| |
| ▲ | orwin 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's just LARPing. Usually LARPers are conscious that they don't have magic or any sword skills. I'm pretty sure the person who you respond too really think what he wrote. | |
| ▲ | mothballed 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yet the government went out its way to ban bearer shares, bearer bonds, numbered anonymous bank accounts, large denomination currency, anonymous companies, and all the other methods of anonymous banking. Seems they were having trouble "taking it away by the justice system." For the same reason government across the world have pressured or banned exchangers of monero. | | |
| ▲ | close04 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | GP added the "by the justice system" where OP only said "can be taken away". Both digital and fiat currency can be taken away from you through courts, legislation, trickery, or coercion. Crypto is surrounded by vast amounts of misinformation, misdirection, or misunderstanding. So you get these myths and generalization propagated through lack of education. "I heard crypto is completely anonymous", "I heard crypto can't be taken away from you". Then someone gets tricked out of their crypto, or uses BTC to commit some crime and gets a quick reality check. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you toss a bag of cash in a hole buried under a grave in Timbuktu, or toss a bitcoin seed phrase in there. Cover it up, leave Timbuktu back to your western country. Then vow to die before giving up the location (you can claim torture or whatever works, but many people in history have decided to be tortured to death without giving up the information). You can be essentially 100% assured it will never be taken. Possible with both fiat and crypto, though you'll be digging a bigger hole to bury an upward amount of dollars, yet crypto is infinitely scalable with the same size hole. From a black and white viewpoint the possibilities are the same but the practicality is a bit different (then realize with crypto the hole might only exist in your mind). Maybe the government has control over your body but there is some victory in not letting them have your assets even if they take your life and without having to destroy the underlying value. Personally I think a cleaner distinction is bearer assets vs titled assets. Both can be taken but bearer assets can be made impractically difficult to seize, especially against the masses at once, whereas titled assets (like bank accounts and deeds) can be taken by the government trivially (ex: in US, IRS can freeze without even a warrant) and at mass scale quickly. | | |
| ▲ | leoedin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you're being detained for the rest of your life while your money languishes in a hole in Timbuktu, it has been taken from you. Money is only valuable because it has utility. If you can't use it, it's not yours. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Then you've already yielded the difference in practicality. Executing or detaining a person for life is less practical for the government to do in western countries (and even most shitholes, as ungovernable militia back regions would resist such violence) than seizing your titled or banked assets. The mere fact you've delayed the use of money doesn't mean the value is gone. I can't do dick with my money until I've at least logged into amazon or driven to the local walmart, yet it's value remains, of course the longer I have to wait to spend it the worse it is. The time value of money means its less valuable to me if I'm locked up for decades before I can get it, but even in jail indefinitely I could secretly reveal it to a friend who could share the money to get some nice ramen packets or cigarettes. |
| |
| ▲ | close04 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You can be essentially 100% assured it will never be taken. If we take the creative approach, then according to the equivalence of inertial reference frames in the principle of relativity, taking you away from the money is exactly the same as taking the money away from you. Taking the money from you don't imply someone else must have it, just that you don't. Someone could take your HW crypto wallet even if they can't access the money, happens a lot with wallets confiscated by the government. But ok, the original goalposts were set at the difference between stablecoins and fiat with regards to how easily they can be taken away from you. There is no difference for all practical purposes in any non-hyperbolic situation. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >If we take the creative approach, then according to the equivalence of inertial reference frames in the principle of relativity, taking you away from the money is exactly the same as taking the money away from you. Taking the money from you don't imply someone else must have it, just that you don't. Someone could take your HW crypto wallet even if they can't access the money, happens a lot with wallets confiscated by the government. It's not the same. That's why governments and the FATF at great cost and effort spent decades snuffing out anonymous bank accounts and bearer assets, they didn't do it for the lolz. If you take the person away from the money then any surviving persons can escape and reclaim the money. The person in jail can utter the code/location to a comrade, maybe even before they go to jail. In a western country, the person might even be released from contempt after a time (decades+ contempt sentences are so rare they make headlines) and if criminally charged they will often be out on bond where they can utter the location/codes to others. It's a completely different animal than the government seizing the actual asset and putting it in its vault guarded by armies of police or military as non-human seizure. >There is no difference for all practical purposes Only if you ignore the practical differences. | | |
| ▲ | close04 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Only if you ignore the practical differences. You'd think that it would be easier to just name a few but here we are discussing burying a bitcoin seed under a grave in Timbuktu. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed an hour ago | parent [-] | | I used that because it was charitable to the fiat argument because you could put both the fiat and crypto into the hidden hole in a way that would make seizing fiat money as difficult as seizing the crypto. If you don't like that, you can simply memorize a seed phrase in your head, it will accomplish essentially the same thing in a far more practical and more commonly practiced manner. If you insist on the realistic case it's far more charitable to crypto than fiat but I stretched it to be kind to your argument -- clearly a mistake since you only took it as an opportunity for hostility. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | sunshine-o 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The original stablecoin, DAI, used since 2017 by a lot of people living in countries ravaged by horrible inflation cannot be taken away. It can just be a smart contract with overcollaterised crypto backing it. And the idea is kind of genius. All the USDT and USDC which appeared later on a just "proxy" for "real" dollar hold by Tether or Circle. There is nothing permissionless or decentralized about them. So "stablecoin" can mean very different things in practice. | | |
| ▲ | lxgr 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | DAI (now called USDS) is largely backed by assets well within reach of US financial regulators these days, no? Even a few years ago, it was mostly backed by USDT and USDC, which both can be frozen by their respective issuer. I don't think any of the non-custodial stablecoins had a very good track record even just in the medium term. Overcollateralized crypto-backed stablecoins are exposed to the market value risk of their backing assets; algorithmic stablecoins have had a tendency to death spiral. | | |
| ▲ | sunshine-o 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes. So DAI is a distinct system from USDS. The relationship is the creator of DAI is the same as USDS and I believe his new organisation maintains the legacy DAI contract and system. If I remember correctly, the DAI model was beautiful: - Instead of getting your DAI from an exchange, you could deploy your own instance of a vault, lock your ETH as collateral in it and mint DAI. - So it was not a unique vault for every DAI but you could choose your collateral assets from an authorized list for your own vault. I am not sure if in the case of a collapse of USDC and USDT you would have been the only one able to close your own vault and get back your good collateral assets... Those "decentralised" stablecoins are complex and feel like they had to start from a blank page and create USDS to stay relevant in a more competitive and regulated crypto world. For example USDS has the mechanism to block it for specific holders (like USDC and USDT) but it hasn't been activated as far as I know. This is why when there is a hack ETH, BTC and DAI are used because they are the "better" money... In the end I agree, if you can back a decentralized stablecoin with a centralized stablecoin, how good is that system really? The best stablecoin is the one you deploy a vault for, back it with over-collaterized (anywhere between 3 and 10x) uncensorable cypto (like ETH) and are the only one who can close the vault unless it get liquidated. | | |
| ▲ | lxgr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a beautiful model only on paper. In practice it didn't quite work out, DAI has several times broken its peg (often upwards, but that's still a problem), and they switched to backing it with more and more traditional stablecoins for stability. This was all before the rebrand to USDS. > Instead of getting your DAI from an exchange, you could deploy your own instance of a vault, lock your ETH as collateral in it and mint DAI. Most people that might want to use stablecoins don't have any suitable collateral lying around, so they're dependent on being able to buy or sell it at par. If that peg breaks, the utility of the stablecoin decreases. |
|
|
|
|
