• Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      5 months ago

      Hey, it’s not just fancy autocomplete!

      Thanks to years of innovation, it’s now copyright infringement as well.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 months ago

          Well I’ll be a little more enthused if that would ever apply to regular people as well, rather than just people with several billion in VC money to buy lawyers.

        • Electricblush@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          The thing is its only the copyrights of individual artists and creators that will die to this.

          The big corpos will find a way to protect their value, just you wait.

          They will steal from every single creative in the world and then sue them to hell and back if they use anything they them selves “own”

          This is not a threat to the copyrights that you want to die.

  • Pohl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    The real charlatans were the “the technology has promise” people. No, the technology was dumb.

    • Artyom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      He says on a decentralized platform that became popular because the centralized equivalent became hostile towards their users.

  • PP_GIRL_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    54
    ·
    5 months ago

    Crypto =/= blockchain.

    If you can’t see the utility of blockchain with regards to things like actual, verifiable digital ownership, then I don’t know what to tell you.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      88
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      I want to see what you mean in practical terms, because the only other example besides questionable crypto currencies is NFTs and that was an epic lesson on what not to do. 😅

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        31
        ·
        5 months ago

        No, NFTs do have good uses, but things like image NFTs are just a misappropriation, like SPAM is to email.

        One use case, is clear, independently verifiable ownership of non-tangible things, like Intellectual Property rights. Movie rights for a book adaptation for instance moving between companies in IP sales and mergers/acquisitions.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          63
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          One use case, is clear, independently verifiable ownership of non-tangible things, like Intellectual Property rights.

          Why is your system better than the existing one?

          There is, for example, the first-owner problem in a public blockchain. What happens if I make an NFT saying I own you property? Without an external system, how can you prove your NFT is real and mine isn’t? And if there’s an external system, why not use that instead?

          • RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I thought of that problem the moment when they started explaining their use case. I had no idea there is a name for it, kinda cool. If the blockchain people have a real solution for it, it would be a pretty big deal

            • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s a term from copyright. The First Owner of a work is usually the person who makes a work, and they can then do all sorts of things with that.

        • Robin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          45
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          IP rights is not a problem that needs solving. In fact, the existing legal system has ways of punishing copyright violations whereas the Blockchain does not.

          Supply chain validation is also an example of the block chain “in action”. But the people that are entering the data on the Blockchain are the same people that were typing it in an email yesterday.

          I used to be a fan of the technology as well but so far it hasn’t show itself to be useful. A solution in search of a problem.

        • Metz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          No, NFTs do have good uses

          I hear that now since 12 Years. Its not going to happen.

          • papabobolious@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            Without really having an opinion on the matter - I think there’s a difference in having a use and being adopted.

            Something can be absolutely awesome in theory but useless if no one is using it.

          • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The perfect use case is tickets to live events. One entity creates one NFT for each seat or spot available and can initially sell them. The owner of that NFT (ticket) can then do whatever they want with it without the need for a third party (Ticketmaster) to scalp the shit out of any subsequent transactions.

            Proof of ownership of a single ticket at the time of the event is the end goal, which is what NFTs do.

            Why this hasn’t been done is pretty baffling to me.

            What’s better, is if artists want to provide a subset of tickets that are not resellable they can. Those tickets will only be accepted if a single transaction has taken place.

            • FreeFacts@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              5 months ago

              Why this hasn’t been done is pretty baffling to me.

              Because the blockchain needs an incentive. Who is going to be taking part in the blockchain if there is nothing in it for them? That’s why these tokens are often tied to crypto currencies, as mining is the incentive.

              • kautau@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yeah why would ticketmaster, who makes a killing having their ticket monopoly and control, develop a system where they lose control?

            • Xanvial@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              The sounds like scalpers paradise. They can buy multiple tickets and sell it without thinking about any authorization (id card or something) when using that tickets

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              5 months ago

              The owner of that NFT (ticket) can then do whatever they want with it without the need for a third party (Ticketmaster) to scalp the shit out of any subsequent transactions.

              How is that supposed to prevent scalping, exactly?

              Proof of ownership of a single ticket at the time of the event is the end goal, which is what NFTs do.

              And that’s better than physical tickets, because…?

              What’s better, is if artists want to provide a subset of tickets that are not resellable they can.

