When I was an IT there were times I totally told people all I had to do was adjust the timer on their computers flux capacitor to fix the problem. LOL they would be like oh that’s all. Thanks. Hahahahha
I'm pretty sure I've never seen anyone use the definition of "decentralized" as it relates to computer networks, when they refer to crypto as "decentralized" even though having many copies and validators spread across the world *is the actual point to decentralization* and not "hehe no laws that say you can't do this."
*Bitcoin is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part*
I think lots of people still don't know why crypto started 🤷♂️!
I'll be honest with you I don't understand NFTs. I don't invest in them as a result. Like I understand crypto and it's concept but what the fuck controls the value of an NFT?
Alright but in the sense of Crypto I can evaluate a project and if I see potential I can buy into their coin/token. I can make an educated guess based on my research and how I feel about a project.
With an NFT am I just saying "This looks cool I bet the public will think this is cool and worth more?"
I am not bashing NFTs I just don't really understand and as a result can't value them properly.
NFTs are just really complicated since they have a lot of uses. Just that the most common use right now is really crappy art, which makes people think it's a joke.
Personally I don't like NFTs mainly cause it doesn't really solve anything. Like for art, there is already ownership their since if it's a custom piece, you would have a (most likely) recorded conversation with what you would want and a agreed upon price, with receipts if you paid with something like PayPal or Cashapp. Therefore, you own the art cause you literally have proof.
When it comes to gaming, you can use NFTs to move skins and stuff to other games. But like, that already happens in games like Warzone and standalone CoDs. Also that would imply that a company like Ubisoft would allow skins from Activision in their game, which doesn't make sense at all for them to do. Not to mention, people want to play games to have fun, not play games just to reach this arbitrary number to get an NFT like Ubisoft tried to do with Ghost Recon.
NFTs sound good on paper, but in execution I just don't see why we should use it compared to more traditional methods that work just as well.
One of the good aspects is being able to trace back ownership of a piece. In art, for instance, a gift from one famous artist to another often has a more value. I personally see NFTs as a more traceable registry of ownership. As such, it only has utility when enforced by an entity, whether it is an auction house, government, or even private individuals when trading.
We already have systems to prove ownership that actually hold up in court, if it were ever necessary. Also, why would the owner of a multi-million dollar asset want to publish where it is on the internet? It’s begging for problems.
>When it comes to gaming, you can use NFTs to move skins and stuff to other games. But like, that already happens in games like Warzone and standalone CoDs. Also that would imply that a company like Ubisoft would allow skins from Activision in their game, which doesn't make sense at all for them to do. Not to mention, people want to play games to have fun, not play games just to reach this arbitrary number to get an NFT like Ubisoft tried to do with Ghost Recon.
This is one of the most exciting aspects of NFTs imo. You could have someone develop a game, with its own ecosystems, items, etc. and then someone could make a spinoff of that game and import ownership of items over. But I also think it's a deterrent to adoption people big companies want their things to only be available on their own games/systems.
An NFT is just a symbol of ownership maintained on the blockchain, rather than a value like a cryptocurrency. A transaction is "Wallet A is transferring ownership of object O to Wallet B". That way you can trace the entire chain of ownership, instead of having to, for example, go to the county courthouse and pull title records to make sure the person selling you a car actually owns it and has rights to sell it.
Now imagine a use case for something like DNS, where:
1. there can only be a single owner for a domain
2. the entire list of domains must be regularly published across the entire network
3. Transfer of domains marks an update that everyone needs to respond to
4. There are multiple consumers of the information that span multiple parties
5. A large amount of trust and security is put into the central organization due to the economic consequences of failure/malicious action.
Obviously there's drawbacks as well (transfers are final, no legal recourse for domain takedowns), but it's at least a thought exercise that communicates the potential value for NFTs.
Blockchain in general fits into a set of solutions for "zero trust" problems. If you're familiar w/ the [Byzantine Generals problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault), blockchains are designed as a solution for that.
In the case of monkey jpegs basically yes, you're betting on the popularity. But that's also the case with real life art too. It may or may not end up being worth anything. But the use cases of NFTs go far beyond monkey jpegs. They could serve as a proof of ownership to literally anything.
If for example you buy a property, traditionally you and the seller sign a bunch of documents and those are your proof of ownership, but only because there is an entire legal system that recognizes these documents as proof that you own the property and will enforce your claim on that basis. But suppose the apocalypse comes and there is no more law. Your papers would then be worthless and mocked like NFTs are now. "Haha, you think this digital token means you own this picture? I can just screenshot it." Vs "Haha, you think these papers mean you own this house? I can just take it from you."
What I mean to say is, there is no reason that NFTs couldn't one day be considered a legitimate proof of ownership recognized and enforced by law. The current hype is a case of missing the forest for the trees, both from the people buying and selling monkey jpegs and the people memeing about screenshotting said jpegs.
>but only because there is an entire legal system that recognizes these documents as proof that you own the property and will enforce your claim on that basis. But suppose the apocalypse comes and there is no more law. Your papers would then be worthless and mocked like NFTs are now.
Ok. But that's literally exactly the same if you used blockchain and nfts. If the law means nothing, so does your "proof of ownership" on the blockchain.
I still fail to see how NFTs accomplish anything in a better way than existing solutions?
They digitalize ownership without having to rely on a trusted third party (aka a centralized server), at least the recording and storage side of it. And it's more secure too, what gets on the blockchain stays there forever and cannot be deleted or forged as long as the network is big enough to not get 51% attacked. Although you're right that the ownership still has to be enforced somehow.
Edit: and of course private keys have to be taken care of, that can be a bit of a pain
So like. You can buy a print of the Mona Lisa right? But only 1 person actually owns it and it's verified to be theirs right? Nfts are like that but online. You are the verified owner of the nft, everyone else can copy it and have their own, but it's not the authentic version of said media.
