this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
287 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3416 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For now. All the stable coins that failed were stable until they weren’t. What incentive is there to actually providing that kinda service, if you won’t make money with it?

This is the nature of all emerging technologies. The internet itself went through a similar phase in the late 80s up until the early 2000s. Remember Gopher? NetBeanz?

NFTs. SAY THEIR NAME

I didn't say NFTs because I wasn't talking about NFTs. I was talking about smart contracts. They are two very seperate things.

This is why I say you don't understand what you're talking about and only get your info from headlines.

And remember what a resounding success Wolf Game was?

A shitty flash-style game who's only defining feature is having a blockchain. What of it?

It's not like the regular videogame industry started with Super Mario Bros either.

As a hobbyst programmer I can tell you there isn’t an idea dumber that putting code into something immutable, that you have to destroy, create anew, rename the new thing you made to the old one, while paying for each step of the process, just so that you can fix a bug is a terrible idea

And yet people wrote immutable code all the time in the 80s and 90s. Many people didn't have internet back then, so the only ways to get patches out reliably would be extremely expensive.

Also: it's not like bug fixing traditional apps is free either.

So a quick round: 3&6 social engineering is far more common than simply hacking your account. So no, it’s the opposite.

Again, if someone socially engineers you into sending money, you're shit out of luck when dealing with fiat currencies too.

If you're worried about someone divulging a password and hoping 2FA could catch them, there are hosted exchanges like Coinbase for that. If your person is the kind to give 2FA codes too, again, you're just as fucked in fiat environments; banks do not cover that shit.

Banks will only cover fraud incidences that you can't reasonably be blamed for, like your card details being exposed because a website got hacked. They leave you high and dry when it comes to social engineering.

5- I gave you an example where someone would know your identity - if you’re using it in a non-anonymous context, like getting paid.

If you're that worried, just make another crypto wallet, send the money to that and then make your purchase. Your employer doesn't know who owns that other account. If you're really worried about traceability, use BitTornado, and any would-be hobbyist investigator is fucked.

4- Financial policy is decided by elected representatives. Corruption is an issue, but in crypto it’s built-in.

Cute that you think corruption in fiat isn't part of the design. You do know how, for example, the federal reserve in US works, right?