The State of Cryptocurrency

[R-T-B]

Can take up to 48 hours to pass on BTC

Must be using a horrible online wallet, me thinks. I can withdraw to fiat faster than 48 hours. Seldom see bitcoin to bitcoin with proper fees in over 2 hours.

Still don't get why people call decentralized as an advantage for cryptocurrencies.

I don't know, might have something to do with points of failure... lol

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't know, might have something to do with points of failure... lol

Fair point in countries with weak/poor central banking. At the same time, I don't know that internet service is even reliable enough in those very same countries to make cryptocurrencies viable.

 

[R-T-B]

Fair point in countries with weak/poor central banking.

With modern information breaches targeting banks and credit agencies, it's a fair point anywhere.

Granted, that's more a property of anonyminity than central vs distributed. More on the original point, I'd argue just because central banking hasn't had a catastrophic failure in the west does not mean it can't, nor does it make centralization a security benefit. Centralization is never a security benefit.

At the same time, I don't know that internet service is even reliable enough in those very same countries to make cryptocurrencies viable.

You don't need incredible internet service. Thank TCPIP for that one.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Granted, that's more a property of anonyminity than central vs distributed. More on the original point, I'd argue just because central banking hasn't had a catastrophic failure in the west does not mean it can't, nor does it make centralization a security benefit. Centralization is never a security benefit.

I'd argue it does. Why has federalization won out every time? Everyone in a shared economy needs to be on the same page. When banking isn't centralized, multiple bank systems and currencies emerge. Commerce becomes difficult. The argument for federalization explodes for the sake of streamlining commerce, so it happens...pretty much everywhere...pretty much all of the time.

You don't need incredible internet service. Thank TCPIP for that one.

I would thank telcomms rolling out internet over cellphone services pretty much everywhere for that, not TCP/IP. Even Haiti has surprisingly good wireless internet because relief workers needed it. Still, I wouldn't call it reliable.

 

[R-T-B]

I'd argue it does.

The key word is "security benefit." It's a well known principal in security that decentralization is ALWAYS better. Politics need not apply here. You may as well be arguing with newtons laws.

I would thank telcomms rolling out internet over cellphone services pretty much everywhere for that, not TCP/IP.

Heh. Try using cell service without a guaranteed delivery protocol like TCP/IP. Watch the network burn.

The whole point of TCP/IP is to make unreliable networks work reliably.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The key word is "security benefit." It's a well known principal in security that decentralization is ALWAYS better. Politics need not apply here. You may as well be arguing with newtons laws.

Depends on intent. If you're trying to hide something, decentralization is better. If you're trying to prevent against attack, intrusion, and theft, centralized is better because it's easier to make redundant and secure. This is why all of the gold, for example, was stored in the middle of an Army base. Nothing short of a superior army could get anywhere close to it. Likewise, centralized servers can turn any attack into a counter attack using their collective power. Trust is implied in centralized servers rather than created.

Heh. Try using cell service without a guaranteed delivery protocol like TCP/IP. Watch the network burn.

The whole point of TCP/IP is to make unreliable networks work reliably.

TCP/IP is a packet type that requests acknowledgement that packets were received. If there's a break in the network that prohibits any traffic from getting through, TCP/IP is as useful as having a fist full of sand in the middle of a desert. I'm talking about #1 (Physical Layer) of OSI Model, you're talking about #4 (Transport Layer).

 

[moproblems99]

This is why all of the gold, for example, was stored in the middle of an Army base. Nothing short of a superior army could get anywhere close to it.

Not really. It was stored there so they could sell it all off with the general public knowing. Hence why we don't have public audits.

 

[R-T-B]

If you're trying to prevent against attack, intrusion, and theft, centralized is better because it's easier to make redundant and secure.

No, it's not. The whole idea of centralized is... centralized. Not redundant. Redundant implies multiple nodes. That is the opposite of centralized.

Perhaps you are thinking peer-to-peer but that is but one form of decentralization.

If you're trying to hide something, decentralization is better.

Again, not really. It actually makes more copies of it and in many ways is worse.

TCP/IP is a packet type that requests acknowledgement that packets were received. If there's a break in the network that prohibits any traffic from getting through, TCP/IP is as useful as having a fist full of sand in the middle of a desert.

Not if there's another path that routers open, making the break temporary. TCP/IP depends on other techs but the point it it laid the foundation by making temporary blips in connectivity all but irrelelevant. It's all offtopic anyways, but I can state as a Cisco Certified Network Associate (for reasons I don't even fully understand, I never user that cert) I do know what I am talking about. Most issues in foreign countries where business would be transacted (markets) relate to cell connectivity and switching towers when one fails. That's firmly in the domain of TCP/IP.

Not really. It was stored there so they could sell it all off with the general public knowing. Hence why we don't have public audits.

Heh, wasn't even going to go there but it's possible is all I'll say. If it wasn't they'd probably be more than open to an audit by now.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

No, it's not. The whole idea of centralized is... centralized. Not redundant. Redundant implies multiple nodes. That is the opposite of centralized.