It's for rich people to trade art n shit. Mostly used for laundering money, but is cool cause like you own said nft.
I will end this by saying. They're a good thing for artists because it adds value to their work and allows them a way to digitally sell their artwork authentically. Just uhhh gotta let the actual artist be the ones selling the nfts instead of them being mostly stolen from the artist
The US dollar is used for exchange drugs, human trafficking and for funding terrorist groups all the time. Doesn’t mean it’s the dollar’s fault though.
Same goes for crypto.
Legally I might add, the people who abuse the dollar for crimes the most are banks and rich people who can afford the fines or are too big to fail, effectively making it fine for them to continue to do so.
Exactly, we would still kill each other with sticks and stones if that's all we had. And I doubt it would reduce the amount of death, it would just be spread out way more. Kinda like the justification for dropping the atom bomb on Japan.
Hate to break it to you, but the internet would be fine. Sure, there are lots of AWS websites and services these days, but Amazon data centers going down doesn't mean that Crypto or the internet would cease to function, at all.
If crypto is once exists only in centralized form (after fiat currencys are non exist) , it will be worse then fiat. It mean total controll. Somebody just post or do something the gov dosnt like and they shut your only available wallet, and they got you.
CBDCs aren't even crypto. I'm not really even sure why we associate them the same way.
They might operate at a blockchain, but I don't think they'll have a public explorer. No government is going to allow a senator's milk purchase available to the public.
Sure, they will love a currency that can be tracked and timestamped but not publicly viewable.
That's just a database, though
Make a better cryptocurrency then where it's actually beneficial to have self custody. Right now, self custody just loses you money since you're about 10x more likely to lose your own coins statistically than to get rug pulled on an exchange.
It's the fault of the designer of a product if the intended way of using it has less utility than the unintended way, not the fault of the user.
Decentralization is still the best for *money*
However at this moment in time it is not black and white, as the proceedings of the current situation could (in the long run, hypothetically) lead to a world where crypto isn’t able to save us from the existing system that’s been beating people down for centuries
But yes, crypto is the move
I mean, sure, Russia can use it to bypass sanctions. But Ukraine could also use it to get funds when their own system will be fucked by the Russians. That's another way to funnel funds to Ukraine and Russia can't do shit about it.
Why is it useless to buy missiles in crypto? If I can already buy food, cars, clothing, music, soap, and drugs with crypto, why is it useless to buy missiles with it? Do you even need to change it to fiat at all? I have personally seen landlords accept crypto as rent money, sooo why is it useless?
Edit: I’m like 900% positive I saw weapons for sale on the Silk Road in exchange for cryptocurrency. I’d say the process is similar.
I think you're confused. Ukraine wouldn't be using the Bitcoin fund to buy ballistic missiles from the Silk Road. They'd be buying them from legitimate weapons dealers with real corporations who are above board. As long as the final recipient of the cryptocurrency is living in an area with stability (internet, electricity) they can convert to fiat at the endpoint.
Russia can take out internet infrastructure in Ukraine. Crypto will be inaccessible. Not every one has access to satellite internet to check and use their crypto wallets.
And people who don't want responsibility don't even deserve freedom really.
Which is actually a very good argument *against* decentralization if you think about it
Oh come on, does it have to be that binary?
Crypto has an important role to play as does macro instituions. Do I love the prospect of a de-fi banking service that I could earn a high APR by staking my investments on? Absolutely.
However if I make between 50k-100k a year and want to purchase a home I'm not going to be able to do that with crypto, most people simply do not have that money or can deal with that volatility or have enough money they can leverage. Until that time comes, regardless how shitty big banks can be, they play a role. Crypto is just one of the tools we have to grow out assets and generate wealth
This is the kind of uneducated drivel I come to this sub for. Finance has been decentralized since time immemorial, central fiat is a relatively new invention. But don't worry about why it was created, just buy into the "zomg they control!1!" narrative.
Those who are predicting that Russia will use crypto to bypass regulations are downright stupid.
The entire market cap of crypto is 1.8T. IIRC, SWIFT processes transactions worth around 1T everyday. There's not enough liquidity or capital in crypto to serve a country's need.
Can some oligarchs buy yatchs with crypto if they aren't allowed to do so in fiat? Yes. Can Russia buy shit it needs or get paid for its natural gas in crypto -- hell no.
Those news sources are just looking for clicks.
I generally agree with your argument but I think it does need some nuance.
North Korea notoriously financed its missile program by stealing hundreds of millions in crypto, which they then turned into hard cash with the help of god only knows how many shady entities, from the Yakuza to various Chinese criminal organizations. Similarly, Iran is known for relying heavily on mining to turn energy, of which it has plenty, into btc and hence into hard cash. These are not just oligarchs buying yatchs but real cases where governments entities rely on crypto to play around sanctions.
Moreover, a scenario in which a state or terrorist entity uses crypto to buy, say, nuclear technology, which Pakistani scientists have long been selling to the highest bidder, is also very much possible.
With this information in mind, while I agree that russia can't rely on crypto to sell gas, I also think that the potentiality of crypto to evade sanctions can't be reduced to "a few oligarchs buying yachts". It's more serious than that and I think it's important we acknowledge that before coming out in favour or against decentralization
Edit: for a nuanced and informed perspective on the whole "crypto and sanctions" thing, you can check [this](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFC-07-2021-0158/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest) recent article (9/21). If you don't have access, the takeaway is that "digital currencies have significantly increased the risk of sanction evasion". There is no literature review thay I know of, but all scientific papers I checked agree on this point.
NK is also 0.1% of Russia's economy. And we don't even know how much missiles they bought.
Things also tend to be cheaper when the people selling them to you want you to have them.
There’s nothing to argue. Decentralization is freedom and with freedom comes consequences.