              That’s also already a solved problem: write a name on a ticket and validate that name with an ID.

              • Psionicsickness@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Just responding to the “scalping” quote. It absolutely wouldn’t stop scalping, what I HOPE op was trying to say was that it could be used to prevent Ticketmaster, or any entity like it, from charging fees on every exchange of said ticket.

                • Serinus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Would it? Or would Ticketmaster just buy all the NFTs and then have even less regulation on their scalping?

            • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Duranium-on-the-Mohs-scale hard pass. Tickets work fine.

              What’s baffling to me is the ramping up of the 21st century penchant for mindless wheel-re-inventing.

            • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              That is an absolutely TERRIBLE use case because it is by definition centralized. The venue already has ample control over who tf gets in and there is little problem with counterfeit tickets.

        • fishos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          5 months ago

          And it’s ALWAYS the same problem. You can have all the lists you want. A central authority has to recognize and enforce that list. At which point, the structure of your list is completely irrelevant. It could be ANY list. What matters is that it’s chosen to be enforced. And currently, most power structures are happy with plain old databases. Or pen and paper.

          • zurohki@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            A plain old database also has ways of dealing with theft.

            If someone steals your crypto keys and sends your assets to themselves, they have no legal ownership over those assets but they’re listed as the owner in the blockchain, so blockchain isn’t even any good at being an accurate, verifiable record of ownership.

            Yes, you can’t make changes to the blockchain, but that also means you can never fix anything. So you actually can’t rely on the blockchain to be accurate.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        5 months ago

        There are other uses. Like making a system that is interconnected and resistant to hacking. For example an interconnected traffic light system that can prioritize transit/emergency vehicles could be managed by a block chain to ensure the system stays in sync with itself for traffic flow/prioirty while being resistant to hacking or malicious activity.

        • Zron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          How does adding more computers, more points of failure, make infrastructure less prone to exploitation?

          • Pennomi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            5 months ago

            Because it’s a trustless system. In order to override the system you have to take over 50% of the nodes, and in large enough systems it’s infeasible to get that much compute power. This means that no one person or organization can actually control the destiny of the system, only the consensus can.

            I can’t believe that here, in the fediverse of all places, we need to have a discussion about the benefits of having a system that corporations can’t control.

            • Johanno@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Ok explain to me the advantages of a decentralized traffic light system that controls public traffic on public streets?

              What advantages does a blockchain traffic light system have over a centralized server controlled by those who are responsible for maintaining the physical hardware?

              • Pennomi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                Nah that one makes perfect sense to be centralized. I’m saying in general you’d want a system to be decentralized if you want it trustless.

            • Zron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Who controls the streetlight blockchain in your idea? You think the government is going to responsibly manage a system that is large enough to be impractical to alter? My local government is barely responsibly enough to manage basic utility maintenance, we’ve had 3 water main bursts in a month and it hasn’t even been below freezing that whole time.

              I can’t believe a human being living in the world doesn’t see that any implementation of a secure blockchain requires massive funding for infrastructure. That money comes from 1 of 2 places, illegal enterprises that maintain control for security and manipulation, and legal corporations that will maintain control for financial security and manipulation. Modern governments don’t run projects like this anymore, they contract them out to corporations.

              Keep in mind that the only practical use of blockchain that anyone has found so far, has been as a currency that requires no ID. The most famous use of these currencies was by John Mccaffee, who used crypto currencies to help him evade authorities for nearly a decade. So I don’t have much faith in a technology that has only shown a benefit to criminals with so much money that cash becomes impractical. Nor do I have to remind you that wealthy private individuals have been able to manipulate crypto markets with hilarious ease, like how Musk pumped and dumped Doge Coin years ago with a single tweet and most likely made millions in private, untraceable money.

              Just because something sounds cool on paper, and makes it seem like it skirts governments and corporations, doesn’t mean it works in practice. Large entities inherently have more resources, and are primed to steal new technologies for their own use, especially when implementing that technology requires huge funding for infrastructure.

              • Pennomi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yeah I realize now I responded to a thread about traffic lights instead of systems in general. Obviously centralized systems are far superior for that.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s almost like different types of systems have different requirements, and a communication platform benefits from decentralization, where traffic lights and vehicle routing does not.

