Except that... Blockchain transactions are actually much faster per second than payment card transactions. For example Solana can handle transactions 3 times faster than Visa, which is partially why the payment card industry is looking into utilizing Blockchain.
That's just Solana comparing how many transactions per second they can do in theory in 2022 to what Visa achieved in their tests with IBM in 2010.
Today either Visa has improved their hardware so that it's able to handle about as many transactions as Solana can as computer hardwares have improved, or if Visa hasn't done that then it's because they've already been able to handle all the transactions and don't want too much unused extra capacity sitting idle.
Payment processing companies are looking into blockchain tech because a blockchain database will likely be good for their purposes, but it's not really because actors like Visa wouldn't already have the capacity to process as many transactions as they wish.
They're looking into it because it's a growing technology with a lot of uses. Solana is highly scalable, that's the thing. Visa can handle as many transactions as solana, around 65K TPS, give or take, but Solana, even in this early unstable stage has the potential of up to 700K TPS. That doesn't even get into what the cost of validating those transactions are and the cost of visas infrastructure to do that, in comparison to something like Solana, that... I mean, their infrastructure lives on a public chain run by decentralized nodes.
That doesn't mean that's a great thing. In fact, Solana has been shown in multiple cases to be unreliable, when there's a transaction flood of more transactions then they can process, which has previously been done on purpose to break the protocol and knock it out for hours... definitely part of the growing pains of these kinds of protocols...
But It's not necessarily that Visa CAN'T compete with the transaction rate of a blockchain like solana, but, considering that Solana is also extremely efficient in processing data. While the energy consumption rate between a visa transactio nand solana transaction is generally similar, efficiency comes with maturity, and that's why there's so much investment in the tech.
Except that... Blockchain transactions are actually much faster per second than payment card transactions. For example Solana can handle transactions 3 times faster than Visa, which is partially why the payment card industry is looking into utilizing Blockchain.
That's just Solana comparing how many transactions per second they can do in theory in 2022 to what Visa achieved in their tests with IBM in 2010.
Today either Visa has improved their hardware so that it's able to handle about as many transactions as Solana can as computer hardwares have improved, or if Visa hasn't done that then it's because they've already been able to handle all the transactions and don't want too much unused extra capacity sitting idle.
Payment processing companies are looking into blockchain tech because a blockchain database will likely be good for their purposes, but it's not really because actors like Visa wouldn't already have the capacity to process as many transactions as they wish.
They're looking into it because it's a growing technology with a lot of uses. Solana is highly scalable, that's the thing. Visa can handle as many transactions as solana, around 65K TPS, give or take, but Solana, even in this early unstable stage has the potential of up to 700K TPS. That doesn't even get into what the cost of validating those transactions are and the cost of visas infrastructure to do that, in comparison to something like Solana, that... I mean, their infrastructure lives on a public chain run by decentralized nodes.
That doesn't mean that's a great thing. In fact, Solana has been shown in multiple cases to be unreliable, when there's a transaction flood of more transactions then they can process, which has previously been done on purpose to break the protocol and knock it out for hours... definitely part of the growing pains of these kinds of protocols...
But It's not necessarily that Visa CAN'T compete with the transaction rate of a blockchain like solana, but, considering that Solana is also extremely efficient in processing data. While the energy consumption rate between a visa transactio nand solana transaction is generally similar, efficiency comes with maturity, and that's why there's so much investment in the tech.
Payments really don't work the way you are describing, you totally are omitting the various AML flows including sanctions, fraud and KYC screening which all payments involving any sort of financial institution or payment clearer such T2, Fed, CHIPS, MAS and many others route through.
There's also recent requirements that all payment activities for countries such as China and India have to be cleared and screened by onshore resources including hardware and staff.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Something unsolved for is the fact a blockchain itself does not need to be directly compromised for hackers to abuse the system either. Sybil and Eclipse attacks still work on nodes, and if/when the goal is to disrupt and make a false transaction, that's more than enough to achieve the goal. Much worse can be done with those methods as well when used to affect hash rates and break consensus within a network/chain across multiple nodes. Even Solana has been effectively attacked in this manner.