Russia’s ability to sidestep sanctions is a feature not a bug for better or for worse.
As much as crypto is free to use, we are free to refuse customers and payments who we don't like.
There is no obligation for entities that accept crypto to accept it from people we disagree with or dislike.
Yep.... That's what annoys me. It's like people have this thought that you HAVE to take money for something if it's given to you. You don't.
If you think a wallet belongs to an oligarch or a criminal, you can refuse the crypto. It's not "against defi" to question stuff or refuse to do something you don't want to do.
With defi, we don't typically do our DD with where the money we get comes from. Maybe we should. IDK.
Yes, of course you are right, but crypto's contribution to this fiasco is going to be small, IMO. And those articles are just over blowing it.
As an example, the world needs to be more worried about other countries extending line of credit to Russia using their own currencies. Chinese banks stopped lending in USD and perhaps are going to be lending them in Yuan [source](https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/china-restrict-financing-russia-ukraina-invasion)
Compared to all that, even if Russia uses crypto for bypassing sanctions, the impact of that would be peanuts.
Yes, but in the end they use the cash to fund their stuff. That's where the hits are being made. They can't use this cash to import things.
So in the end there is no difference. They'll be cut off from the outside world either way.
Russia won’t use crypto to bypass sanctions, but normal Russian people who aren’t part of this war can use crypto to bypass sanctions
Crypto is always the answer for freedom
"decentralization!!!" "oh wait i just got rug pulled, goberment can you help me find these guys?, oh and the meantime, can you cash out this 1 btc cuz i need goberment money to buy food"
Yeah basically.
It doesn't need to be an all or nothing system. I understand a lot of Libertarians love the prospect of crypto and less government which is there prerogative. I am indefinitely more left leaning than that and believe it all has a role to play.
De-fi to me is an extremely important tool to help working class people generate more wealth on their money by cutting out the monopolistic practices of big banks. However, currently, big banks do have a big role to play and are a necessary evil. I currently can't get a mortgage with de-fi. If I get hacked or scammed I can't call a de-fi customer service to get my money back.
Bigger government role in regulations or at the very least doing due diligence into crypto projects should be levied. Do we need another scummy youtuber rug pulling their fans for a quick buck with absolutely no legal repercussions?
That’s wtf I’m saying. Just like the clowns who say mass adoption is inevitable then get their panties knotted up because they see banks and governments adopting the tech. The cognitive dissonance is hilarious😂
Centralised approach has a place in enterprise applications but it should be no where near commercial stuff.
Decentralisation is by far the most important aspect of crypto for me
The same point has come up around freedom of speech throughout my life. People like to only view things through their lens and benefit. Applying said rights to everyone always seems more difficult, for some, than it should be.
Until everyday stores accept payment In BTC like our boy in El Salvador you can’t say fuck the governments and live off the grid. Not one person can give me an example of how to spend 10M in crypto, stashed in a wallet the government doesn’t know about, in the free world. Let’s hear it how do you do it anonymously without having the feds rolling up on you in no time??!!
Let them cry harder, bitcoin is censorship resistant. Actually, even if they kick Russia off SWIFT this will be great news to us because Russia won't just cease to exist, stop all trade, curl in the corner and die a painful death but instead they will be working on alternatives to the fiat trash Fed reserve debt note system which perhaps will finally be the motive for major economies to get out of their comfort zone and ditch the dollar in favor of Bitcoin or a different payment system.
Sanctions are the way we currently punish nuclear powers. If they can get around sanctions, what do you think that will do to international conflicts like this one?
Decentralization means crime in this world, not freedom: manipulation by people and systems smarter and more connected than you. The same criminal, corrupt, or wealthy and powerful will still control it; there will simply be fewer checks and balances to control them.
If you want decentralization and "freedom", you don't get to complain when you're ripped off by organized crime (or even major corporations, who can manipulate it to their benefit without punishment), which will just happen more and more. I love crypto, but its as notable for the amount of theft and scams as for anything else.
I can't up-vote this enough. U hit the nail on the head. I hear a lot of belly-aching about Russia or the Jan 06 riot, that both used crypto to fund their operation. U don't get to cherry pick which side uses it based on your geo-political/national political beliefs. De-centralization is just that. It doesn't take sides.
Exactly this is a great example of people that want their cake, ice cream and the cherry on top and it’s not enough.
Decentralization can be a great thing but you also need to take in account of what it also can be used for as well. Russia is not the first to skirt sanctions with Crypto. Just look at our fine friends in Iran for another example.
That’s what the fuck I’m saying! Crypto is suddenly bad when it doesn’t fit your views? Then your views fucking suck if crypto has to fit yours and yours dont fit it if you cry for decentralization. That is the reality of decentralization.
Those sanctions will be the booster for crypto.
The sanctions also will benefits the Ucranians that left the country.
Crypto and NFTs can be sent directly, with no by pass.
All depends of who do you support.
Most agreed.
In a somewhat similar way, if we are truly democratic, we need to contend that there are countries that prefer a different system from us, be it socialist or not.
Agreed. Decentralization is the way to go. And it's not like it's impossible to still block Russia, all they need to do is figure out their wallet addresses and blacklist any accounts they move funds to. And if they try to switch it all to privacy coins to get around that they'll lose tons because there's not enough liquidity in privacy coins to handle that kind of volume.
This particular shortcoming of crypto is the very reason it is doomed. The niaivity of people who believe it can transcend central bank currencies illustrates why it’s proponents do not understand the multi-faceted function of currency.
There are two possibilities looming.
1. Russia finds it cannot use crypto to make a difference to its economic problems - in which case crypto is revealed to be a damp squib in any global economic sense.
2. Russia finds it can use crypto to make a difference - in which case western governments will act (rightly) to cripple crypto.