        • mangopuncher@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          This is a classic solution in search of a problem. The problem with stop lights isn’t that corporations control them, the problem with stop lights is that the general population thinks that cars are the only way to get around and demand that city officials optimize street and roads for cars. Adding a bunch of crazy verification steps will not solve this problem.

          This is another social problem that technology just can’t solve.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      How about first we see a version that isn’t a scam? We’ve seen plenty of scam versions so far.

    • themaninblack@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      IMO, blockchain technology is good for one use case: illegal transactions.

      I think all else can be achieved more efficiently by using a trusted third party write-only database, such as the ones available on AWS, and you’d also have the benefit of being able to go to court to seek relief. Some blockchain markets are basically reinventing banking systems and preexisting financial law - systems that have been built over centuries and have quite a bit of knowledge baked in.

      I do like the shift to proof of stake from proof of work, but this tech is silly to me.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Proof of stake, while better for the environment compared to electricity-guzzling proof of work, actually shift the power of consensus to capital owners. In proof of work, any bloke with some computing power can participate in the swarm even if they don’t own any crypto. In proof of stake, only those who own some crypto can participate in the swarm, and those who own more have more say.

        You can say that proof of works also requires capital to buy computing power, but with the shift to proof of stake, the bar to participate has been raised. If can’t just use a spare computer to join now, you actually need some capital to buy some stake before you can participate. It’s a big boy club now, a tool to help the rich get richer.

      • FreeFacts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I know of one use case that seems viable, there is a digital housing market service in my country (called Dias). It uses blockchain to verify transactions related to selling and buying houses. That includes proof of sales, ownership, bank transaction status etc. The blockchain is operated by all the major banks. Their incentive is that it increases the security of the transactions thanks to the immutable digital trail, and also the fact that no single entity owns the “database” so no entity can alter it, or skim service fees etc from the others.

        • cooltrainer_frank@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          But if you have any conflict with it, you have to get a lawyer involved right? It doesn’t seem like it provides value to a real estate transaction, just seems like a use case for block chain

    • kreynen@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      actual, verifiable digital ownership… using a distributed database technology that is designed to require a massive amount of computing resources to update.

      I think where some of us who work in spaces using databases to verify something in critical business processes get stuck in accepting that blockchain has value is that our jobs have always been to verify “ownership” as quickly and efficiently as possible. We typically do this by defining a canonical source of truth and our success is judged on how many milliseconds transactions take and the datacener or cloud costs.

      Saying that everything about blockchain is “dumb” isn’t a very nuanced analysis… but it’s a understandable reaction to hearing the hype that blockchain is going to change everything for years.

      I’ve never seen anyone argue that the massively distributed nature or the public read access of blockchain technologies aren’t interesting. It’s the tradeoff that has to be made in speed and costs that make it hard for many of us to see any value in the approach for most applications.

    • Pifpafpouf@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      A blockchain is only as secure as the amount of work (= processing power) that goes into it. Anyone with 51% of the processing power invested in a blockchain can attack it and essentially steal from other people. For cryptocurrencies it’s a problem that solves itself, because every person that possesses some of the cryptocurrency is incentivized to mine to keep it secure (and to earn some at the same time). The more your cryptocurrency is valuable, the more people will want to mine it and the more secure it will be.

      For anything other than cryptocurrencies, you can’t incentivize a huge number of people to commit computing power to secure your blockchain. So you have to protect it some other way, for example only allowing you and some trusted people to write on it. But then it doesn’t really need to be a blockchain anymore, just a write-only database (which will perform better and occupy less space).

      If it requires no work to generate a block at the end of your blockchain, any attacker can generate malicious ones.

    • Ibaudia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Digital ownership on one (1) blockchain. Not really that great when you put it like that. What makes one Blockchain more authoritative than another? Even in a closed system, if you think the admins of these chains don’t keep a kill switch in their back pocket specifically for their advantage in ownership conflicts then you should probably read about Ethereum Classic. Even if they don’t want to hard fork, if a chain is controlled entirely by a company, then they can edit it however they want regardless since it’s not really decentralized. The idea that Blockchains will empower the customer with digital ownership is silly to me.

      • gila@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Who do you think controls ETC? IOHK? It’s an open-source project.

