Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by askmike 1724 days ago
> Anonymity? People are unsurprisingly very in favor of KYC so we can apply anti–money laundering and terrorism laws.

This doesn't scale any further than a website ran by a company providing services. Most eyes are on DeFi which is a world of smart contracts and dapps - which at some point (hopefully, because else there is little point) will run without anyone having any authority to change/stop them.

> For it to be trusted you have to insure deposits. Those fly-by-night exchanges going poof with everyone's coins aren't what the public are looking for. I have never met a human being who is anti–FDIC (what insures bank deposits in the US up to $250k).

It's not about being anti FDIC, it's about forcing all software to be managed by an American company that is registered and managed in a very particular way.

> For it to be used as regular currency you have to have price stability. No one wants to go to the grocery store and find out that they lost 10% of their budget on the walk over.

I think we are at the stage where very few people actually believe everyone is going to stop using any type of fiat and store all their wealth in crypto currency, even for everyday spending. So in that perspective this is like telling people not to buy an iPhone because Apple stock might go down (they are very separate).

> People don't know how to manage private and public keys. Anyone who has built SaaS knows that reset password requests are one of the most common issues users have. Now they're being pitched something that losing a file or losing the password to that file loses all of their money (???) Of course you want a third party!

Yes, not everyone cares about this but some do, that's like saying there is no point in WhatsApp to be e2e encrypted or Signal to exist at all because most people don't care if authorities read their messages.

> Immutability? Well that's fine until there are exploits. And then you either have to live with a DAO losing millions of dollars or you have to hard fork. The former is terrible publicity and bad for the people who hold most of the money, while the latter violates the spirit of the whole thing. Guess which wins?

We are early days for sure, the "ETH hardfork" one in that instance but there are many instances where it didn't.

1 comments

Most people aren't anarchists (or even libertarians). A world where anyone (including, say, terrorists or rogue states) can conduct transactions "without anyone having any authority to change/stop them" sounds, to most people, like a very bad thing.
Most people think your comment is unsubstantiated.