Except that... Blockchain transactions are actually much faster per second than payment card transactions. For example Solana can handle transactions 3 times faster than Visa, which is partially why the payment card industry is looking into utilizing Blockchain.
That's just Solana comparing how many transactions per second they can do in theory in 2022 to what Visa achieved in their tests with IBM in 2010.
Today either Visa has improved their hardware so that it's able to handle about as many transactions as Solana can as computer hardwares have improved, or if Visa hasn't done that then it's because they've already been able to handle all the transactions and don't want too much unused extra capacity sitting idle.
Payment processing companies are looking into blockchain tech because a blockchain database will likely be good for their purposes, but it's not really because actors like Visa wouldn't already have the capacity to process as many transactions as they wish.
They're looking into it because it's a growing technology with a lot of uses. Solana is highly scalable, that's the thing. Visa can handle as many transactions as solana, around 65K TPS, give or take, but Solana, even in this early unstable stage has the potential of up to 700K TPS. That doesn't even get into what the cost of validating those transactions are and the cost of visas infrastructure to do that, in comparison to something like Solana, that... I mean, their infrastructure lives on a public chain run by decentralized nodes.
That doesn't mean that's a great thing. In fact, Solana has been shown in multiple cases to be unreliable, when there's a transaction flood of more transactions then they can process, which has previously been done on purpose to break the protocol and knock it out for hours... definitely part of the growing pains of these kinds of protocols...
But It's not necessarily that Visa CAN'T compete with the transaction rate of a blockchain like solana, but, considering that Solana is also extremely efficient in processing data. While the energy consumption rate between a visa transactio nand solana transaction is generally similar, efficiency comes with maturity, and that's why there's so much investment in the tech.
Payments really don't work the way you are describing, you totally are omitting the various AML flows including sanctions, fraud and KYC screening which all payments involving any sort of financial institution or payment clearer such T2, Fed, CHIPS, MAS and many others route through.
There's also recent requirements that all payment activities for countries such as China and India have to be cleared and screened by onshore resources including hardware and staff.
Why would I have to omit those, those aren't forced on the technological aspect of blockchain. Nor is it inherent in whether or not a country allows those transactions.
It's not to say that the presence of these hoops some payment card transactions go through don't slow down their transactions, but, card fraud is in the billions of dollars every year and rising, so, I wouldn't say they are doing that much of a bang up job.
Still though, it's strange to argue that there isn't a merit to blockchain. It doesn't sound like big financial industry players are investing in and using the technology just for the sake of fleecing the users. It doesn't really make much sense to do so. We're not going to wake up tomorrow to "Visa Coin, INVEST NOW"
Just doesn't make sense, they aren't using blockchain as a cryptocurrency but for what it's actually used for, a secure distributed database. And TBH bringing up that Solana can potentially do 700K transactions a second doesn't really even matter all that much, when you consider it's highly unlikely they would want to use an established decentralized protocol. More than likey they'll use a centralized proprietary protocol. It would be stupid not to.
Except that... Blockchain transactions are actually much faster per second than payment card transactions. For example Solana can handle transactions 3 times faster than Visa, which is partially why the payment card industry is looking into utilizing Blockchain.
That's just Solana comparing how many transactions per second they can do in theory in 2022 to what Visa achieved in their tests with IBM in 2010.
Today either Visa has improved their hardware so that it's able to handle about as many transactions as Solana can as computer hardwares have improved, or if Visa hasn't done that then it's because they've already been able to handle all the transactions and don't want too much unused extra capacity sitting idle.
Payment processing companies are looking into blockchain tech because a blockchain database will likely be good for their purposes, but it's not really because actors like Visa wouldn't already have the capacity to process as many transactions as they wish.
