockchains like Ethereum as a settlement layer.

You're practically saying that Ethereum is good enough for what you want it for and should ONLY be used for what you want to use it for.

Let's imagine the banks created their own crypto blockchains.

They would decide who can and can't develop products on it. Each DAPP that uses that blockchain would have to benefit the banks in some kind of way and could be instantly shut down by a bank. Even if the banks couldn't shut down a DAPP the government would be able to.

It's a non-starter. It's one of the reason why banks are having trouble finding blockchain developers.

Banks can build their own layer 2 networks on top of ethereum, if they so wish and their L2s would be secured by Ethereum. I predict that they will all eventually do that, with trillions settled between banks on the Ethereum network itself.

 

[StakerOne]

christianity x blockchain x nft = the holy grift

Grift? Debasing a currency isn't a grif then?

How about a financial system that decides who can and can't participlate in the economy?

What about all of those regulations to ensures that only "Qualified Investors" get in early on things, to later dump their bags onto retail investors?

 

[NoXion]

If it can be regulated it's not proper crypto.

Centralised entities can AND SHOULD be regulated, decentralised entities can't and no attempt should be made to.

When you make such sweeping, black-and-white statements like this, that just tells us that you prefer ideology over reality. Just because an entity is decentralised doesn't mean it shouldn't be subject to regulation. All these crypto projects and whatnot are still being run by humans, who can just as easily make use of decentralised tools to exploit their fellows. So I really hope you're not arguing that people shouldn't be subject to the law just because they're operating in a decentralised fashion. That would be a terrible take.

 

[StakerOne]

When you make such sweeping, black-and-white statements like this, that just tells us that you prefer ideology over reality. Just because an entity is decentralised doesn't mean it shouldn't be subject to regulation. All these crypto projects and whatnot are still being run by humans, who can just as easily make use of decentralised tools to exploit their fellows. So I really hope you're not arguing that people shouldn't be subject to the law just because they're operating in a decentralised fashion. That would be a terrible take.

If it's decentralised it's IMPOSSIBLE to regulate.

And why would you?

When you think of regulations, you are holding a company or an individual to account.

There is no more need to regulate a PROTOCOL such as bitcoin than there is to regulate http.

 

[NoXion]

If it's decentralised it's IMPOSSIBLE to regulate.

And why would you?

When you think of regulations, you are holding a company or an individual to account.

There is no more need to regulate a PROTOCOL such as bitcoin than there is to regulate http.

http may be decentralised, but anyone applying it still has to comply with the applicable laws while doing so. Same thing with cryptocurrencies. Difference being that crypto and NFTs and all that shit are clearly intended to be things of inherent financial value, like currencies and other financial assets that already exist and are already subject to various regulations. Decentralisation is not a good reason for exemption.

 

[Storm Fox]

StakerOne of course you cannot regulate Bitcoin or Etherium as you say these are just protocols. I don't think there is much argument with that. But anyone or anything that interacts with these protocols needs regulation.

And when people on this thread state Crypto needs regulation they mean 'interaction with Crypto chains' not the protocol itself. But typing that each time gets rather tedious.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

When you make such sweeping, black-and-white statements like this, that just tells us that you prefer ideology over reality. Just because an entity is decentralised doesn't mean it shouldn't be subject to regulation.

It doesn't matter if it should or shouldnt. It can't be regulated if if its properly decentralised.
Remember how upset King Canute got when the tide didnt obey his orders?

All these crypto projects and whatnot are still being run by humans, who can just as easily make use of decentralised tools to exploit their fellows.

Yup, they can.
Do you realise that pillows are used to suffocate people? Is that a failure of regulation?

So I really hope you're not arguing that people shouldn't be subject to the law just because they're operating in a decentralised fashion. That would be a terrible take.

Again you are using the term "should", before you have considered the "can".
Because you can opine all day about whether something should or shouldnt happen, its all just howling at the moon unless it is possible

The question you need to ask is not "should people be subject to law if they are operating in a decentralised fashion?" but "can people be subject to law if they are operating in a decentralised fashion and if so, how?" Once you have worked out that bit, then is the time for the questions around "shoulds".

of course you cannot regulate Bitcoin or Etherium as you say these are just protocols. I don't think there is much argument with that.

Whew, someone get it!

But anyone or anything that interacts with these protocols needs regulation.

...and we are back at the same point again.

I can set up a smart contract that will run forever, no matter what any human things should or shouldnt happen, whether they think its good, bad or indifferent. Because that smart contract doesnt rely on human approval. For a very simple example of this, look at on-chain automated trading bots.