Perhaps you are thinking peer-to-peer but that is but one form of decentralization.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/centralize

to concentrate by placing power and authority in a center or central organization

Federal government is centralized in terms of financial consolidation, yet it has many nodes. For example, the 12 Federal Reserve Banks. Even though it's not physical in one place, it's still centralized because all money in the country eventually flows through one of its many nodes.

Decentralization is like pre-civil war era banking. Every state had its own currency and bank and there were exchange rates between each. No one had authority over it all until the Federal Reserve was created.

"Authority" is the key, not physical location.

Example: just because Amazon Web Services has clusters of servers all over the world, they are still centralized because Amazon controls them all. When you're talking to that service, you're only dealing with one entity (Amazon). What physical resource actually responds to the request is implementation details.

Again, not really. It actually makes more copies of it and in many ways is worse.

Yet, all transactions are anonymous because there's nothing tying an account to a human being. In order to trace an account back to a human, there has to be a study of the patterns as well subpoenas of merchants that interacted with the account. In centralized banking, there's so many anti-fraud measures in place that are completely non-existent in decentralized because of lack of authority to do so.

Not if there's another path that routers open, making the break temporary. TCP/IP depends on other techs but the point it it laid the foundation by making temporary blips in connectivity all but irrelelevant. It's all offtopic anyways, but I can state as a Cisco Certified Network Associate (for reasons I don't even fully understand, I never user that cert) I do know what I am talking about. Most issues in foreign countries where business would be transacted (markets) relate to cell connectivity and switching towers when one fails. That's firmly in the domain of TCP/IP.

Wow, guess CCNA certification these days are worthless. If layer 1, 2, and 3 aren't functioning, layer 4 doesn't exist. You can keep trying and trying and trying and all you'll get is timeouts. Cryptocurrencies are worthless without functioning internet infrastructure.

 

[dorsetknob]

Health Issues worrying about Cryptocurrency worth eh!!!

Care home chain launches own cryptocurrency
A UK care home company has created a private exchange token for residents.

The C-Coin from Carlauren Group, which provides residential later-life and care services, is designed to remove the worry associated with carrying cash.

Residents can buy a minimum of 100 C-Coins at a rate of £70 each. At any point in time, it is possible to sell the C-Coin back to Carlauren in return for 90% of its launch value in fiat currency.

The minimum buy-in increases with each tier to a maximum initial commitment of 500 coins.

Using the Carlauren Exchange facility on-site, members investing in C-Coins will be able to buy, sell, and trade them easily and securely without taking significant investment risks.

Full Story here ( sub titles and Audio Description for those that are Deaf and Blind not available )
https://coinrivet.com/care-home-chain-launches-own-cryptocurrency/

 

[Papahyooie]

Why has federalization won out every time?

You can paint up the pig all you like, but the only REAL reason why, is because they have the guns and the armies to enforce it. If something is actually superior, then there is no need to suppress competition with force.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

EU doesn't have "the guns and the armies to enforce it" yet they still federalized their currencies under the Euro Dollar. Exchanging currencies sucks so as long as economies get along with each other, there's a whole lot of benefits to centralization of currencies and not many disadvantages.

Competition means going away from centralization which means exchanges again. It's a PITA on daily basis, so back to back to centralization it goes.

The reason why there isn't a single global currency is because of trust. For example, no one really trusts North Korea. Until the political situation in North Korea changes, they will be economically isolated by way of independent currency.

 

[Papahyooie]

EU doesn't have "the guns and the armies to enforce it" yet they still federalized their currencies under the Euro Dollar. Exchanging currencies sucks so as long as economies get along with each other, there's a whole lot of benefits to centralization of currencies and not many disadvantages.

Competition means going away from centralization which means exchanges again. It's a PITA on daily basis, so back to back to centralization it goes.

The reason why there isn't a single global currency is because of trust. For example, no one really trusts North Korea. Until the political situation in North Korea changes, they will be economically isolated by way of independent currency.

International currencies is not my point. The EU does have the guns and armies to enforce it, when compared to the individual.

 

[R-T-B]

Ford I am speaking from a security definition perspective and always have prefaced it with that. You are going to have to accept that within that context I am correct. You can of course quote a general purpose dictionary and claim to win, but you are changing the debate context and that's called "moving the goalposts."

Wow, guess CCNA certification these days are worthless.

No (well, actually, sorta, but separate issue), but your debate and reading skills here are. I specifically stated we are talking about unreliable switchable routed networks, not completely nonfunctioning ones. Read my post again.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

International currencies is not my point. The EU does have the guns and armies to enforce it, when compared to the individual.

It does not. They're just now trying to create the framework for an EU military. UK (and I think one other member) prohibited it. Now with Brexit, EU can likely get the votes to do it.

The EU has had the Euro for decades now (1999, started physical currency in 2002) with no "guns and armies."

Ford I am speaking from a security definition perspective and always have prefaced it with that. You are going to have to accept that within that context I am correct. You can of course quote a general purpose dictionary and claim to win, but you are changing the debate context and that's called "moving the goalposts."

Look at all high security applications around the world and note what they have in common: restricted access. Centralization does that in very forceful ways, decentralized can't. There's really no context in which decentralized is more secure than an adequately designed centralized system.

