Not useful to most people
> the transaction is set in stone. Irreversible.
An anti-feature.
> we all need to have the equivalent option of direct transfers with minimal meddling?
We have direct transfers, and nobody has ever stopped one of mine.
You're trying to find a revolution in things most people don't care about, at all. Non-solutions for non-problems.
> Better tech and algorithms will patch it.
Demonstrably untrue - BTC is still king, and the market follows it slavishly. The BTC community (miners, big exchanges and developers, not users) has demonstrated that they aren't interested in change, by continuing to limit transaction throughput, sticking with PoW etc. The users have demonstrated they don't care either, by continuing to support BTC over others. It's speculation and brand recognition, not tech, that people are interested in.
> Security screw ups are due to people not being educated
Which they never will be en-mass, making a system with irreversible transactions a poor choice for widespread use.
Smart contracts are a joke, and have unsolvable problems when it comes to interfacing with anything that happens outside of a blockchain. They are effectively database triggers, not a revolution.
At the end of the day, robots in the future are more likely to talk to standardised central bank APIs or standardised retail bank APIs.
You are missing the point. It decentralizes a centralized system that IS useful to most people.
Furthermore, 31% of the world population is unbanked. Maybe “most” people don’t need crypto but a lot of people could use it, should it improve over time.
> We have direct transfers, and nobody has ever stopped one of mine.
Your “direct transfers” take days to settle. And again, a centralized solution. I can’t understand how someone on HN doesn’t see how decentralizing digital finance is not a big deal.
People on HN will understand the need for about decentralized computing, sing songs about it, and self-host what they can - but as soon as it comes to finance it’s “we don’t need that” and “the big players do it for us with their proprietary, KYC solutions.”
Do you really not see the need for being able to send someone money electronically without being at the mercy of a big bank?
> Demonstrably untrue - BTC is still king, and the market follows it slavishly. The users have demonstrated they don't care either, by continuing to support BTC over others. It's speculation and brand recognition, not tech, that people are interested in.
Again, you haven’t done any research. Darknet markets and ransomware alike prefer XMR over BTC and have for some time.
> Which they never will be [educated] en-mass
Good thing we have developers working on simplifying the technology and making it idiot-proof?
> a system with irreversible transactions a poor choice for widespread use.
There is a system like this that already has “widespread use” - cash. If you hand someone cash you can’t take it back either. The immutability of the blockchain is a good thing.
Businesses are legally required to provide refunds if you pay with cash. It would be no different with crypto.
> Smart contracts are a joke, and have unsolvable problems when it comes to interfacing with anything that happens outside of a blockchain
Demonstrably incorrect. DAI is an algorithmic stablecoin worth $1 (+/- $0.01) on the Ethereum network with a market cap of over $4.1 billion. It controls its price by understanding the price of Ethereum, which necessarily happens “outside of the blockchain.”
It is a trustless way to convert ETH to a USD equivalent, requiring no reserves and no auditing. I don’t know how anyone here can’t look at DAI on ETH and see the power of and potential of cryptocurrency - a decentralized, bank-less, trust-less, reserve-less algorithmic currency exchange that anyone can use pseudonymously. It’s incredible.
You still haven't told me why it's interesting or good to decentralise getting a bank account, you're just asserting it.
> Your “direct transfers” take days to settle.
No, they transfer pretty instantly and the funds can be used instantly, and whether there is some background process that takes longer is not really relevant to me or the people I transfer to.
> And again, a centralized solution.
Again, why should I care?
> “the big players do it for us with their proprietary, KYC solutions.”
KYC/AML is a good thing. It is good to be able to keep an eye on, and regulate, the flow of cash. It is an important set of tools in combatting all manner of crimes.
FYI there is a vibrant fintech startup ecosystem, that works with and within these regs. There are even a number of startup (challenger) banks these days.
> Do you really not see the need for being able to send someone electronically without being at the mercy of a big bank?
I genuinely, 100%, do not care a single iota, no. Being "at the mercy" of a bank provides me with all manner of insurance, assurance, protection and regulation.
> Darknet markets and ransomware
And I should support those things? They are a great argument for KYC/AML in themselves. And even so, these are niche compared to the speculative market.
> Good thing we have developers working on simplifying the technology and making it idiot-proof?
Irreversible transactions are not idiot-proof by nature.
> Finally, if you hand someone cash you can’t take it back either.
Sure, but you don't keep cash in a file on an easily compromised computer, and you don't keep all of your cash with you all the time, you keep it in a bank where someone else is responsible for custody, can reverse things out etc.
> Demonstrably incorrect. DAI is ...
Running on a system of 'trusted' oracles, which is not trustless.
> a decentralized, bank-less, ..., reserve-less algorithmic currency exchange that anyone can use pseudonymously. It’s incredible.
And entirely superfluous to any need I can think of.
(Plus, you know, unregulated financial products and services, doesn't that just scream "bad idea!" to you?)
Not being financially censored by the government or banks? Not having to be at their mercy for your money? The benefits seem pretty clear.
> and whether there is some background process that takes longer is not really relevant to me or the people I transfer to.
