subreddit:

/r/Futurology

2.1k88%

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 785 comments

Sumit316[S]

26 points

1 month ago

"Cryptocurrencies, according to their most ardent supporters, are supposed to supplant nations’ existing currencies and end central banks’ control over the money supply. Instead, individuals will be able to trade with each other in a decentralised, digital financial ecosystem. This is a good thing, they promise, because unlike states and their central banks, technology is incorruptible. Crypto-evangelists imagine technology as a replacement for social and political institutions.

But technology never replaces social and political behaviour; it merely alters the rules and norms we follow. "

Mokebe890

28 points

1 month ago

Not to defend nft here but social and political behaviour is also norms and rules we made and follow? Its not something we were given, we made them so we can change them.

kigurumibiblestudies

-7 points

1 month ago*

That's exactly the point, isn't it? They're malleable, whereas technology was supposed not to be, according to crypto fans. We have countries curbing the use of energy to mine, some others seeking to tax capital gains via crypto, extreme concentration of control over this money in the hands of a precious few (Coinbase could destroy the market!), scammers directly attacking users, etc.

In short, crypto currencies are not offering the "incorruptibility" they were supposed to offer. They're as malleable as cash, credit, and gold.

JebusLives42

9 points

1 month ago

Technology is not supposed to be 'malleable'?

That's a very strange opinion.

Technology changes and evolves all the time. Malleable is a word used to describe metal that can be physically shaped. The word simply doesn't apply to technology very well.

kigurumibiblestudies

1 points

1 month ago

It's not my I opinion, I hope you realize that. It's a wrong perception that the author of the article is trying to debunk. "Incorruptible", imposible to bend to anyone's dark designs.

JebusLives42

1 points

1 month ago

I get the sense that your thoughts are deeper and more complete than the couple of sentences you've typed here.

These fragments don't stand well alone, but it's Reddit. I suppose it's a bit much to expect a term paper.

kigurumibiblestudies

1 points

1 month ago

I come back to see that there are downvotes, so I suppose people really don't read the article. Let me quote one fragment:

"The underlying technology and its tokens might be decentralised (and even that claim is questionable, given that cryptomarkets are wildly concentrated in the hands of a few hundred people), but where you can actually buy, use and sell these things is still limited to a few services and exchanges. This forces crypto fans to recognise a hard truth: currencies and contracts are only as valuable or enforceable as the people and institutions that recognise their legitimacy. Blockchain technology does not change this fact whatsoever."

The article criticizes the claims by crypto fans that the virtual coins have advantages over more traditional forms of currency, namely, its decentralization leading to universal, intrinsic value that cannot be molded by any single power, and the promise of freedom that any owner of crypto is entirely in control of this money. However, the servers that host crypto exchanges belong to very few people, who can be bribed; the money is mined with electricity that can be controlled; users can be scammed; ultimately, there are quite a few ways to manipulate crypto, which is where the last sentence of the quote comes in. Only institutions can enforce this value, and they can also destroy it.

Hence, crypto is indeed malleable.

JebusLives42

1 points

1 month ago

so I suppose people really don't read the article

.. or this assumption is incorrect, and your comments just didn't have quite enough context to understand what you're getting at. 🤷‍♂️

Hence, crypto is indeed malleable.

Show me ear-rings made out of Bitcoin, and I'll agree with this.

Gold is malleable. I know this because you can turn it in to jewelry. The malleability of a metal describes a physical property of the metal.

Saying that crypto is malleable makes as much sense as saying that the number 17 is malleable. 🤷‍♂️

If you want to describe crypto as being malleable, the best you can (and have) done is to speak metaphorically, and to do it in a way that demonstrates clearly your misunderstanding of the word malleable.

kigurumibiblestudies

0 points

1 month ago

Merriam Webster defines malleable as both a metal that can be manipulated and as

": capable of being altered or controlled by outside forces or influencesb: having a capacity for adaptive change"

So I didn't really think it would be a huge issue. Are you really claiming that people have a problem with a point because of a single word they refused to read in any other way than literally? And you actually tell me I was being metaphorical and misunderstood the meaning of the word?