In the current geo-political environment, crypto’s claimed ability to be an entirely independent store of value and system of exchange is precisely why it will find itself (to borrow a phrase) on the wrong side of history.
went on my ship and traveled to a different universe. From a fully decentralized world news article "A large amount of terrorist supporter donated billion of dollars to groups around the world and we can't do anything about it.”
Regulation isn't always a negative though. I think the barrier should be higher to create new coins for instance.
I think the best approach is to allow for new crypto to be centralized at the onset and put in requirements that it must pass the Howey test for decentralization after a number of months.
Things that I don't like about crypto.
1.Government have the power to seize crypto.
2.IRS has seized $1.2 billion worth of cryptocurrency this fiscal year
3.Crypto is not private
4.People are not protected from crypto hackers
5 What happens with my crypto if there is big cyber attacks an the internet shutdown.
Russia says that it has successfully run tests to show it could disconnect itself from the internet and create their own or who knows what because world's internet is coordinated by a private-sector nonprofit organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which was set up by the United States in 1998 to take over the activities performed for 30 years, amazingly, by a single ponytailed professor in California.
FUCK IT I WILL STICK WITH GOLD SILVER AND GUNS
The question is if anyone should even have the power to shutdown a global infrastructure like the internet or a monetary network. Because the "sanction" thing only works if the system is controlled by the "good guys".
Imagine Swift was controlled by Russia. That would give them enough power that no one would even think about any other sanctions.
But swift isn't controlled by a single entity. I'm sure there is a central server somewhere it routes through, but it's a group of nations that all cooperate.
Now, is that system at total risk at the whims of global politics? Of course, but it's the best FIAT system we have.
Before lightning network, Ripple had a good use case to counteract that central power, but it is centralized in its own way.
Another thing to add is that some western countries exercise blanket ban concerning **all** russian citizens regardless whether they support Putin's regime or not. Nation states think in terms of collective guilt.
Given that, crypto gives economic liberation (including independence from their regimes) to Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans and other heavily sanctioned nationals.
Yes, bad people will also use crypto to bypass sanctions. But on the **net**, crypto brings more good than bad.
This is a point I have been foolish enough to try and make on the wrong threads.
If Putin cared about Russian citizens then he wouldn't have gone to war. The sanctions are going to destroy civilians long before he feels or cares about them. If they support him then one could argue they deserve it, but not all do, and there are plenty of lives that should not be destroyed by a dictator's arrogant decisions.
I think more than a few people in here don't know the meaning of some of the phrases and words they use.
We need to decentralize the hypotenuse of the flux capacitor!
What?! Are you crazy, you can't decentralize that! That could invert the blockchain and cause a death cross!
Don't you know that crossing the streams will lead to protonic reversal which will destroy the universe!
If I could exfoliate i would be regulated at your speak
My TA proves otherwise
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
😆😆😆
When I was an IT there were times I totally told people all I had to do was adjust the timer on their computers flux capacitor to fix the problem. LOL they would be like oh that’s all. Thanks. Hahahahha
GREAT SCOTT!!! 
Lol
/r/vxjunkies
I think 90% of the people here don't know what they are talking about.
Almost every Redditor who's into cryptocurrency has interest that begins and ends at "Number go up."
Big Number make Monke happy
Lol, also true.
I'm pretty sure I've never seen anyone use the definition of "decentralized" as it relates to computer networks, when they refer to crypto as "decentralized" even though having many copies and validators spread across the world *is the actual point to decentralization* and not "hehe no laws that say you can't do this."
[удалено]
*Proof of Stake: They kill vampires*
Which ever way we look at it , Decentralization is still the best for crypto
*Bitcoin is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part* I think lots of people still don't know why crypto started 🤷♂️!
Lots of people still think that crypto is just about NFTs.
And all of them think NFTs are jpegs
I'll be honest with you I don't understand NFTs. I don't invest in them as a result. Like I understand crypto and it's concept but what the fuck controls the value of an NFT?
The value is whatever price a buyer and seller can agree upon. The real value of NFTs isn't just a jpeg you can use as your profile picture tho.
Alright but in the sense of Crypto I can evaluate a project and if I see potential I can buy into their coin/token. I can make an educated guess based on my research and how I feel about a project. With an NFT am I just saying "This looks cool I bet the public will think this is cool and worth more?" I am not bashing NFTs I just don't really understand and as a result can't value them properly.
NFTs are just really complicated since they have a lot of uses. Just that the most common use right now is really crappy art, which makes people think it's a joke. Personally I don't like NFTs mainly cause it doesn't really solve anything. Like for art, there is already ownership their since if it's a custom piece, you would have a (most likely) recorded conversation with what you would want and a agreed upon price, with receipts if you paid with something like PayPal or Cashapp. Therefore, you own the art cause you literally have proof. When it comes to gaming, you can use NFTs to move skins and stuff to other games. But like, that already happens in games like Warzone and standalone CoDs. Also that would imply that a company like Ubisoft would allow skins from Activision in their game, which doesn't make sense at all for them to do. Not to mention, people want to play games to have fun, not play games just to reach this arbitrary number to get an NFT like Ubisoft tried to do with Ghost Recon. NFTs sound good on paper, but in execution I just don't see why we should use it compared to more traditional methods that work just as well.
One of the good aspects is being able to trace back ownership of a piece. In art, for instance, a gift from one famous artist to another often has a more value. I personally see NFTs as a more traceable registry of ownership. As such, it only has utility when enforced by an entity, whether it is an auction house, government, or even private individuals when trading.
We already have systems to prove ownership that actually hold up in court, if it were ever necessary. Also, why would the owner of a multi-million dollar asset want to publish where it is on the internet? It’s begging for problems.