        It had some 51% attacks a few years ago, is that what you are referring to?

        I’m honestly just curious what you mean

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Is a chain is controlled by a single entity then it’s not a blockchain, it’s a linked list with extra steps.

        The whole point of a blockchain is that it’s independently verifiable/validated by all its users. Anything else is a literal scam.

    • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      In which cases is this actually useful, as opposed to having a centralized database? Blockchain doesn’t provide the enforcement of ownership, which is the real problem.

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      the problem that bitcoin “solves” is mathematically unsolvable. The only reason it kind of works is because participants are human, and therefore are able to assign arbitrary value to the currency, and therefore can act greedily to try to maximize (and protect) their coins. Participants are only incentivized to participate in mining because the thing they’re rewarded with is a “currency” (something they value, as humans).

      For anything but a currency, what is the incentive of miners using their resources to handle your transactions?

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s no surprise you don’t know what to tell us. It’s hard to get a mark to buy into a scam once they’ve realized what is was.

  • parpol@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    5 months ago

    If you want a trustless system, you have to sacrifice performance. At least the proof of stake blockchains like Ethereum don’t use that much energy, and you get a pretty cheap and fast transaction with layer 2 solutions on par with credit card transactions.

    • Tehhund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Sure, but what real-world problem does a trustless solve? I thought this was all very interesting years ago but now that we’ve had blockchain for years it seems it’s only good for illegal or morally questionable transactions.

      • parpol@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Would you trust your money with a bank in China? It was only a year ago that people lost their savings and couldn’t withdraw money for food after a major bank was on the brink of bankruptcy due to the Evergrande scheme.

        I guess you can call it questionable, but if I buy a VPN, I’m not going to pay with a credit card linked to my name. I use Monero. If I want to transfer money to my family in another country, crypto is faster, cheaper, and has no restrictions. I can’t even pay my student loans from my home country because my current bank blocks foreign credit card transactions, even if they are important.

        This is very niche and not something an average Joe needs, but cryptocurrency isn’t for the average Joe to begin with.

        • Tehhund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          See I think more nuanced takes like this are good. I’m not familiar with the Chinese banking issue that you are describing, but it sounds like deposit insurance (like the FDIC) might be a better solution than cryptocurrency, and it’s definitely better understood. Since the real world value of cryptocurrencies are so volatile they are a questionable store of value, and taking a risk on a poorly regulated bank might be better than taking a risk on storing your money in a volatile and unregulated security like cryptocurrency. Honestly it’s hard to know which is the better risk. So it could be better or it could be worse.

          I agree with your point about transferring money internationally, and even within the US transferring money used to be a real pain. So I’m still interested to see if cryptocurrency can be a better medium of exchange or medium of transfer than traditional ways, or at least give traditional systems incentive to improve. But again the volatility is a concern so for most people the best move is probably to get in and out of the crypto market as quickly as possible or else risk getting a vastly different amount of money out of it than you put in. Admittedly it could appreciate, but when I’m transferring money to someone I don’t want that to simultaneously be an investment. The few times I have used Bitcoin to purchase something the whole process has taken hours, and there’s no guarantee there will be price swings a lot could happen in those hours.

          I appreciate the brutal honesty about cryptocurrency not being for the average Joe. It’s not that long since many cryptocurrency boosters were hoping it would replace fiat currency, but now that I think about it I haven’t heard as much about that recently. In its current state it is really not for the average Joe.

      • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        Bingo. Capitalism has thus far rejected the blockchain, which is generally evidence that it doesn’t solve an important problem either efficiently, safely or cheaply.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          5 months ago

          To be fair, there are plenty of other reasons capitalism might have rejected blockchain: market failure, interference by government, etc.

          I’m not saying that to defend cryptocurrency, by the way, but rather to point out that capitalism isn’t perfect at allocating resources in every situation.

          • capitalism is generally terrible at allocating ressources. It will always win to externalize costs, and if the people footing the bill cannot participate in the market, like for instance future generations, the result is always a self destructive system.

          • Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Isn’t one of its goals to be free from government influence? That’s not a valid excuse.

        • parpol@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Bitcoin had its official ETF approved and started the other week and Ethereum is soon to follow. so I would say capitalism is very much not rejecting blockchain technology. Didn’t blackrock and other giants put a ton in?

      • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Trusting Humans is literally a security flaw. Any system with trust you can find examples with fraud and abuse from those who held power by holding that trust.

        We trusted bankers to invest our money, and some short sold the housing market with that money

        I could go on, but trust really is a security issue. Decentralization has its efficiency issues, but saying “Bitcoin uses as much power as the 90th largest nation” is peanuts when you consider the energy inequality that America spends and compare what Bitcoin delivers with that energy versus how much energy centralized banks need to deliver a system that’s easier to fraud

        • Tehhund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Ah yes Bitcoin, famously free of fraud and abuse.

          More seriously, every system can be used for fraud. The question is whether the solution is actually better overall. We could prevent all wire fraud by returning to a cash-only economy. But that would be hugely inconvenient and therefore create a huge drag on the economy compared to a world where we can do electronic transfers even though electronic transfers open us up to wire fraud. Returning to cash-only is not worth the increase in security, and it opens us up to other issues (e.g., bank runs and someone stealing all the money under my mattress).

          And while power use is a problem with Proof of Work coins, it’s not my biggest concern about cryptocurrency because Proof of Stake can fix that issue. It’s a shame that the biggest coin now is PoW but hopefully that will change. The bigger issue is “is cryptocurrency better than traditional currency?” So far it hasn’t proven to be better except in extremely limited circumstances. And a lot of the ways cryptocurrency is better will go away if governments start regulating it like other forms of finance. Having your money in cryptocurrency won’t protect you from the police and courts.

          We trusted bankers to invest our money, and some short sold the housing market with that money

          Okay? You could do that with cryptocurrency if traders started accepting cryptocurrency for shorts. The only reason you can’t do that today is traders won’t accept cryptocurrency for shorts, and that’s basically security through obscurity.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Trusting Humans is literally a security flaw.

          Exactly, and using Bitcoin does not solve that because you still have to transact with humans. If you buy something with Bitcoin and the seller never sends you anything, you’re out of luck. Your money is gone.

          If you use a regulated financial system you have some options. If you paid with credit card you can charge back and dispute the charge. Your money in the bank is backed by insurance that is guaranteed by the government.

          Bitcoin only cuts out the middleman. Every other issue of trust with the recipient still exists, and those are the problems regulation solves, and the reason fraudsters love Bitcoin so much.

      • corvus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        With all the information available at your fingertips being ignorant is a choice.

        “this parallel financial system can also serve a tangible social good, offering an onramp to the financial system for people who would otherwise be left out. In countries where the vast majority of the population is unbanked, national currencies are no longer a safe store of value, remittances comprise a hefty portion of GDP, and international sanctions complicate connections to the global economy, a virtual currency that doesn’t require an intermediary to approve transactions can be a vital lifeline for survival”

        Bitcoin is poised to blow up Africa’s $86 billion banking system

        • Tehhund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          This isn’t Reddit, you don’t have to turn every discussion into a fight. I’m genuinely interested in cryptocurrency for reasons such as the article you linked: there are areas where traditional finance genuinely has failed to meet people’s needs. Providing a medium of exchange for the unbanked is a great example of something it could possibly help with, and I think that’s a good thing if it happens. But we should also be able to talk about the problems with cryptocurrencies and the cases where it doesn’t work as well as traditional finance. And if this prediction doesn’t pan out and cryptocurrency doesn’t become a major way of banking the unbanked, we should be able to consider what could accomplish that goal. It might be a different cryptocurrency, or a new thing inspired by cryptocurrency, or something that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. After all, cryptocurrency is not a goal in itself.

    • KirthKainnech@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      TPS metrics of the most popular blockchains

      Blockchain TPS Max TPS
      Ethereum 13.15 57.91
      Bitcoin 7.35 9.87
      Algorand 6.99 221.01
      Optimism 4.74 20.66

      As a global payments network Visa has the capacity to execute more than 65,000 transactions per second.

      • parpol@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        13.15 is the average number of transactions per second. Max TPS (57.91) is the largest recorded TPS, not the capacity of the blockchain. Max TPS will rise as more people use layer 2. Layer 2 solutions can handle 2,000-4,000 TPS, and there are 24 commonly known ones that can do these transactions in parallel.

        • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yes but 65000 TPS for Bitcoin would likely have the planet glowing much brighter in the infrared… possibly even the visible, for all the heat we’d need to dump.

          A rich, warm, and sterilized world!

          • parpol@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’m personally advocating for Ethereum which is Proof of Stake and uses a fraction of the energy Bitcoin does.

            However, correct me if I’m wrong here because I’m not that much invested in bitcoin as a tech or investment, but isn’t almost half of the energy used on bitcoin generated from renewables? I could swear I saw an article about it somewhere.

            Although nowadays people seem busy heating up the world telling AI to cheat on their homework, so I wonder if this is a problem with society rather than technology.

            • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              It may very well be renewable. I’m really more referring to the inefficient way in which the sums are calculated. Those data centers get warmish.

              And yeah, AI is just the next thing we decided to punish our GPUs with. Crazy how we’ve used that part of the computer these last few decades…

              I’m more engaged in a chat gpt session that I am staying up till 4 am watching line graphs of crypto prices, guilty as charged 😁. Not sure what comment it makes about society other than “we seem pretty lonely, everything ok?”

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Isn’t that still an order of magnitude less than what Visa can do? Or is there some extra math involved that I don’t know about

          • parpol@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I think it depends on the layer 2 solution, but as far as I understand, each of these layer 2 solutions independently have 2000-4000 as theoretical max, and only after bulking transactions together do they affect layer 1, so you should be able to add all layer 2 together for the total.

            I guess the spatial sharding update will further increase the maximum number of transactions you can bulk by a factor or two so an individual layer 2 solution becomes comparable with visa, but I don’t think that update is coming to Ethereum in several years. Then again, Ethereum needing to perform 60,000 TPS is likely not happening this decade either.

            For now at least, layer 2 is fast and cheap, although a bit difficult to use.

      • gila@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        Oh nice, that’s how high Solana’s TPS has gone in testing (in practice it hovers around 5-10k TPS). There’s also newer chains like Aptos that claim to be able to handle 150k TPS with subsecond finality. Of course, neither of these chains are very decentralised, but at least they aren’t fully permissioned and centralised. Especially on a network belonging to a partisan, anti-competitive, anti-trust law-breaking, Wikileaks funding thieving Israel supporters like Visa.

        • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          And of course we can rest assured that nobody profiting off bitcoin is morally questionable

          • gila@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Ah yes, Bitcoin bad because some people that use it are bad, how did I never think of that

            • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I’m not saying that, rather I’m saying that I don’t see how either thing is clearly morally superior.

              • gila@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Bitcoin is open-source software, a network of nodes running Bitcoin core, the source code for which you can find here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

                Morals are a consequence of free will, which Bitcoin does not have. There are valid moralistic concerns about Bitcoin, but they are related to the impact of Bitcoin, rather than whether it is a moral system.

        • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          General question, because I don’t give a shit about blockchain to research it.

          Does it have a way to quickly and effectively handle fraud? And don’t tell me “there’s no way to commit fraud” because people can steal wallet passwords no fucking problem. With most banks they will actively track fraud, cancel those transactions, and restore your funds and possibly shut down the card automatically while still allowing the account to exist so you can access your money. Is that the case with blockchain?

          • parpol@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Yes. There are Escrow services in crypto that hold and issue chargebacks, but it is to to you if you want to use such a service.

            centralized crypto exchanges also have fraud combatting teams. An example is that exchange that sponsors kitboga, the youtuber who screws around with Indian scammers. They lock scammers’ accounts from withdrawing but not depositing so they keep sending victims’ money to these accounts, and then eventually they lock the accounts and transfer the money back to the victims.

            Obviously an issue with this approach is the scammers can just use decentralized wallets, but recently exchanges started blocking transactions to these too unless you provide KYC info about them, so they’re trying at least.

            If you do things right, you can be relatively safe from fraud and scams, but most people won’t do things the right way.

          • gila@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            It depends on whether you’re interacting with the blockchain directly, or via a custodial solution more appropriate for end consumers. Same like how you don’t get a refund if you operate a western union branch and fuck up the wire.

  • alekwithak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    No one is ever concerned with how much energy is used to feed ads to the entire population of earth 24/7.

    • s_s@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes, but it’s almost certainly a multitude less electricity than bitcoin.