Well, I was just curious to hear it from the horse's mouth since they were answering questions in here. The answers are interesting, though I think they're answering a bit of a different question than I am personally asking.

Like, blockchain technology to power distributed ledgers for peer-to-peer payments is pretty interesting and I think I'd prefer it exists, consequences be damned. Stable coins don't really fit the same use cases though, and generally do have at least some reliance on a central party, so it raises the question whether the desired technical properties can't actually be achieved using traditional technology.

Unfortunately, the answers pretty clearly center around not what kind of technology is used to implement the ledger, but rather the choice to implement one versus using existing payment networks. I don't think this is done in bad faith, but rather is the result of very different perspectives.

I think the blockchain skeptics have a point: even if there is something especially technically advantageous about using the blockchain for this purpose that really couldn't be accomplished some other way, so far the only obvious incentive to do things this way appears to be regulatory differences in how the blockchain is regulated versus traditional ledgers.

Very tangential, but seeing major entities and even governments adopt blockchain technology has made me think a lot about potential consequences in the longer term. I really wonder what happens to the properties of various cryptocurrency networks when and if quantum computers scale big enough to start breaking our cryptographic systems. I guess CryptoNote is just toast.

▲ staplers 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

  appears to be regulatory differences in how the blockchain is regulated versus traditional ledgers.

One is governed by humans/banks, the other by unalterable mathematical precision. If you truly don't see the value I don't know what else could be said.

▲

jchw 5 days ago | parent [-]

That turns into a downside very quickly for a lot of applications.

▲

staplers 5 days ago | parent [-]

Indeed, we are witnessing many of them currently.

Hyper-inflation, censorship, corporate takeover of all interpersonal transactions, data harvesting, slow processing, fraud, offshore accounts, scams, laundering. The list feels almost endless.

Luckily we're talking about bitcoin right?

▲

jchw 5 days ago | parent [-]

Well, for one thing, you keep mentioning Bitcoin when we're not even talking about Bitcoin, which is extremely weird. Bitcoin is not one of the two things. I hate to be this way but do you even realize what thread you are replying in? This isn't fiat currency versus Bitcoin. It's fiat currency (by proxy) using Blockchain-based ledger versus fiat currency using a traditional ledger...

	▲	staplers 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, I get your point. I don't really consider stablecoins or even most cryptocurrencies true crypto due to human control (which invalidates the value of crypto). I've watched for over a decade how this forum utterly decimates any actual discussion of crypto (bitcoin) due to willful ignorance or blind naivety. So excuse my excitement when I get a chance to actually discuss its merits or disadvantages. In this sense, I will agree that stablecoins are just a technological way of obscuring certain mechanisms in how fiat currency is distributed and is basically a derivative instrument that exists outside established regulatory framework (similar to how uber/airbnb operated for a decade until the govt caught up)

▲ Zpalmtree 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why does it need to be achieved using traditional technology? Crypto works, and has attracted billions in liquidity for stable coins