They're looking into it because it's a growing technology with a lot of uses. Solana is highly scalable, that's the thing. Visa can handle as many transactions as solana, around 65K TPS, give or take, but Solana, even in this early unstable stage has the potential of up to 700K TPS. That doesn't even get into what the cost of validating those transactions are and the cost of visas infrastructure to do that, in comparison to something like Solana, that... I mean, their infrastructure lives on a public chain run by decentralized nodes.
That doesn't mean that's a great thing. In fact, Solana has been shown in multiple cases to be unreliable, when there's a transaction flood of more transactions then they can process, which has previously been done on purpose to break the protocol and knock it out for hours... definitely part of the growing pains of these kinds of protocols...
But It's not necessarily that Visa CAN'T compete with the transaction rate of a blockchain like solana, but, considering that Solana is also extremely efficient in processing data. While the energy consumption rate between a visa transactio nand solana transaction is generally similar, efficiency comes with maturity, and that's why there's so much investment in the tech.
Payments really don't work the way you are describing, you totally are omitting the various AML flows including sanctions, fraud and KYC screening which all payments involving any sort of financial institution or payment clearer such T2, Fed, CHIPS, MAS and many others route through.
There's also recent requirements that all payment activities for countries such as China and India have to be cleared and screened by onshore resources including hardware and staff.
It's not to say that the presence of these hoops some payment card transactions go through don't slow down their transactions, but, card fraud is in the billions of dollars every year and rising, so, I wouldn't say they are doing that much of a bang up job.
Crypto fraud is in the billions of dollars a year and rising as well.
And that's with a million times less people using crypto compared to people using credit cards.
Except that... Blockchain transactions are actually much faster per second than payment card transactions. For example Solana can handle transactions 3 times faster than Visa, which is partially why the payment card industry is looking into utilizing Blockchain.
That's just Solana comparing how many transactions per second they can do in theory in 2022 to what Visa achieved in their tests with IBM in 2010.
Today either Visa has improved their hardware so that it's able to handle about as many transactions as Solana can as computer hardwares have improved, or if Visa hasn't done that then it's because they've already been able to handle all the transactions and don't want too much unused extra capacity sitting idle.
Payment processing companies are looking into blockchain tech because a blockchain database will likely be good for their purposes, but it's not really because actors like Visa wouldn't already have the capacity to process as many transactions as they wish.
They're looking into it because it's a growing technology with a lot of uses. Solana is highly scalable, that's the thing. Visa can handle as many transactions as solana, around 65K TPS, give or take, but Solana, even in this early unstable stage has the potential of up to 700K TPS. That doesn't even get into what the cost of validating those transactions are and the cost of visas infrastructure to do that, in comparison to something like Solana, that... I mean, their infrastructure lives on a public chain run by decentralized nodes.
That doesn't mean that's a great thing. In fact, Solana has been shown in multiple cases to be unreliable, when there's a transaction flood of more transactions then they can process, which has previously been done on purpose to break the protocol and knock it out for hours... definitely part of the growing pains of these kinds of protocols...
But It's not necessarily that Visa CAN'T compete with the transaction rate of a blockchain like solana, but, considering that Solana is also extremely efficient in processing data. While the energy consumption rate between a visa transactio nand solana transaction is generally similar, efficiency comes with maturity, and that's why there's so much investment in the tech.
Payments really don't work the way you are describing, you totally are omitting the various AML flows including sanctions, fraud and KYC screening which all payments involving any sort of financial institution or payment clearer such T2, Fed, CHIPS, MAS and many others route through.
There's also recent requirements that all payment activities for countries such as China and India have to be cleared and screened by onshore resources including hardware and staff.
It's not to say that the presence of these hoops some payment card transactions go through don't slow down their transactions, but, card fraud is in the billions of dollars every year and rising, so, I wouldn't say they are doing that much of a bang up job.
