Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bitcoin discussion and news

krtek a houby said:
You're very civilised and reasonable
Click to expand...
When it comes to people who are prepared to endlessly talk it to death to get to a truth - but when they believe their experiences are the only genuine one, being dissimissive of others to the point of being disengenous, then I'm sorry, I have to walk away from that with parting insults.

People that hate decentralised permissionless networks, tend to do so because they don't want the truth, transparencey or any of it. They just want the status-quo.

I can't see how someone can genuinely fight for privacy and behind the scenes authority for the corporates, the banks the rich etc, then demand that that the little guy should have no privacy because of "terrorism" innit.

It is FACT that on most if not all centralised exchanges the little guy is front run for the benefit of the big guy.

But around here, it's like "Capitlaism is evil, what the fuck is the little guy doing investing in the first place? Hmmmmm"

Why should there be a need to prove wrong-doing, when we have the technology to prove there is no wrong-doing and that everything is above board?
 
Storm Fox said:
If all the major currencies collapse, it will be because there is a major planetwide shock. With global warming being the most likely. At that time holding crypto will be as worthless as anything else. When we or more likely our children or grandchildren are waiting in the queue for bread, holding crypto isn't going to get to the front of the line.
Click to expand...
Everything else can be taken from you.

You can't take crypto off someone who stores it right.

Blockchains keep on going, no matter what.
 
StakerOne said:
Everything else can be taken from you.

You can't take crypto off someone who stores it right.

Blockchains keep on going, no matter what.
Click to expand...
If the world is in a bad enough place that all major currencies collapse. In that case, there will likely be significant power outages preventing you from accessing crypto. ATMs will be down as well, but the point is access to crypto will be limited. Plus, this will be one of those situations where parts of the internet may become disconnected, leading to forks in the crypto chains.
 
Storm Fox said:
If the world is in a bad enough place that all major currencies collapse. In that case, there will likely be significant power outages preventing you from accessing crypto. ATMs will be down as well, but the point is access to crypto will be limited. Plus, this will be one of those situations where parts of the internet may become disconnected, leading to forks in the crypto chains.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. Everyone will still have crypto in the main-fork.
 
StakerOne said:
Everything else can be taken from you.

You can't take crypto off someone who stores it right.

Blockchains keep on going, no matter what.
Click to expand...

That's the kicker though, isn't it? Crypto holders can and do end up opening their wallets to scammers or otherwise giving access to people they shouldn't. Because no amount of techno-wizardry is going to prevent criminals from using social engineering and psychology to attack the weakest link in the security chain. Yes, scams and abuse happen with regular banking too, but crypto makes it easier than ever for criminals to drain funds from victims. Banks can and do halt suspicious transactions and can even reverse them, and while this can be annoying, I'd wager most people would rather be irritated than down on serious money. But if your crypto wallets gets emptied? Then you're shit outta luck.
 
With DAOs both for public elections such as general elections, council elections and housing associations, or private DAO for companies. How do you prevent voter intimidation? If every time there is a vote on whether Block A gets a paint job, or Alice gets a new laptop people will need to go to a secure place to vote and seeing as private DAOs especially can be spread out globally. I imagine this would be quite difficult to implement as well as being rather time-consuming for the participants and leading to few people going to secure voting locations and actually voting and open to a few people voting against the interests of the group as a whole.
 
NoXion said:
Because no amount of techno-wizardry is going to prevent criminals from using social engineering and psychology to attack the weakest link in the security chain.
Click to expand...
Please. This statement is demonstratably false.

Are you seriously telling me that fraud is prevented at banks because banks have the ultimate final say so over people's money?

Let's see if you are debating with me in good faith.

You are saying, that

A) your funds are secure, because no matter what, no matter how many letters and how much you prove who you are to the banks, the banks can say you can't have your money and that's the reason why your funds are secure?

OR

B) Are you saying the banks have your funds secure because they can look at your withdrawals and step in, before the money has been withdrawn?

Because ALL of the attributes of a bank can be reproduced in crypto.

It's possible to have a whole team of humans manage crypto money. The difference is that it's possible to have many different flavours of "I need my money back" - and it comes back to it's owner in X amount of days.

Argent is a crypto wallet, where you can assign as many Guardians as you want to approve money.

Standards have been built into Ethereum to run smart-wallets where the possibilities are endless.