The only benefit decentralized has is burden sharing. The cost of establishing trust, however, means much of the burden is wasted on merely establishing trust. Unless a mechanism is created to rectify that problem, decentralization has no practical benefit when looking at the whole.

No (well, actually, sorta, but separate issue), but your debate and reading skills here are. I specifically stated we are talking about unreliable switchable routed networks, not completely nonfunctioning ones. Read my post again.

You were replying to this:

At the same time, I don't know that internet service is even reliable enough in those very same countries to make cryptocurrencies viable.

I clarified that "reliability" isn't merely occasional "packet loss," it's simply no service, period. Even in the USA, especially in the mountainous (parts of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, etc.), internet service is spotty at best if not completely unavailable save for ridiculously expensive satellite services. Cryptocurrencies are useless in these parts of the world. They have no problem doing business in currencies though.

 

[R-T-B]

You were replying to this:

Yes and your clarification is invalid because people tend to do a lot of business in market style stalls in such countries... usually with cell service.

Again, I stated this in my post.

There's really no context in which decentralized is more secure than an adequately designed centralized system.

Except... points of failure.

Oh man, talking in circles again. I'm out.

 

[Papahyooie]

It does not. They're just now trying to create the framework for an EU military. UK (and I think one other member) prohibited it. Now with Brexit, EU can likely get the votes to do it.

The EU has had the Euro for decades now (1999, started physical currency in 2002) with no "guns and armies."

Ignore the guns and armies (including police) of the constituent countries, sure. The definition of missing the point.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yes and your clarification is invalid because people tend to do a lot of business in market style stalls in such countries... usually with cell service.

Don't get out much do you? There's gapping holes of coverage in the USA. Take, for example, AT&T:
https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html

That giant hole in Montana has ranches. The only way they communicate with the outside world is via satellite phones.

Except... points of failure.

Which is why centralized systems have redundancies. For example, if there's a catastrophic failure at one of the Federal Reserve banks, the other 11 can pick up the slack. Commerce doesn't stop, just slows.

Ignore the guns and armies (including police) of the constituent countries, sure. The definition of missing the point.

And you're missing the point that exchanges impede economic activity so it is mutually beneficial to unify as long as the consenting parties can agree on a framework to do so.

 

[Papahyooie]

And you're missing the point that exchanges impede economic activity so it is mutually beneficial to unify as long as the consenting parties can agree on a framework to do so.

I didn't miss any point. Your point is just trash. While it may be "mutually beneficial to unify", that does not imply a license to use threat of violence to force compliance. You talk of "consenting parties" yet advocate for government control, which is the antithesis of consent. As I said before, if something is truly superior then there is no need to use force. And yet you continue to advocate that government should control crypto. Why can't you have your centralized currency, and I have my decentralized currency, and we all leave each other alone? I'd suspect it has something to do with the inability of your masters to profit off it. And as I said... they have the guns and armies.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

While it may be "mutually beneficial to unify", that does not imply a license to use threat of violence to force compliance.

US dollar federalized without "threats." So did the Euro.

Governments control currencies because the people impower them to. Again, mutually beneficial. People need to trade goods as a function of life and having a currency to balance the debt makes settling debts simple. All merchants and employers agree to use the dollar as a means of settling debts, courts uphold payment in dollars as adequate settlement of debts, Federal Reserve manages supply of the currency, and the Secret Service secures the currency against fraud. Everybody is happy. Commerce flows.

Why can't you have your centralized currency, and I have my decentralized currency, and we all leave each other alone?

Because of the same reason why multiple centralized currencies pose a problem: exchange is sticking point.

 

[Papahyooie]

US dollar federalized without "threats." So did the Euro.

Except they didn't. I'd say being imprisoned, or killed in the event you protest being imprisoned, is a pretty big threat.

Edit: All the rest of your edited post is just restating what you've already said: Basically, that you have the right to force me to comply. Which, as I said, is trash.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Enjoy some light reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

 

[Papahyooie]

Enjoy some light reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

So.... the Federal Reserve Act.... literally creating a law threatening the use of force against people like me.

How could you think such a thing is even a response to what I'm saying? Thank you for proving my point, I guess?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Are you a manager of a bank? If no, it didn't require anything of you. Clearly you didn't read it.

 

[moproblems99]

So.... the Federal Reserve Act.... literally creating a law threatening the use of force against people like me.

How could you think such a thing is even a response to what I'm saying? Thank you for proving my point, I guess?

Let me preface this by saying I understand both of you and support neither.

Except in this case, you are indirectly consenting. You vote for elected officials who go out and do your bidding (in a perfect world). This is your implicit consent.

In the case you voted for someone that doesn't believe in the Federal Reserve, then, somewhat unfortunately, welcome to democracy/republic/whatever we really are. The majority has determined what we are going to do as a whole and by you continuing to stay in the country, are consenting.

If you didn't vote, you can't complain.

By living in this country, you are implicitly agreeing to live by the rules and laws of the country. You don't have to agree with them and you can work to change them (through peaceful protest and electing officials who share your view).