Crypto fraud is in the billions of dollars a year and rising as well.
And that's with a million times less people using crypto compared to people using credit cards.
Yes...annnd no
The problem with equating crypto losses to real money is that it's so volatile. You can say you stole 1million in ...say Solana since we talk about that... But... Solana has grown and contracted several times it's worth.
Did you steal 1 million when it was at 15 dollars? Or at 50 dollars? Or when it declined again to 20 dollars?
Just in the past week it fluctuated 2 dollars.
And generally when there's a big news article or report that a coin was stolen, it deflates the price insanely fast, unless it's a stable coin, and there have been only rare cases of those losses.
But the point is, news reports the big numbers at the time it was taken, but, that doesn't mean that's how much it was actually worth or how much the thieves actually got. In fact, it's highly unlikely they end up with that much money in the end anyways, simply because most of the time you can trace the transactions through their wallets, and in some cases, millions have been recovered by doing that.
But, you're not wrong, I'm just trying to give some perspective... Cryptocurrency prices in most cases are not cryptocurrency prices from one day to the next.
Which seems like an argument tangential to the fundamental point of the frequency of fraud.
Cutting the value to a tenth or less would still proportionately be larger given community scale
Problem with perspective is it goes both ways. People claiming crypto is a more secure option are obfuscating the truth that it's more secure in some ways, and less in others. Hence bringing up the point on Sybil and Eclipse attacks, something Solana had claimed resistance to back in 2019 only to have several attacks made in the following years.
If an honest assessment is ever to be made, it's done by taking the good with the bad and not making roundabout arguments.
Which seems like an argument tangential to the fundamental point of the frequency of fraud.
Cutting the value to a tenth or less would still proportionately be larger given community scale
Problem with perspective is it goes both ways. People claiming crypto is a more secure option are obfuscating the truth that it's more secure in some ways, and less in others. Hence bringing up the point on Sybil and Eclipse attacks, something Solana had claimed resistance to back in 2019 only to have several attacks made in the following years.
If an honest assessment is ever to be made, it's done by taking the good with the bad and not making roundabout arguments.
But that was the argument.
Crypto loses billions with less adoption.
But the term billions is subjective, because it's volatile, and not liquid. As opposed to the loss of credit fiat that is directly utilized for payments. When fiat is stolen what you have is an actual cost as relevant to one currency from a specific government.
It doesn't mean that fraud is committed less or more, but there are far more detrimental losses that largely go unanswered, and affect way more people than cryptos reach and I think it's interesting to point to crypto and it's perceptual losses as being the worst of the worst when the majority of the funds made were from early adopters, that didn't actually earn a fraction of the value in a meaningful way.
Except that... Blockchain transactions are actually much faster per second than payment card transactions. For example Solana can handle transactions 3 times faster than Visa, which is partially why the payment card industry is looking into utilizing Blockchain.
That's just Solana comparing how many transactions per second they can do in theory in 2022 to what Visa achieved in their tests with IBM in 2010.
Today either Visa has improved their hardware so that it's able to handle about as many transactions as Solana can as computer hardwares have improved, or if Visa hasn't done that then it's because they've already been able to handle all the transactions and don't want too much unused extra capacity sitting idle.
Payment processing companies are looking into blockchain tech because a blockchain database will likely be good for their purposes, but it's not really because actors like Visa wouldn't already have the capacity to process as many transactions as they wish.
Visa/all traditional transactions take at minimum of two days to settle, and around 6 different parties to facilitate the transaction. It's called teir 2 settlrment and it's what the traditional financial world uses. Full stop.
For these facts Visa/Mastercard, and every other payment processor has been building and investing in blockchain for the past 6 years.
It's volatility isn't arguably a good property nor does it inspire any confidence.
It's not meant to. Most crypto tokens shouldn't be considered crypto currency. Only stable coins should.