A crypto user can actually impliment stronger and robust security measures than the banks.

The difference is, that the crypto user can always call back their money and eventually it comes back to them, because it's their money.
 
Storm Fox said:
With DAOs both for public elections such as general elections, council elections and housing associations, or private DAO for companies. How do you prevent voter intimidation? If every time there is a vote on whether Block A gets a paint job, or Alice gets a new laptop people will need to go to a secure place to vote and seeing as private DAOs especially can be spread out globally. I imagine this would be quite difficult to implement as well as being rather time-consuming for the participants and leading to few people going to secure voting locations and actually voting and open to a few people voting against the interests of the group as a whole.
Click to expand...
The lower the risk, the lower the counter measures.

You're being silly if you think that people hold meetings at the moment over whether Alice gets a laptop.
 
Storm Fox said:
Satellite uplinks don't require power? But your premise was if all the major currencies collapsed then crypto will be OK, but in the situation with is going to be mayhem all over the place.

So which one is the main fork? Who decides?
Click to expand...
Uplinks can be powered by solar.

If you believe the world is going mad max you would already have a portable uplink and solar powered generator.
 
StakerOne said:
The lower the risk, the lower the counter measures.

You're being silly if you think that people hold meetings at the moment over whether Alice gets a laptop.
Click to expand...
BIB The company I work for is quite small, but I had to get permission from my manager, who had to get permission for the budget from the finance team. It was done over email but it could have easily been a meeting but point is the company I work for is not a DAO.

Who decides whether Alice gets a laptop or the budget for a laptop? Or any small day-to-day but vital aspect of a DAO.
 
StakerOne said:
The lower the risk, the lower the counter measures.

You're being silly if you think that people hold meetings at the moment over whether Alice gets a laptop.
Click to expand...
But I would think housing associations are quite a high risk to the people who live in them. So people living there will need to go to a secure voting location for every vote? That is going to cost a lot of money to implement. Money the residents are unlikely to have.
 
StakerOne said:
Please. This statement is demonstratably false.

Are you seriously telling me that fraud is prevented at banks because banks have the ultimate final say so over people's money?

Let's see if you are debating with me in good faith.

You are saying, that

A) your funds are secure, because no matter what, no matter how many letters and how much you prove who you are to the banks, the banks can say you can't have your money and that's the reason why your funds are secure?

OR

B) Are you saying the banks have your funds secure because they can look at your withdrawals and step in, before the money has been withdrawn?

Because ALL of the attributes of a bank can be reproduced in crypto.

It's possible to have a whole team of humans manage crypto money. The difference is that it's possible to have many different flavours of "I need my money back" - and it comes back to it's owner in X amount of days.

Argent is a crypto wallet, where you can assign as many Guardians as you want to approve money.

Standards have been built into Ethereum to run smart-wallets where the possibilities are endless.

A crypto user can actually impliment stronger and robust security measures than the banks.

The difference is, that the crypto user can always call back their money and eventually it comes back to them, because it's their money.
Click to expand...

I don't engage in financial crimes, so I'm not concerned about the banks arbitrarily denying me access to my account. Weird how that seems to be such a big sticking point with you, is there something you're not telling us about what you do for a living?

I'm sure there are all sorts of ways to make one's crypto wallet more secure. More secure than the banks? No evidence for that so far. The trouble is that sort of thing has to be deliberately set up by the user, whereas one automatically gets that £80,000 deposit protection just by signing up for a current account.

The do-it-yourself ethic is great for those who can stick to it, but the fact is that most people can't be arsed. They just want a secure place to store their money that they don't have to keep fucking about with. Banks can provide that, crypto does not.
 
NoXion said:
I don't engage in financial crimes, so I'm not concerned about the banks arbitrarily denying me access to my account. Weird how that seems to be such a big sticking point with you, is there something you're not telling us about what you do for a living?

I'm sure there are all sorts of ways to make one's crypto wallet more secure. More secure than the banks? No evidence for that so far. The trouble is that sort of thing has to be deliberately set up by the user, whereas one automatically gets that £80,000 deposit protection just by signing up for a current account.

The do-it-yourself ethic is great for those who can stick to it, but the fact is that most people can't be arsed. They just want a secure place to store their money that they don't have to keep fucking about with. Banks can provide that, crypto does not.
Click to expand...
You don't engage in finacial crimes, but sadly others do and they are very good at it. Heck some of them even work for your precious banks. Those who are good at fraud, go undetected and they go undetected because the system is shite.