 

[NoXion]

It doesn't matter if it should or shouldnt. It can't be regulated if if its properly decentralised.
Remember how upset King Canute got when the tide didnt obey his orders?

No, King Cnut didn't get upset at his inability to stop the the tide. He was making a demonstration to his nobles that his powers as a mortal human had limits.

Crypto and all that bullshit is not a natural inevitability like the tide coming in, it's an invention being pushed by humans, and just like Cnut that shit has its limits. You've got Cnut and the tide backwards in your silly analogy.

Yup, they can.
Do you realise that pillows are used to suffocate people? Is that a failure of regulation?

People aren't claiming that pillows are a road to personal riches, or that pillows are the building blocks of a brave new world. People aren't using pillows to push elaborate schemes involving financial assets, while trying to claim that they're doing something entirely new and different and therefore cannot and should not be regulated.

Again you are using the term "should", before you have considered the "can".
Because you can opine all day about whether something should or shouldnt happen, its all just howling at the moon unless it is possible

The question you need to ask is not "should people be subject to law if they are operating in a decentralised fashion?" but "can people be subject to law if they are operating in a decentralised fashion and if so, how?" Once you have worked out that bit, then is the time for the questions around "shoulds".

They absolutely can. You're pre-supposing that they can't because it helps your argument. But the evidence clearly shows otherwise. People do in fact get banged up for using crypto in a criminal or unlawful manner.

I can set up a smart contract that will run forever, no matter what any human things should or shouldnt happen, whether they think its good, bad or indifferent. Because that smart contract doesnt rely on human approval. For a very simple example of this, look at on-chain automated trading bots.

That smart contract is only any use for as long as humans interact with it and continue supporting whatever blockchain system its operating on. Just because a technology doesn't need human approval throughout its operation doesn't mean you get to side-step regulation. If you set a smart contract that breaks the law, then you're legally responsible for that.

 

[Storm Fox]

Indeed we are back to the same point.
Humans write the smart contracts.
Humans make mistakes.
Web3isgoinggreat.com has lots of examples of the results poorly written or deliberately dishonest contracts.
Before mass adoption the production, testing and implementation of smart contracts and what happens when things goes wrong needs to be legally codified in law. There needs to be legally responsible parties.

CBDCs will do this. Now whether or it will bring about terrible consequences is up for debate. But the regulation will bring more people on board.

The current crop of crypto projects can remain but will be the plaything for charlatans and rubes.

Traditional finance as learnt is over decades and when the regulations are relax bad things happen.

Given that generally those currently deeply obsessed with crypto are obsessed with the acquisition of wealth and are greedy to the point of stupidity, then bad things will happen. q_w_e_r_t_y from your postings here I don't think you are in that category and you want the best for people, just in a way most people currently disagree with.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I can set up a smart contract that will run forever, no matter what any human things should or shouldnt happen, whether they think its good, bad or indifferent. Because that smart contract doesnt rely on human approval. For a very simple example of this, look at on-chain automated trading bots.

You say this like it's a good thing.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

No, King Cnut didn't get upset at his inability to stop the the tide. He was making a demonstration to his nobles that his powers as a mortal human had limits.

Crypto and all that bullshit is not a natural inevitability like the tide coming in, it's an invention being pushed by humans, and just like Cnut that shit has its limits. You've got Cnut and the tide backwards in your silly analogy.



People aren't claiming that pillows are a road to personal riches, or that pillows are the building blocks of a brave new world. People aren't using pillows to push elaborate schemes involving financial assets, while trying to claim that they're doing something entirely new and different and therefore cannot and should not be regulated.



They absolutely can. You're pre-supposing that they can't because it helps your argument. But the evidence clearly shows otherwise. People do in fact get banged up for using crypto in a criminal or unlawful manner.



That smart contract is only any use for as long as humans interact with it and continue supporting whatever blockchain system its operating on. Just because a technology doesn't need human approval throughout its operation doesn't mean you get to side-step regulation. If you set a smart contract that breaks the law, then you're legally responsible for that.

It's just the massive disconnect between the techno-fetishist purism and the vast majority of actual human life again isn't it. I can well imagine that there'll continue to be some forms of this stuff which will end up being very difficult to regulate. Is that ever going to translate into mass adoption of it in general? LOL no.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

No, King Cnut didn't get upset at his inability to stop the the tide. He was making a demonstration to his nobles that his powers as a mortal human had limits.

Whether it is a tale of hubris and commuppence or a demonstration of humility makes no real difference.
The point is that the powers mortal humans have has limits.