There's are cryptocurrencies that make sense, but most of the ones getting hacked or those that are volatile at best pretend to be value stores when it comes to currency. In reality the best they could hope for is a widely adopted useful protocol.
Except that... Blockchain transactions are actually much faster per second than payment card transactions. For example Solana can handle transactions 3 times faster than Visa, which is partially why the payment card industry is looking into utilizing Blockchain.
That's just Solana comparing how many transactions per second they can do in theory in 2022 to what Visa achieved in their tests with IBM in 2010.
Today either Visa has improved their hardware so that it's able to handle about as many transactions as Solana can as computer hardwares have improved, or if Visa hasn't done that then it's because they've already been able to handle all the transactions and don't want too much unused extra capacity sitting idle.
Payment processing companies are looking into blockchain tech because a blockchain database will likely be good for their purposes, but it's not really because actors like Visa wouldn't already have the capacity to process as many transactions as they wish.
They're looking into it because it's a growing technology with a lot of uses. Solana is highly scalable, that's the thing. Visa can handle as many transactions as solana, around 65K TPS, give or take, but Solana, even in this early unstable stage has the potential of up to 700K TPS. That doesn't even get into what the cost of validating those transactions are and the cost of visas infrastructure to do that, in comparison to something like Solana, that... I mean, their infrastructure lives on a public chain run by decentralized nodes.
That doesn't mean that's a great thing. In fact, Solana has been shown in multiple cases to be unreliable, when there's a transaction flood of more transactions then they can process, which has previously been done on purpose to break the protocol and knock it out for hours... definitely part of the growing pains of these kinds of protocols...
But It's not necessarily that Visa CAN'T compete with the transaction rate of a blockchain like solana, but, considering that Solana is also extremely efficient in processing data. While the energy consumption rate between a visa transactio nand solana transaction is generally similar, efficiency comes with maturity, and that's why there's so much investment in the tech.
Payments really don't work the way you are describing, you totally are omitting the various AML flows including sanctions, fraud and KYC screening which all payments involving any sort of financial institution or payment clearer such T2, Fed, CHIPS, MAS and many others route through.
There's also recent requirements that all payment activities for countries such as China and India have to be cleared and screened by onshore resources including hardware and staff.
It's not to say that the presence of these hoops some payment card transactions go through don't slow down their transactions, but, card fraud is in the billions of dollars every year and rising, so, I wouldn't say they are doing that much of a bang up job.
Crypto fraud is in the billions of dollars a year and rising as well.
And that's with a million times less people using crypto compared to people using credit cards.
Yes...annnd no
The problem with equating crypto losses to real money is that it's so volatile. You can say you stole 1million in ...say Solana since we talk about that... But... Solana has grown and contracted several times it's worth.
Did you steal 1 million when it was at 15 dollars? Or at 50 dollars? Or when it declined again to 20 dollars?
Just in the past week it fluctuated 2 dollars.
And generally when there's a big news article or report that a coin was stolen, it deflates the price insanely fast, unless it's a stable coin, and there have been only rare cases of those losses.
But the point is, news reports the big numbers at the time it was taken, but, that doesn't mean that's how much it was actually worth or how much the thieves actually got. In fact, it's highly unlikely they end up with that much money in the end anyways, simply because most of the time you can trace the transactions through their wallets, and in some cases, millions have been recovered by doing that.
But, you're not wrong, I'm just trying to give some perspective... Cryptocurrency prices in most cases are not cryptocurrency prices from one day to the next.
Solana lost 96% of its value in 2022 alone. Which was over $50 billion. You dismiss that as just volatility?!
Alright, if you dont want market cap going up and down then how about OneCoin. A pure fraud crypto coin that stole over $4 billion.
How about FTX? Or Binance? Or Luna? How about at the end of 2021 crypto market capitalization was at $3 trillion and at the end of 2022 it was at $800 billion?