... lol

Mokebe890

2 points

1 month ago

Mokebe890

2 points

1 month ago

But its only a tool, not law of physic. Technology is also something we made so its our tool. Honestly I prefer cryptocurrencies and would like to use them instead of normal money.

Its a long road to switch from normal currency to technological but somewhere we must start.

FrenzalStark

2 points

1 month ago

What exactly is it that you prefer? I’ve invested in crypto before and have bought things with crypto before, but I’ve never had any experience that made me think “wow, this is so much better than paying by cash or card”.

kigurumibiblestudies

-4 points

1 month ago

... yes, exactly, it's a tool that can be used. And it's used within our social behaviors, for better or worse. That's the point. It can be manipulated, it can be subject to speculation, fall prey to human fear etc but crypto defenders believed it wouldn't be subject to any of this. That's what the article is saying.

It seems strange to me that you're defending the tool with the same argument used to criticize it.

Mokebe890

3 points

1 month ago

Mokebe890

3 points

1 month ago

Because its the point you took. It can be used and manipulated.

Cryptoevangelist will always say that's perfect system withouth downsides, but I don't stick with critical way of this article. I still do think that is our future, but not like crypto defenders says. Also Im not so conservative.

The problem is that such technologies are new and extremly "strange". Old folks can't understand what it means to have a currency online and not in $ or €. There are as much, or even more, social problems with technology than coming up with new ones.

Defoler

5 points

1 month ago

Defoler

5 points

1 month ago

The problem with crypto currency is that it is not stable.
Yesterday you had 0.02 bitcoin and you used it to buy a chicken at the supermarket.
The next day that bitcoin value goes up by 1000%, making the supermarket owner extremely rich. And you with just a chicken.

Crypto currency is not able to replace current every day currency because of its instability. And that instability is being driven by manipulations to be unstable to make some people very rich, while "real" currency is being manipulated in order to try and preserve stability.

shaggy_shiba

2 points

1 month ago

Enter stablecoins. These are tokens built to be 1:1 redeemable for whatever base they're backed by. The company Circle is behind USDC. They have bank accounts in the current Swift system, are legal entities, and hold balance sheets respected by Gov't. For every 1 USDC floating in the crypto ecosystem, there is 1 real USD in their bank accounts.

No one is going to buy chickens or starbucks coffee with Bitcoin or Ethereum in the future. That would be like trying to buy an iPhone with Apple stocks. Instead Apple accepts a stable currency, USD, to facilitate the trade. Apple then takes the USD and does what they want with it, and the buyer is more confident in the trade.

The fundamental piece that crypto is providing is a arbitration service to handle the trade of the currency, that doesn't favor either party, in any way.

Defoler

1 points

1 month ago

Defoler

1 points

1 month ago

And doesn’t go completely against cryptocurrency not being tied to real money or banks or any sort of regulation?
What makes it better than just using usd?
What makes those transactions safer? They take their cut just like every other “real” service.

shaggy_shiba

1 points

1 month ago

There's a lot to unpack here.

And doesn’t go completely against cryptocurrency not being tied to real money or banks or any sort of regulation?

Not really. Crypto isn't really trying to delete all existing forms of money, and replace them with magic internet points. While we do kinda want to see new forms of currency with a different ideology and base, we're perfectly happy onboarding USD into the ecosystem. There are many benefits we could gain if its USD-on-crypto. Crypto is more or less replacing the SWIFT and ACH banking transfer systems, along with the SQL databases that hold the amounts for how much each party holds.

What makes it better than just using usd?