Clearly you have never had a low balance and had to wait for your money to settle in your bank. A reality most people deal with every day.
> And I should support those things? They are a great argument for KYC/AML in themselves.
You asked for a real-world example of crypto being used for goods and services. I gave one.
Feel free to let the government decide what you’re allowed to buy and ingest. A lot of people want freedom from that. It goes further - assume a malicious government, as all governments historically fail their citizens - only cash and cryptocurrency will be reasonable exchanges of value.
PayPal and Zelle might work for you, today, but to suggest that they’re a viable long- or even medium-term solution for digital currency amongst humanity is ludicrous.
> Sure, but you don't keep cash in a file on an easily compromised computer,
Neither do you with crypto. The vast majority of your savings would be in a hardware wallet, presumably easier to use by the time crypto is mainstream.
> Irreversible transactions are not idiot-proof by nature.
The concept is as idiot-proof as cash, which has clearly proven enough for humanity for thousands of years.
> doesn't that just scream "bad idea!" to you?
Nope. It reduces trust, reliance, and censorship on or by entities that don’t have your best interests at heart.
I suppose we simply have different priors. You trust banks and the government. You are okay with forfeiting your financial privacy. I am not.
This is of no interest to me whatsoever. The 'benefits' are not being able to recall money from rogue merchants, not being insured against thefts and fraud, all sorts of "benefits" that look to most people like lunacy and huge steps backwards. I have never felt at the mercy of big banks, they are heavily regulated and work well, and if I don't like their services I can switch to another.
> Clearly you have never had a low balance and had to wait for your money to settle in your bank
This is not something that happens, bank transfers are instant here.
> Feel free to let the government decide what you’re allowed to buy and ingest.
Oh I definitely think it's a good thing that governments can keep an eye on transactions, for stopping fraud and other financial crimes, and that's just a start. Like I said before, this is a positive of the banking system, not a drawback.
> PayPal and Zelle might work for you, today, but to suggest that they’re a viable long- or even medium-term solution for digital currency amongst humanity is ludicrous.
I don't use those for transfers, but you haven't said why using banks or these sort of services is ludicrous, just asserted it.
> The vast majority of your savings would be in a hardware wallet, presumably easier to use by the time crypto is mainstream.
And when you lose it? As many, many people will? This is no solution to widespread use by people not versed in computer security. And they shouldn't have to be versed in computer security to keep their money safe
> The concept is as idiot-proof as cash
Except it's not, because it involves key files and computer security.
> It reduces trust
It certainly does, I wouldn't ever put my trust in unregulated financial instruments. And I said before, I have no issue with financial "censorship", it's an important mechanism to fight crime, limit cash flows to rogue nations, terrorist groups and despots etc. It's a good thing.
> You trust banks and the government.
More than cryptocurrency miners and developers, yes. Hell yes. More than sellers in any given marketplace, where we have thousands of years of evidence that people will be ripped off at every turn? Yes. More than my own computer security skills? Still yes by a long way.
> You are okay with forfeiting your financial privacy. I am not.
And you are OK enabling ransomware, widespread fraud, and ordinary users losing everything because they are not equipped to manage their own affairs (they really, really are not). I still have financial privacy, and what's more I have a ton of financial protections, if something goes wrong then things can be reversed, tracked, traced and compensated. These benefits are real rather than idealogical, and I don't buy into your ideology. Democratic government is far from perfect, but it's generally better than the alternatives.
We will have to see what happens 10 years from now. There are equally good defenders from both sides. Buffett and co are either trained on old data, or are trained on large amounts of data(through reading). We will find out!
It's not a case of not being convinced - I am quite convinced cryptocurrency can deliver some of those things like immutable transactions and lack of government ability to monitor or block cashflows - but I am also quite convinced they are backward steps.
Generate a bank account with code, no bs paperwork or going through bank clerk. Then immediately send store of value to that account, or anyone in the world. Check it on a node(you can host the checker YOURSELF, or anyone you trust) within the hour, and the transaction is set in stone. Irreversible.
If I want to give cash to my favorite niece, I don't need to go get permission from a bank. I hand it to her. So why is it so hard to understand that as a citizen of the information age, we all need to have the equivalent option of direct transfers with minimal meddling?
Many arguments against cryptocurrencies are weak - they're not unsolvable problems.
Slow transaction times arguments could be analogous to slow computer times in the 90s. Better tech and algorithms will patch it.
Volatility in the long term can be solved with higher adoption since the supply is tiny relative to the dollar. Or a clever incentive scheme like dai.
Security screw ups are due to people not being educated and not having separate devices. Intuitive devices for security have not been made and it will take time.
Transaction irreversibly can be solved when stores build on top of the blockchain platforms. Or escrows.Satoshi hints at this on the FIRST page of the bitcoin white paper.
Smart contracts requiring good faith from people to run it? Sure, but it's still better and more automated compared to the systems we have now.
At the end of the day, robots in the future are not going to interface with multiple shitty bank apis that take 5 business days to settle entrenched by tech debt running shitty Java code. They're going to go through one of new universal platforms that have attributes like Ethereum.
So the question is - which horse do we back???