Which seems like an argument tangential to the fundamental point of the frequency of fraud.
Cutting the value to a tenth or less would still proportionately be larger given community scale
Problem with perspective is it goes both ways. People claiming crypto is a more secure option are obfuscating the truth that it's more secure in some ways, and less in others. Hence bringing up the point on Sybil and Eclipse attacks, something Solana had claimed resistance to back in 2019 only to have several attacks made in the following years.
If an honest assessment is ever to be made, it's done by taking the good with the bad and not making roundabout arguments.
But that was the argument.
Crypto loses billions with less adoption.
But the term billions is subjective, because it's volatile, and not liquid. As opposed to the loss of credit fiat that is directly utilized for payments. When fiat is stolen what you have is an actual cost as relevant to one currency from a specific government.
It doesn't mean that fraud is committed less or more, but there are far more detrimental losses that largely go unanswered, and affect way more people than cryptos reach and I think it's interesting to point to crypto and it's perceptual losses as being the worst of the worst when the majority of the funds made were from early adopters, that didn't actually earn a fraction of the value in a meaningful way.
Ehhh, this still seems to be more tangential than an honest straight take.
Arguing it isn't losing disproportionately as much by appealing to it's volatility 1) doesn't exactly solve for the statement I made, and 2) just adds another problem to the situation.
In addition to that, pointing at an issue that effects "way more people than crypto's reach", just brings it in circle to the subject;
And if crypto had the same reach with it's current ratio of fraud, how do you think that would end up looking?
Simply put, it's got big unsolved issues that need to be addressed before being used on the same kind of scale.
Except that... Blockchain transactions are actually much faster per second than payment card transactions. For example Solana can handle transactions 3 times faster than Visa, which is partially why the payment card industry is looking into utilizing Blockchain.
That's just Solana comparing how many transactions per second they can do in theory in 2022 to what Visa achieved in their tests with IBM in 2010.
Today either Visa has improved their hardware so that it's able to handle about as many transactions as Solana can as computer hardwares have improved, or if Visa hasn't done that then it's because they've already been able to handle all the transactions and don't want too much unused extra capacity sitting idle.
Payment processing companies are looking into blockchain tech because a blockchain database will likely be good for their purposes, but it's not really because actors like Visa wouldn't already have the capacity to process as many transactions as they wish.
They're looking into it because it's a growing technology with a lot of uses. Solana is highly scalable, that's the thing. Visa can handle as many transactions as solana, around 65K TPS, give or take, but Solana, even in this early unstable stage has the potential of up to 700K TPS. That doesn't even get into what the cost of validating those transactions are and the cost of visas infrastructure to do that, in comparison to something like Solana, that... I mean, their infrastructure lives on a public chain run by decentralized nodes.
That doesn't mean that's a great thing. In fact, Solana has been shown in multiple cases to be unreliable, when there's a transaction flood of more transactions then they can process, which has previously been done on purpose to break the protocol and knock it out for hours... definitely part of the growing pains of these kinds of protocols...
But It's not necessarily that Visa CAN'T compete with the transaction rate of a blockchain like solana, but, considering that Solana is also extremely efficient in processing data. While the energy consumption rate between a visa transactio nand solana transaction is generally similar, efficiency comes with maturity, and that's why there's so much investment in the tech.
Payments really don't work the way you are describing, you totally are omitting the various AML flows including sanctions, fraud and KYC screening which all payments involving any sort of financial institution or payment clearer such T2, Fed, CHIPS, MAS and many others route through.
There's also recent requirements that all payment activities for countries such as China and India have to be cleared and screened by onshore resources including hardware and staff.
It's not to say that the presence of these hoops some payment card transactions go through don't slow down their transactions, but, card fraud is in the billions of dollars every year and rising, so, I wouldn't say they are doing that much of a bang up job.
Crypto fraud is in the billions of dollars a year and rising as well.