Crypto and all that bullshit is not a natural inevitability like the tide coming in,

It is you know.
The points on the elliptic curve have been there since forever. Satoshi just harnessed them.

it's an invention being pushed by humans,

By who?
I recommend that people use bitcoin because I believe it will enhance their life. I also recommend they use toothpaste, another invention of humans.

They absolutely can.

How? How are you going to regulate bitcoin, how are you even going to know if Alice sends Bob a bitcoin or not?

You're pre-supposing that they can't because it helps your argument.

No, I'm suggesting that they cant because I have spent over a decade deeply immersed in bitcoin and I dont have a clue how you could enforce anything that wasnt on-chain. I mean you can have RegFi, where entities agree to enforce extraneous rules (implimentation of US sanctions is an example of that), and people can use that if they prefer, but you cant stop people using non-RegFi

But the evidence clearly shows otherwise. People do in fact get banged up for using crypto in a criminal or unlawful manner.

People get banged up for all kinds of things that challenge the power of rich people. Thats nothing new.

That smart contract is only any use for as long as humans interact with it

Nope, it doesnt need humans.

and continue supporting whatever blockchain system its operating on.

In the case of eth (btc has no smart contracts on mainnet), once a node is spun, it will run until it breaks, esp if you put continency software in place. Only two are required, so it only requires human intervention once every node except two has gone down....so good few decades at least.

Just because a technology doesn't need human approval throughout its operation doesn't mean you get to side-step regulation. If you set a smart contract that breaks the law, then you're legally responsible for that.

The Pertsev case is going to be an interesting one in that regard. Following closely.

 

[StakerOne]

Indeed we are back to the same point.
Humans write the smart contracts.
Humans make mistakes.
Web3isgoinggreat.com has lots of examples of the results poorly written or deliberately dishonest contracts.
Before mass adoption the production, testing and implementation of smart contracts and what happens when things goes wrong needs to be legally codified in law. There needs to be legally responsible parties.

CBDCs will do this. Now whether or it will bring about terrible consequences is up for debate. But the regulation will bring more people on board.

The current crop of crypto projects can remain but will be the plaything for charlatans and rubes.

Traditional finance as learnt is over decades and when the regulations are relax bad things happen.

Given that generally those currently deeply obsessed with crypto are obsessed with the acquisition of wealth and are greedy to the point of stupidity, then bad things will happen. q_w_e_r_t_y from your postings here I don't think you are in that category and you want the best for people, just in a way most people currently disagree with.

So you don't want to use a smart contract? Fine, don't use them. Don't worry your pretty little head and leave your bank to deal with smart contracts.

The rest of us who understand smart contracts can evaluate the risk of each one of them before using them. Smart contracts can be insued.

Which CBDCs are you talking about? We don't even know if they will use closed blockchains or public ones.

 

[Storm Fox]

So you don't want to use a smart contract? Fine, don't use them. Don't worry your pretty little head and leave your bank to deal with smart contracts.

The rest of us who understand smart contracts can evaluate the risk of each one of them before using them. Smart contracts can be insued.

Which CBDCs are you talking about? We don't even know if they will use closed blockchains or public ones.

Exactly I won't worry my pretty* little head about it, just like a leave my pension investments to regulated experts. But then I won't lose my pension fund to someone airdropping a malicious smart contract into my wallet.

I assume the billions lost to scams or poorly written smart contracts are just collateral damage or some No True Scotsman scenario.

*Well I think StakerOne is the first person to call me pretty

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Indeed we are back to the same point.
Humans write the smart contracts.
Humans make mistakes.
Web3isgoinggreat.com has lots of examples of the results poorly written or deliberately dishonest contracts.

That website is shit. Most of the stuff on it isnt actually web3, its cefi.

If you want to see proper example of poorly written or deliberately dishonest contracts, rekt.news is the place to go. eg see the safemoon exploit yesterday People have been shouting about safemoon being a scam for a very long time. (The "bug" that was exploited was incredibly obvious, so obvious that its almost certain it was deliberate - inside job if you ask me)

Bad things happen in Web3, I'm not denying it, which is why I only ever tell people to start with bitcoin in a wallet that they control the private keys for.
Bitcoin is not a scam. A properly secured bitcoin cannot be stolen. You own the bitcoin if you own the private key.

Smart contracts, Web3, alt-chains, L2, zksnarks, DAOs, are all experimental tech. They may break even with good people building with the best intentions. They are risky, moderately complex and require a level of divergence from a fiat mindset to properly understand how they work. I'm involved in them because I want to push the boundaries of what this tech can do because we have to move away from fiat as quickly as we possibly can and accelerate into whatever the fuck future lies beyond the petrodollar, because the petrodollar is killing us all.