>When it comes to gaming, you can use NFTs to move skins and stuff to other games. But like, that already happens in games like Warzone and standalone CoDs. Also that would imply that a company like Ubisoft would allow skins from Activision in their game, which doesn't make sense at all for them to do. Not to mention, people want to play games to have fun, not play games just to reach this arbitrary number to get an NFT like Ubisoft tried to do with Ghost Recon. This is one of the most exciting aspects of NFTs imo. You could have someone develop a game, with its own ecosystems, items, etc. and then someone could make a spinoff of that game and import ownership of items over. But I also think it's a deterrent to adoption people big companies want their things to only be available on their own games/systems.
An NFT is just a symbol of ownership maintained on the blockchain, rather than a value like a cryptocurrency. A transaction is "Wallet A is transferring ownership of object O to Wallet B". That way you can trace the entire chain of ownership, instead of having to, for example, go to the county courthouse and pull title records to make sure the person selling you a car actually owns it and has rights to sell it. Now imagine a use case for something like DNS, where: 1. there can only be a single owner for a domain 2. the entire list of domains must be regularly published across the entire network 3. Transfer of domains marks an update that everyone needs to respond to 4. There are multiple consumers of the information that span multiple parties 5. A large amount of trust and security is put into the central organization due to the economic consequences of failure/malicious action. Obviously there's drawbacks as well (transfers are final, no legal recourse for domain takedowns), but it's at least a thought exercise that communicates the potential value for NFTs.
The problem is, why ever use a blockchain for this? It's less efficient and more comicated than existing record keeping solutions.
Blockchain in general fits into a set of solutions for "zero trust" problems. If you're familiar w/ the [Byzantine Generals problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault), blockchains are designed as a solution for that.
In the case of monkey jpegs basically yes, you're betting on the popularity. But that's also the case with real life art too. It may or may not end up being worth anything. But the use cases of NFTs go far beyond monkey jpegs. They could serve as a proof of ownership to literally anything. If for example you buy a property, traditionally you and the seller sign a bunch of documents and those are your proof of ownership, but only because there is an entire legal system that recognizes these documents as proof that you own the property and will enforce your claim on that basis. But suppose the apocalypse comes and there is no more law. Your papers would then be worthless and mocked like NFTs are now. "Haha, you think this digital token means you own this picture? I can just screenshot it." Vs "Haha, you think these papers mean you own this house? I can just take it from you." What I mean to say is, there is no reason that NFTs couldn't one day be considered a legitimate proof of ownership recognized and enforced by law. The current hype is a case of missing the forest for the trees, both from the people buying and selling monkey jpegs and the people memeing about screenshotting said jpegs.
>but only because there is an entire legal system that recognizes these documents as proof that you own the property and will enforce your claim on that basis. But suppose the apocalypse comes and there is no more law. Your papers would then be worthless and mocked like NFTs are now. Ok. But that's literally exactly the same if you used blockchain and nfts. If the law means nothing, so does your "proof of ownership" on the blockchain. I still fail to see how NFTs accomplish anything in a better way than existing solutions?
They digitalize ownership without having to rely on a trusted third party (aka a centralized server), at least the recording and storage side of it. And it's more secure too, what gets on the blockchain stays there forever and cannot be deleted or forged as long as the network is big enough to not get 51% attacked. Although you're right that the ownership still has to be enforced somehow. Edit: and of course private keys have to be taken care of, that can be a bit of a pain
So like. You can buy a print of the Mona Lisa right? But only 1 person actually owns it and it's verified to be theirs right? Nfts are like that but online. You are the verified owner of the nft, everyone else can copy it and have their own, but it's not the authentic version of said media. It's for rich people to trade art n shit. Mostly used for laundering money, but is cool cause like you own said nft. I will end this by saying. They're a good thing for artists because it adds value to their work and allows them a way to digitally sell their artwork authentically. Just uhhh gotta let the actual artist be the ones selling the nfts instead of them being mostly stolen from the artist
Crypto started as a reaction to Global Financial Crisis of 2008
Not according do Craig Wright lolol.
*People think crypto is the new casino.*
Those people all went to Monero, many bitcoiners are welcoming the banks in.
[удалено]
That's the (sometimes ugly) beauty of decentralization.
True freedom comes with it's ups and downs
And I choose true freedom.
And so do the Ukrainians, who are arguably benefiting as much or more than Russia from crypto.
[удалено]
I agree. US or their allies should send weapons/money
[удалено]
“arguably"
How is Ukraine benefiting from crypto?
https://twitter.com/ukraine/status/1497594592438497282?s=12
I’d take the downs over living my life as a stooge but I can understand why some don’t feel the same way.
[удалено]
The US dollar is used for exchange drugs, human trafficking and for funding terrorist groups all the time. Doesn’t mean it’s the dollar’s fault though. Same goes for crypto.
Legally I might add, the people who abuse the dollar for crimes the most are banks and rich people who can afford the fines or are too big to fail, effectively making it fine for them to continue to do so.
Overdraft fees lol
>it is a tool in the killer's hand" It can also be viewed as an extra tool in the citizen's hand. It's an alternative to banking we all needed.
Technology has merits and demerits. The outcome depends upon the users
Technology is the both greatest and worst thing we have. We, humans, determine it to be whether great or bad.
Exactly, we would still kill each other with sticks and stones if that's all we had. And I doubt it would reduce the amount of death, it would just be spread out way more. Kinda like the justification for dropping the atom bomb on Japan.
Crypto is a double-edged sword with one sharp side and one side you don’t want to get your fingers too close to when chopping vegetables
Having freedom gives more power to others.
The internet is hardly free to all. It’s controlled entirely by governments and heavily censored/monitored depending on your location.
Yes. It's heavily influenced by propaganda too
I have some bad news for you about the Internet and decentralization. The Internet as we know it would be unusable if Amazon goes down.