And that's with a million times less people using crypto compared to people using credit cards.
Yes...annnd no
The problem with equating crypto losses to real money is that it's so volatile. You can say you stole 1million in ...say Solana since we talk about that... But... Solana has grown and contracted several times it's worth.
Did you steal 1 million when it was at 15 dollars? Or at 50 dollars? Or when it declined again to 20 dollars?
Just in the past week it fluctuated 2 dollars.
And generally when there's a big news article or report that a coin was stolen, it deflates the price insanely fast, unless it's a stable coin, and there have been only rare cases of those losses.
But the point is, news reports the big numbers at the time it was taken, but, that doesn't mean that's how much it was actually worth or how much the thieves actually got. In fact, it's highly unlikely they end up with that much money in the end anyways, simply because most of the time you can trace the transactions through their wallets, and in some cases, millions have been recovered by doing that.
But, you're not wrong, I'm just trying to give some perspective... Cryptocurrency prices in most cases are not cryptocurrency prices from one day to the next.
Solana lost 96% of its value in 2022 alone. Which was over $50 billion. You dismiss that as just volatility?!
Alright, if you dont want market cap going up and down then how about OneCoin. A pure fraud crypto coin that stole over $4 billion.
How about FTX? Or Binance? Or Luna? How about at the end of 2021 crypto market capitalization was at $3 trillion and at the end of 2022 it was at $800 billion?
That's... Literally proving the point. "Billions" in crypto losses that have then lost 96% of their value sure appears to be far less than billions. It's really only proving that if you want to utilize a real crypto currency you need to utilize currencies that are made to do that, and audited, like USDC.
The fact that the market on non stable coins are so volatile only prices that the actual amount stolen ends up being extremely trivial.
Which seems like an argument tangential to the fundamental point of the frequency of fraud.
Cutting the value to a tenth or less would still proportionately be larger given community scale
Problem with perspective is it goes both ways. People claiming crypto is a more secure option are obfuscating the truth that it's more secure in some ways, and less in others. Hence bringing up the point on Sybil and Eclipse attacks, something Solana had claimed resistance to back in 2019 only to have several attacks made in the following years.
If an honest assessment is ever to be made, it's done by taking the good with the bad and not making roundabout arguments.
But that was the argument.
Crypto loses billions with less adoption.
But the term billions is subjective, because it's volatile, and not liquid. As opposed to the loss of credit fiat that is directly utilized for payments. When fiat is stolen what you have is an actual cost as relevant to one currency from a specific government.
It doesn't mean that fraud is committed less or more, but there are far more detrimental losses that largely go unanswered, and affect way more people than cryptos reach and I think it's interesting to point to crypto and it's perceptual losses as being the worst of the worst when the majority of the funds made were from early adopters, that didn't actually earn a fraction of the value in a meaningful way.
Ehhh, this still seems to be more tangential than an honest straight take.
Arguing it isn't losing disproportionately as much by appealing to it's volatility 1) doesn't exactly solve for the statement I made, and 2) just adds another problem to the situation.
In addition to that, pointing at an issue that effects "way more people than crypto's reach", just brings it in circle to the subject;
And if crypto had the same reach with it's current ratio of fraud, how do you think that would end up looking?
Simply put, it's got big unsolved issues that need to be addressed before being used on the same kind of scale.
Don't ask me, if you want to point to the "big losses" in crypto you need to gain perspective on how bit the losses actually are, which isn't tangential, it's to prove a point. Perceptual losses and actual losses are different. You basically own a bunch of chips in a roulette table unless your transactions are in stable coins, and you have to have trusted and audited stable coins in order for it to work at all.
The "unsolved issues" I'm cryptotokens are irrelevant for the point of what's been stolen, because, again, the point of...well there's billions of actual, non fluctuating currencies, that don't sit on a roulette table, getting stolen, or millions of data points where identities worth infinite amounts of currency are lost from data breaches and fraud, haven't been cured in decades, there's just no real comparison.
