News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Infrastructure bill cryptocurrency surveillance provision... by colechristensen on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @04:41AM (#28046958)
>has utterly failed to produce anything of technological or economic value with the billions already invested. Overseas sounds like a fine place to continue this pseudoinnovation charade.

One quiet place where blockchain makes sense is shared ledgers between large financial institutions, JPMorgan for example is working a lot on this. It's not about privacy or usurping the social order or whatever imaginative solution to all of society's problems that gets attached to so many other things... it's just a better API between institutions for transferring ownership between themselves, which is a frequent and often awkward (and ancient) tech.

With blockchain you don't need a third party, with big institutions "theft" doesn't make sense. If there is an error and a transaction needs to be reversed it's in everybody's interest to do so and expected to happen from time to time and likely a built in feature.

Simplifying way back end transactions between banks is pretty nice... for banks, but pretty uninteresting to most people because it's just about settling daily balances between institutions and the like which is really boring.

Re:Infrastructure bill cryptocurrency surveillance provision... by pjc50 on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @07:11AM (#28047826)
> One quiet place where blockchain makes sense is shared ledgers between large financial institutions,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Services_Directive

Usually refusing to share information or API is a business choice. Besides, once you have a closed group, you just have signed transactions ("permissioned blockchain"), and can (must) ditch proof-of-waste. So it barely resembles what people normally think of as blockchain and starts to look more like signed git commits.

Re:Infrastructure bill cryptocurrency surveillance provision... by user-the-name on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @08:33AM (#28048394)
It's a worse API. In that situation, you have trusted parties. You don't need a blockchain, and the absolutely crippling tradeoffs it brings with it.
Re:Infrastructure bill cryptocurrency surveillance provision... by colechristensen on Wednesday August 04, 2021 @01:35AM (#28057576)
Sometimes the “API” in these circumstances is CSV files sent by FTP nightly over private fiber links.

When all parties are trusted there aren’t necessarily any crippling tradeoffs, you get mathematically provable ledgers with no need for a central trusted clearinghouse.

Re:Infrastructure bill cryptocurrency surveillance provision... by pavlov on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @06:26AM (#28047547)
This use case wouldn’t be affected in any way by the proposed legislation because banks already know their customers.