Hate to break it to you, but the internet would be fine. Sure, there are lots of AWS websites and services these days, but Amazon data centers going down doesn't mean that Crypto or the internet would cease to function, at all.
AWS and Azure holds basically every important site online besides government pages. Did you not see what happened in the AWS outages?
If crypto is once exists only in centralized form (after fiat currencys are non exist) , it will be worse then fiat. It mean total controll. Somebody just post or do something the gov dosnt like and they shut your only available wallet, and they got you.
That's what CDBC's are all about
CBDCs aren't even crypto. I'm not really even sure why we associate them the same way. They might operate at a blockchain, but I don't think they'll have a public explorer. No government is going to allow a senator's milk purchase available to the public. Sure, they will love a currency that can be tracked and timestamped but not publicly viewable. That's just a database, though
Mmm, delicious “senators milk”
Now I'm imagining someone sucking Ted Cruz tittie.
I agree. It is weird how people even associate CBDCs with crypto. They have nothing in common.
It's hard to achieve decentralization when 90% of crypto users are on exchanges
Make a better cryptocurrency then where it's actually beneficial to have self custody. Right now, self custody just loses you money since you're about 10x more likely to lose your own coins statistically than to get rug pulled on an exchange. It's the fault of the designer of a product if the intended way of using it has less utility than the unintended way, not the fault of the user.
And sellers of actual goods only accept fiat. That’s the puzzle. CEX, government, fiat, goods. It’s a fuck fest.
Decentralization is best for the internet.
Imagine this becomes a case for the powers that be to bring out propaganda against crypto….
Decentralization: **Pros & Cons** People only want pros
Wasn’t Putin trying to ban crypto in Russia
Correct. It is the ONLY way for regular people to control their financial future.
For lots of things
We need to decentralize our thinking too
Its a double edged sword really
Decentralization is still the best for *money* However at this moment in time it is not black and white, as the proceedings of the current situation could (in the long run, hypothetically) lead to a world where crypto isn’t able to save us from the existing system that’s been beating people down for centuries But yes, crypto is the move
I mean, sure, Russia can use it to bypass sanctions. But Ukraine could also use it to get funds when their own system will be fucked by the Russians. That's another way to funnel funds to Ukraine and Russia can't do shit about it.
there is already a million dollar bitcoin donation account created for supporting Ukraine.
[удалено]
I'll give u one Satoshi per ICBM. Dealio?
Why is it useless to buy missiles in crypto? If I can already buy food, cars, clothing, music, soap, and drugs with crypto, why is it useless to buy missiles with it? Do you even need to change it to fiat at all? I have personally seen landlords accept crypto as rent money, sooo why is it useless? Edit: I’m like 900% positive I saw weapons for sale on the Silk Road in exchange for cryptocurrency. I’d say the process is similar.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think you're confused. Ukraine wouldn't be using the Bitcoin fund to buy ballistic missiles from the Silk Road. They'd be buying them from legitimate weapons dealers with real corporations who are above board. As long as the final recipient of the cryptocurrency is living in an area with stability (internet, electricity) they can convert to fiat at the endpoint.
[удалено]
Russia can take out internet infrastructure in Ukraine. Crypto will be inaccessible. Not every one has access to satellite internet to check and use their crypto wallets.
And nothing the rest of the world can do about Russia getting illegal funds either.
The knife cuts both ways. You have provided such an excellent description of the utility of crypto.
Yeah I'm noticing a large amount of people aren't such big fans of the decentralized permissionless aspect of crypto anymore.
Some people are ok to be controlled, in this case some people are ok with fiat system so decentralization aspect of crypto is weird to them.
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility. - Freud
And people who don't want responsibility don't even deserve freedom really. Which is actually a very good argument *against* decentralization if you think about it
True freedom means owning up your decisions and choices. There’s no employer or govt you can blame anymore. You are what choices you make.
Oh come on, does it have to be that binary? Crypto has an important role to play as does macro instituions. Do I love the prospect of a de-fi banking service that I could earn a high APR by staking my investments on? Absolutely. However if I make between 50k-100k a year and want to purchase a home I'm not going to be able to do that with crypto, most people simply do not have that money or can deal with that volatility or have enough money they can leverage. Until that time comes, regardless how shitty big banks can be, they play a role. Crypto is just one of the tools we have to grow out assets and generate wealth
Sssht, it's r/cryptocurrency, you just confuse people with pragmatism and facts
This is the kind of uneducated drivel I come to this sub for. Finance has been decentralized since time immemorial, central fiat is a relatively new invention. But don't worry about why it was created, just buy into the "zomg they control!1!" narrative.
Those who are predicting that Russia will use crypto to bypass regulations are downright stupid. The entire market cap of crypto is 1.8T. IIRC, SWIFT processes transactions worth around 1T everyday. There's not enough liquidity or capital in crypto to serve a country's need. Can some oligarchs buy yatchs with crypto if they aren't allowed to do so in fiat? Yes. Can Russia buy shit it needs or get paid for its natural gas in crypto -- hell no. Those news sources are just looking for clicks.
Russia won't need to send 1T a day.
Russia's yearly GDP was 1.4T
I generally agree with your argument but I think it does need some nuance. North Korea notoriously financed its missile program by stealing hundreds of millions in crypto, which they then turned into hard cash with the help of god only knows how many shady entities, from the Yakuza to various Chinese criminal organizations. Similarly, Iran is known for relying heavily on mining to turn energy, of which it has plenty, into btc and hence into hard cash. These are not just oligarchs buying yatchs but real cases where governments entities rely on crypto to play around sanctions. Moreover, a scenario in which a state or terrorist entity uses crypto to buy, say, nuclear technology, which Pakistani scientists have long been selling to the highest bidder, is also very much possible. With this information in mind, while I agree that russia can't rely on crypto to sell gas, I also think that the potentiality of crypto to evade sanctions can't be reduced to "a few oligarchs buying yachts". It's more serious than that and I think it's important we acknowledge that before coming out in favour or against decentralization Edit: for a nuanced and informed perspective on the whole "crypto and sanctions" thing, you can check [this](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFC-07-2021-0158/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest) recent article (9/21). If you don't have access, the takeaway is that "digital currencies have significantly increased the risk of sanction evasion". There is no literature review thay I know of, but all scientific papers I checked agree on this point.