I could slam down all sorts of evidence, you would just ignore like you always do.

Whatever systems the banks have, can be replicated with DAPPS and smart contracts, but over and beyond that, it's more secure and transparent. Everyone knows that if the money is being played around with, how it's being played around with and what the risks are.

NoXion said:
The trouble is that sort of thing has to be deliberately set up by the user, whereas one automatically gets that £80,000 deposit protection just by signing up for a current account.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. No more than with banks.

A) A user can sign up for a smart-wallet.
B) A user can sign up for a bank account.

What's the difference?
 
NoXion said:
I don't engage in financial crimes, so I'm not concerned about the banks arbitrarily denying me access to my account. Weird how that seems to be such a big sticking point with you, is there something you're not telling us about what you do for a living?
Click to expand...
Always interesting when crypto is thought of as real cash. There must be loads of it that will never get out into the real world as the wallet owner cannot turn it into currency to spend on covering their loans, mortgage, bills etc without looking weird to the taxman. The already rich people have shell companies and accountants to do this, but joe crypto possibly wont be able to organise this. Anonymity doesnt work for all situations
 
Chilli.s said:
nonsense

Pretty much all deposits up to £80,000 in the uk are protected by law

How does crypto match that
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to.

The protocol level of a blockchain isn't designed to provide any kind of insurance.

There are a number of providers providing insurance.

All the things you enjoy at a bank, you can get in crypto. But it's not the job of the protocol to provide services such as insurance.

I don't mind people saying "Yeah well I can't be bothered, crypto isn't for me."

That's fine. But some people around here seem to be taking it further by saying that there are no protections in crypto. That is simply not true, you can sign up for all sorts of things that have protections.

In crypto, you are free to interact directly with the blockchain protocol, with all the risks that entrails with whatever basic or complicated software you have - it's just a protocol.

Equally, you are free to choose a smart-wallet (which is a collection of smart contracts) to talk to other smart contracts.

You have to remember, that crypto is in essense, a whold bunch of pre-crypto software that has been brought together to be something much bigger and it will continue to be like that.

Some people around here have just gotten old and have become hostile to natural change.
 
Chilli.s said:
Always interesting when crypto is thought of as real cash. There must be loads of it that will never get out into the real world as the wallet owner cannot turn it into currency to spend on covering their loans, mortgage, bills etc without looking weird to the taxman. The already rich people have shell companies and accountants to do this, but joe crypto possibly wont be able to organise this. Anonymity doesnt work for all situations
Click to expand...
Cash isn't any more real than crypto, but I don't look at cryptocurrencies as some kind of competitor to fiat.

Looking at cryptocurrencies in isolation doesn't help anyone because it's best to take a step back and remember that ANY digital asset can be tokenised and stored on blockchains.
 
StakerOne said:
I could slam down all sorts of evidence, you would just ignore like you always do.
Click to expand...

Evidence, eh? Like when you provided that evidence for widespread PV abuse? Oh, you didn't do that. Evidence doesn't seem to be your thing, based on your track record.
StakerOne said:
Whatever systems the banks have, can be replicated with DAPPS and smart contracts, but over and beyond that, it's more secure and transparent. Everyone knows that if the money is being played around with, how it's being played around with and what the risks are.
Click to expand...

If that really was the case, then crypto would have such an awful reputation for scams and get-rich-quick schemes. Take-up would be much greater than it is. Big crypto exchanges would not be falling over left and right.

StakerOne said:
No it doesn't. No more than with banks.

A) A user can sign up for a smart-wallet.
B) A user can sign up for a bank account.

What's the difference?
Click to expand...

About £80,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Protag
Israel-Iran conflicts - news and discussion
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
279
Views
15K
teqniq
teqniq
PR1Berske
Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion
533 534 535 536 537
Replies
16K
Views
695K
little_legs
little_legs
WhyLikeThis
Mpox - news and discussion
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
387
Views
22K
Cerv
C
tim
Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion
302 303 304 305 306
Replies
9K
Views
419K
BigMoaner
BigMoaner
emanymton
Good news! Silvio Berlusconi dead
Replies
16
Views
1K
gentlegreen
gentlegreen
Back
Top Bottom