Before mass adoption the production, testing and implementation of smart contracts and what happens when things goes wrong needs to be legally codified in law.

I strongly suspect that will not happen, because the legal codification is such nonsense that everyone will ignore it, and fiat is failing faster than they can get sensible regulations that people will opt into from the state, while creating voluntary regulations that people can opt into if they want (eg there are already ways that you can stay US sanctions complient) in Web3 is much easier.

I strongly suspect that
1. Regulations will be web3 native, not state imposed, but may interact with state regulations
2. Institutions will opt-in to state conformant voluntary W3 native regulatory solutions
3. Everyone else will just carry on as they were.

There needs to be legally responsible parties.

CBDCs will do this. Now whether or it will bring about terrible consequences is up for debate. But the regulation will bring more people on board.

Thats what I'm afraid of. People trusting something as fundamentally untrustworthy, yet powerful as CDBCs

CDBCs embody all the risks that you are currently placing on bitcoin. CDBCs have the shady actors (just nicely dressed in smart suits) CDBCs facilitate theft (but legal theft of course), CDBCs make the rich richer, (its what they are designed for), CDBCs facilitate an inhuman(e) system of control.

Given that generally those currently deeply obsessed with crypto are obsessed with the acquisition of wealth and are greedy to the point of stupidity,

This is what it might look like from the outside looking in, but I can assure you, that just isnt the case.

People who are deeply obsessed with crypto are very likely to already have a level of wealth beyond their needs/lifestyle already. If they are active in web3, its not unusual to be gifted tokens to the value of tens or even hundreds of dollars a year.

There are people who are deeply obsessed with the aquisition of wealth who are interested in how crypto can help them achieve that goal, but usually they arent actually obsessed with crypto and see it as either an investment or a casino. Fools and their money are easily parted, bitcoin accelerates this like it accelerates everything else.

then bad things will happen. q_w_e_r_t_y from your postings here I don't think you are in that category and you want the best for people, just in a way most people currently disagree with.

One day you will understand.

 

[kabbes]

 

[Storm Fox]

That website is shit. Most of the stuff on it isnt actually web3, its cefi.

If you want to see proper example of poorly written or deliberately dishonest contracts, rekt.news is the place to go. eg see the safemoon exploit yesterday People have been shouting about safemoon being a scam for a very long time. (The "bug" that was exploited was incredibly obvious, so obvious that its almost certain it was deliberate - inside job if you ask me)

Bad things happen in Web3, I'm not denying it, which is why I only ever tell people to start with bitcoin in a wallet that they control the private keys for.
Bitcoin is not a scam. A properly secured bitcoin cannot be stolen. You own the bitcoin if you own the private key.

Smart contracts, Web3, alt-chains, L2, zksnarks, DAOs, are all experimental tech. They may break even with good people building with the best intentions. They are risky, moderately complex and require a level of divergence from a fiat mindset to properly understand how they work. I'm involved in them because I want to push the boundaries of what this tech can do because we have to move away from fiat as quickly as we possibly can and accelerate into whatever the fuck future lies beyond the petrodollar, because the petrodollar is killing us all.

I strongly suspect that will not happen, because the legal codification is such nonsense that everyone will ignore it, and fiat is failing faster than they can get sensible regulations that people will opt into from the state, while creating voluntary regulations that people can opt into if they want (eg there are already ways that you can stay US sanctions complient) in Web3 is much easier.

I strongly suspect that
1. Regulations will be web3 native, not state imposed, but may interact with state regulations
2. Institutions will opt-in to state conformant voluntary W3 native regulatory solutions
3. Everyone else will just carry on as they were.

Thats what I'm afraid of. People trusting something as fundamentally untrustworthy, yet powerful as CDBCs

CDBCs embody all the risks that you are currently placing on bitcoin. CDBCs have the shady actors (just nicely dressed in smart suits) CDBCs facilitate theft (but legal theft of course), CDBCs make the rich richer, (its what they are designed for), CDBCs facilitate an inhuman(e) system of control.

This is what it might look like from the outside looking in, but I can assure you, that just isnt the case.

People who are deeply obsessed with crypto are very likely to already have a level of wealth beyond their needs/lifestyle already. If they are active in web3, its not unusual to be gifted tokens to the value of tens or even hundreds of dollars a year.

There are people who are deeply obsessed with the aquisition of wealth who are interested in how crypto can help them achieve that goal, but usually they arent actually obsessed with crypto and see it as either an investment or a casino. Fools and their money are easily parted, bitcoin accelerates this like it accelerates everything else.


One day you will understand.

I've had 1 too many pints of Hobgoblin to reply at the moment. Have a great evening and I'll try send respond tomorrow