NK is also 0.1% of Russia's economy. And we don't even know how much missiles they bought. Things also tend to be cheaper when the people selling them to you want you to have them.
There’s nothing to argue. Decentralization is freedom and with freedom comes consequences. Russia’s ability to sidestep sanctions is a feature not a bug for better or for worse.
As much as crypto is free to use, we are free to refuse customers and payments who we don't like. There is no obligation for entities that accept crypto to accept it from people we disagree with or dislike.
Exactly
Yep.... That's what annoys me. It's like people have this thought that you HAVE to take money for something if it's given to you. You don't. If you think a wallet belongs to an oligarch or a criminal, you can refuse the crypto. It's not "against defi" to question stuff or refuse to do something you don't want to do. With defi, we don't typically do our DD with where the money we get comes from. Maybe we should. IDK.
Yes, of course you are right, but crypto's contribution to this fiasco is going to be small, IMO. And those articles are just over blowing it. As an example, the world needs to be more worried about other countries extending line of credit to Russia using their own currencies. Chinese banks stopped lending in USD and perhaps are going to be lending them in Yuan [source](https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/china-restrict-financing-russia-ukraina-invasion) Compared to all that, even if Russia uses crypto for bypassing sanctions, the impact of that would be peanuts.
Yes, but in the end they use the cash to fund their stuff. That's where the hits are being made. They can't use this cash to import things. So in the end there is no difference. They'll be cut off from the outside world either way.
Russia won’t use crypto to bypass sanctions, but normal Russian people who aren’t part of this war can use crypto to bypass sanctions Crypto is always the answer for freedom
And the government is almost always the ones restricting that freedom. It's their role, no surprise.
"decentralization!!!" "oh wait i just got rug pulled, goberment can you help me find these guys?, oh and the meantime, can you cash out this 1 btc cuz i need goberment money to buy food"
Yeah basically. It doesn't need to be an all or nothing system. I understand a lot of Libertarians love the prospect of crypto and less government which is there prerogative. I am indefinitely more left leaning than that and believe it all has a role to play. De-fi to me is an extremely important tool to help working class people generate more wealth on their money by cutting out the monopolistic practices of big banks. However, currently, big banks do have a big role to play and are a necessary evil. I currently can't get a mortgage with de-fi. If I get hacked or scammed I can't call a de-fi customer service to get my money back. Bigger government role in regulations or at the very least doing due diligence into crypto projects should be levied. Do we need another scummy youtuber rug pulling their fans for a quick buck with absolutely no legal repercussions?
That’s wtf I’m saying. Just like the clowns who say mass adoption is inevitable then get their panties knotted up because they see banks and governments adopting the tech. The cognitive dissonance is hilarious😂
I choose decentralization. The path is too dark a road if we move towards centralization.
Decentralization is the right answer in my opinion.
Decentralisation is literally the most important tenet of crypto imo. Can't lose it ever
Without decentralization, we might as well store transactions inside a fast database
Might as well use SQL instead of blockchain if you just want speed lmao
Might as well use SOL if we don’t care about decentralization
This is why major banks buying billions of $ in BTC, ETH, etc. is both bullish and unsettling
We may surrender the juice, but we will never surrender decentralization.
[удалено]
Whenever I do a multiple choice test I always choose (D)ecentralization
You can only build fair systems. It’s up to people to decide if they want to play fair or not.
Most of us do. Some that are in power don't.
Warmongers like Putin don’t
Centralised approach has a place in enterprise applications but it should be no where near commercial stuff. Decentralisation is by far the most important aspect of crypto for me
If we are we for crypto, we are here for decentralization. It's 2022 and lots of people still don't know what crypto is! 🤷♂️🤷♂️
The path is dark and full of terrors
I mean crypto has no point at all if its centralized
The same point has come up around freedom of speech throughout my life. People like to only view things through their lens and benefit. Applying said rights to everyone always seems more difficult, for some, than it should be.
Ah yes crypto subreddit space, where people lack a sense of irony
Every advantage has also a disadvantage…
Every disadvantage also has an advantage...
One man's trash is another man's treasure
Until everyday stores accept payment In BTC like our boy in El Salvador you can’t say fuck the governments and live off the grid. Not one person can give me an example of how to spend 10M in crypto, stashed in a wallet the government doesn’t know about, in the free world. Let’s hear it how do you do it anonymously without having the feds rolling up on you in no time??!!
Just like the internet is free to use for all, albeit some things are controlled more than others.
This is 2022, where hypocrisy and not actually knowing what you're saying, reign supreme
Counterpoint: You can cry about whatever the fuck you want.
Let them cry harder, bitcoin is censorship resistant. Actually, even if they kick Russia off SWIFT this will be great news to us because Russia won't just cease to exist, stop all trade, curl in the corner and die a painful death but instead they will be working on alternatives to the fiat trash Fed reserve debt note system which perhaps will finally be the motive for major economies to get out of their comfort zone and ditch the dollar in favor of Bitcoin or a different payment system.
Sanctions are the way we currently punish nuclear powers. If they can get around sanctions, what do you think that will do to international conflicts like this one?
