https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bankman-Fried https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitget-lawyer-letters-account... https://bitnewsbot.com/us-judge-unfreezes-57-6m-usdc-tied-to... https://ambcrypto.com/avalanche-based-protocol-reportedly-ru... https://cointelegraph.com/news/polymarket-trump-ukraine-bet-... https://x.com/BinanceWallet/status/1904352541615554611 https://x.com/JMilei/status/1890606683291779195

I could pretty much go on forever…

▲

idiotsecant 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Not a single one of these examples is trustless, decentralized crypto. Of course people are going to steal your money if you don't own your keys and put faith in protocols that are not permissionless. That's the problem with people who paint 'crypto' with one giant brush. It's like saying 'websites' will steal your money. Statistically it's probably true, but anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together isn't giving money to realbankwebsite.ru/chasebank

▲

yunwal 4 days ago | parent [-]

Ok, so at the very least we can both agree that what stripe is doing here is sketchy, since it’s not permissionless at all.

The second question is, once you take away anything that’s not permissionless, what’s left in crypto?

- Buying a physical good? You’re trusting the person manufacturing it, storing it, shipping it. If it comes to your door and it’s defective, they’ve already got your money, and it turns out your trustless system actually makes this impossible to resolve.

- Buying some skin for a game or something? Unless the game is also run in a decentralized fashion, they can just choose not to render that particular skin.

So, like, can you give me an example of a single transaction that is rendered trust-less because of cryptocurrency? It seems to me like whenever anyone actually tries to do anything useful with crypto, it ends up being what you would describe as an obvious scam.

▲

idiotsecant 3 days ago | parent [-]

You're doing strawman shotgun here. You're pasting a bunch of examples that basically fall into two categories and then asking me to defend them:

1) people who put their money into custodial 'banks' and then get it stolen

2) people rely on protocols whose consensus protocol is controlled by a small committee of appointed VIPs

None of which is germane to my original point. I'm simply saying that Im advocating for central banks not having the power to manipulate the currency supply at a whim And somehow you're forcing me into the position of spending an hour reading every trash crypto scam you can find. Not terribly interested in discussing how you can get ripped off with crypto or fiat cash.

	▲	yunwal a day ago \| parent [-]
		> people rely on protocols whose consensus protocol is controlled by a small committee of appointed VIPs Once again, this is what Stripe is doing here in this very announcement. > Not a single one of these examples is trustless, decentralized crypto You brought up trustless, so surely you can find an example. I didn’t pull that out of nowhere.

▲

troupo 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's always funny to me how "we're decentralized ledgers running in lack of trust environments that don't need government regulation" always run to centralized trusted government institutions every time there's trouble.

▲

paintbox 5 days ago | parent [-]

It's a push to bring international financial systems up to date, there is no need to reinvent judiciary and executive institutions in this step.

	▲	troupo 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> It's a push to bring international financial systems up to date It's not a push in any sense of the word. And outside of the US quite a few of financial institutions are "up to date" in most of the areas that matter to people. > there is no need to reinvent judiciary and executive institutions in this step. Strange how "up to date" inevitably involves rediscovering all the reasons those exist in the first place and why the "outdated" institutions do the things they do.