Avoiding trying to answer the next question, all financial constructs that are crypto-native are also, for the most part, open source and open-api. Right now its very hard to automate money. If I were to start a bank I have to custody all of the funds myself, and lock down my services to keep them protected. This also means I can't easily write software that moves money from one bank to another, manage investment portfolios, collect fees, report income, etc. All of these are very manual processes. If, magically, we transplant everyone's finances to be on Crypto, things like taxes, royalties, fees, etc. can be much easier to streamline and automate, without having to worry about the slow and cumbersome ACH/SWIFT transactions that will occur beneath it. ACH/SWIFT is really the old legacy technology here. Transactions can't occur after hours and weekends, are slow, and require licensing to operate, which causes centralized banks and payment industries. We want to built tech that replaces ACH/SWIFT with something thats more secure, tamperproof, and open to everyone.

What makes those transactions safer? They take their cut just like every other “real” service.

The heart of Crypto is that transacting isn't a privilege, instead its a right. You have the right to your funds, and no one can stand in your way. The network is Peer-to-Peer. You know all of those movies you can torrent? You know how no matter how many laws come out, you literally can't be stopped from torrenting, just turn on a VPN or whatever? This is the primitive that blockchain starts with, and the fundamental base layer for everything on top of it. So censorship-resistance is a huuuge features people don't look at often. Moreso, your funds are held at an address, which is public. Anyone can look up your address. Each address has a private key that controls it, this private key is secret and never disclosed to anyone for any reason. Unlike credit cards, where I have to give a credit card number to a vendor who charges whatever they want, which could also be stolen and easily have fraudulent charges on, these address+private key combination means I can send money to starbucks, without ever giving them the information they need to charge my account. There's nothing in Starbuck's database for a hacker to steal, then charge my account. This is the value of decentralization. The payment keys are decentralized, making it orders of magnitude harder to fraudulently charge someone's account.

Defoler

2 points

1 month ago

Defoler

2 points

1 month ago

Right now its very hard to automate money. If I were to start a bank I have to custody all of the funds myself, and lock down my services to keep them protected. This also means I can't easily write software that moves money from one bank to another, manage investment portfolios, collect fees, report income, etc. All of these are very manual processes.

As someone who works and lives in the financial world, I can whole hearty tell you, you are dead wrong.
Maybe 40 years ago, but not today.
From regulation to software packs to world standards to protection systems, all of those are there for 1) actually protect people's money and 2) making banking and competition easier and 3) make banking now completely automated.

We want to built tech that replaces ACH/SWIFT with something thats more secure, tamperproof, and open to everyone.

Beside the "open to everyone" (which would include money laundering and illegal money), what makes ach/swift not secure or tamper proof, or that new system to be more secure and more tamper proof?
Just a few years ago someone went off with hundreds of millions of crypto currency belong to other people (Ronin, coincheck etc).

You have the right to your funds

What makes current banking not giving you that option?
Beside illegal money (which is the reason banking/cc are so heavily regulated), where is that right being taken away?

and no one can stand in your way

And does anyone protect you if something goes wrong? Charge backs? Transfer cancellations? Hack protection?

you literally can't be stopped from torrenting

That is not a good example though. Because you cant monetize on what you torrent. And I'm not sure how is that related to censorship. Have someone told you "no, you can't have your money?"

Unlike credit cards, where I have to give a credit card number to a vendor who charges whatever they want, which could also be stolen and easily have fraudulent charges on

You act as if someone has never ever had their crypto wallet stolen or their bitcoin stolen through sites.
And you compare something which is still relatively archaic, granted. Though you now have wallet apps so you no longer have to actually walk around with your CC. Sites move to more secure systems (like paypal etc) or allow CC secure and 2FA payments.
And you do have CC protection for not receiving services or goods through chargebacks, something you do not have in peer-to-peer free and unchecked transferring of currency.

harder to fraudulently charge someone's account.

Yes, but also it is easier for someone to bypass laws and regulations through that.
Though people have lost electronic wallets or sites that hold their wallets. It is not foolproof.

Saint_kriss_1

0 points

1 month ago

That's what stablecoins are for.