Decentralization means crime in this world, not freedom: manipulation by people and systems smarter and more connected than you. The same criminal, corrupt, or wealthy and powerful will still control it; there will simply be fewer checks and balances to control them. If you want decentralization and "freedom", you don't get to complain when you're ripped off by organized crime (or even major corporations, who can manipulate it to their benefit without punishment), which will just happen more and more. I love crypto, but its as notable for the amount of theft and scams as for anything else.
[удалено]
People are never satisfied, always wanting something else
Everyone's just crying nowadays. For every post on the front page, there would be a counter post.
Let Putin DCA and it keeps dropping
Excuse me, I’m an American. I will cry for whatever I want.
I can't up-vote this enough. U hit the nail on the head. I hear a lot of belly-aching about Russia or the Jan 06 riot, that both used crypto to fund their operation. U don't get to cherry pick which side uses it based on your geo-political/national political beliefs. De-centralization is just that. It doesn't take sides.
These are not the same people saying these things.
Exactly this is a great example of people that want their cake, ice cream and the cherry on top and it’s not enough. Decentralization can be a great thing but you also need to take in account of what it also can be used for as well. Russia is not the first to skirt sanctions with Crypto. Just look at our fine friends in Iran for another example.
Bypassing international financial regulations is literally the main feature of crypto, have you boys not been paying attention for the last decade?
Hail the freedom
That’s what the fuck I’m saying! Crypto is suddenly bad when it doesn’t fit your views? Then your views fucking suck if crypto has to fit yours and yours dont fit it if you cry for decentralization. That is the reality of decentralization.
This might backfire terribly
You can't cry that borders are evil and nationalism is evil and arming citizens is evil then cry that Russia crossed an imaginary line.
Those sanctions will be the booster for crypto. The sanctions also will benefits the Ucranians that left the country. Crypto and NFTs can be sent directly, with no by pass. All depends of who do you support.
Most agreed. In a somewhat similar way, if we are truly democratic, we need to contend that there are countries that prefer a different system from us, be it socialist or not.
Why not just seize their crypto wallets?
You get bad and illicit activity even with centralisation it doesn't matter. Every system will have bad, rotten apples
Agreed. Decentralization is the way to go. And it's not like it's impossible to still block Russia, all they need to do is figure out their wallet addresses and blacklist any accounts they move funds to. And if they try to switch it all to privacy coins to get around that they'll lose tons because there's not enough liquidity in privacy coins to handle that kind of volume.
OP, quit making sense, the smooth brains will get upset.
Crypto is shit without decentralization
This particular shortcoming of crypto is the very reason it is doomed. The niaivity of people who believe it can transcend central bank currencies illustrates why it’s proponents do not understand the multi-faceted function of currency. There are two possibilities looming. 1. Russia finds it cannot use crypto to make a difference to its economic problems - in which case crypto is revealed to be a damp squib in any global economic sense. 2. Russia finds it can use crypto to make a difference - in which case western governments will act (rightly) to cripple crypto. In the current geo-political environment, crypto’s claimed ability to be an entirely independent store of value and system of exchange is precisely why it will find itself (to borrow a phrase) on the wrong side of history.
This is why people screaming against regulations they don’t actually know how the world works
You can't have a free, decentralised system and then say you want to exclude people you don't like. It's ridiculous in every sense.
went on my ship and traveled to a different universe. From a fully decentralized world news article "A large amount of terrorist supporter donated billion of dollars to groups around the world and we can't do anything about it.”
You are confusing decentralization with (lack of) regulation. Crypto will be increasingly regulated every year, you can bet your house on it.
Regulation isn't always a negative though. I think the barrier should be higher to create new coins for instance. I think the best approach is to allow for new crypto to be centralized at the onset and put in requirements that it must pass the Howey test for decentralization after a number of months.
Here's to hoping Putin gets rugged.
Why do ppl want a currency to be untraceable
*laughs in xmr
Things that I don't like about crypto. 1.Government have the power to seize crypto. 2.IRS has seized $1.2 billion worth of cryptocurrency this fiscal year 3.Crypto is not private 4.People are not protected from crypto hackers 5 What happens with my crypto if there is big cyber attacks an the internet shutdown. Russia says that it has successfully run tests to show it could disconnect itself from the internet and create their own or who knows what because world's internet is coordinated by a private-sector nonprofit organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which was set up by the United States in 1998 to take over the activities performed for 30 years, amazingly, by a single ponytailed professor in California. FUCK IT I WILL STICK WITH GOLD SILVER AND GUNS
The question is if anyone should even have the power to shutdown a global infrastructure like the internet or a monetary network. Because the "sanction" thing only works if the system is controlled by the "good guys". Imagine Swift was controlled by Russia. That would give them enough power that no one would even think about any other sanctions.
But swift isn't controlled by a single entity. I'm sure there is a central server somewhere it routes through, but it's a group of nations that all cooperate. Now, is that system at total risk at the whims of global politics? Of course, but it's the best FIAT system we have. Before lightning network, Ripple had a good use case to counteract that central power, but it is centralized in its own way.
Another thing to add is that some western countries exercise blanket ban concerning **all** russian citizens regardless whether they support Putin's regime or not. Nation states think in terms of collective guilt. Given that, crypto gives economic liberation (including independence from their regimes) to Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans and other heavily sanctioned nationals. Yes, bad people will also use crypto to bypass sanctions. But on the **net**, crypto brings more good than bad.
This is a point I have been foolish enough to try and make on the wrong threads. If Putin cared about Russian citizens then he wouldn't have gone to war. The sanctions are going to destroy civilians long before he feels or cares about them. If they support him then one could argue they deserve it, but not all do, and there are plenty of lives that should not be destroyed by a dictator's arrogant decisions.
I’m just surprised we didn’t see a huge sell off and dip.
Just another excuse to attack crypto.
Freedom isn't free, there's a hefty fuckin' fee
Considering the crimes of the US Gov, Russia is nothing. I will always believe in decentralisation.