Like xiaoki said a trillion in Solana one day is a billion the next. It's not a protocol as a currency it's a protocol to build on for dapps.
It's important because... The amount... Of a currency is different than the price of the currency. You can steal 10 Ethereum at 10k dollars or 1k dollars. But you still end up with 10ETH. This matters, because in the end crypto tokens should be used for value within their ecosystem.
But the underlying issue that fraud and theft occurs..... Not indicative of the extent of the fraud. In most cases the simplest answer is the correct one. FTX didn't manage their cahs flow and assets properly. That's called...going into bankruptcy, despite their CEO defrauding the investors ... But non crypto companies to through that all the time.
Luna lost its peg because they weren't backed or audited with collateral, like USDC is. They utilized their own currency as credit to stabilize the coin which is...the dumbest thing you could do to try and stabilize a coin.
That is tangential. But the point is made that fraud happens everywhere and it's not disproportionately crypto. Even in gaming. Like all those Fallout 76 dupes people were making? Sold on gray markets to trade in RMT... No crypto needed.
That kind of money isn't an incredibly large investment when you're talking billions of dollars in the industry. For the company yes...for the industry no. At this point, following the money isn't the best metric. AAA that suck F- games that are great.... Honestly, in this industry you have to follow the talent. That's a better indicator IMO.
That kind of money isn't an incredibly large investment when you're talking billions of dollars in the industry. For the company yes...for the industry no. At this point, following the money isn't the best metric. AAA that suck F- games that are great.... Honestly, in this industry you have to follow the talent. That's a better indicator IMO.
Well to be fair that is kind of what we did with Crowdfunding right? Hey So and So went and opened a new company and he made game Y which I loved so this should be great!
Didn't turn out so well. Far too many one hit wonders.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
That kind of money isn't an incredibly large investment when you're talking billions of dollars in the industry. For the company yes...for the industry no. At this point, following the money isn't the best metric. AAA that suck F- games that are great.... Honestly, in this industry you have to follow the talent. That's a better indicator IMO.
Well to be fair that is kind of what we did with Crowdfunding right? Hey So and So went and opened a new company and he made game Y which I loved so this should be great!
Didn't turn out so well. Far too many one hit wonders.
I don't disagree, but I think that people tend to have very limited capacity for looking 'deeper'. We see the headline of whoever opened up a company of got an infusion of cash and we jump in. There is a reason that analysts get paid a lot of money for this kind of work. Obviously, we're not gonna have their resources, but I think we, as a community, could look a bit deeper. Would save us all time and money.
Which seems like an argument tangential to the fundamental point of the frequency of fraud.
Cutting the value to a tenth or less would still proportionately be larger given community scale
Problem with perspective is it goes both ways. People claiming crypto is a more secure option are obfuscating the truth that it's more secure in some ways, and less in others. Hence bringing up the point on Sybil and Eclipse attacks, something Solana had claimed resistance to back in 2019 only to have several attacks made in the following years.
If an honest assessment is ever to be made, it's done by taking the good with the bad and not making roundabout arguments.
But that was the argument.
Crypto loses billions with less adoption.
But the term billions is subjective, because it's volatile, and not liquid. As opposed to the loss of credit fiat that is directly utilized for payments. When fiat is stolen what you have is an actual cost as relevant to one currency from a specific government.
It doesn't mean that fraud is committed less or more, but there are far more detrimental losses that largely go unanswered, and affect way more people than cryptos reach and I think it's interesting to point to crypto and it's perceptual losses as being the worst of the worst when the majority of the funds made were from early adopters, that didn't actually earn a fraction of the value in a meaningful way.
Ehhh, this still seems to be more tangential than an honest straight take.
Arguing it isn't losing disproportionately as much by appealing to it's volatility 1) doesn't exactly solve for the statement I made, and 2) just adds another problem to the situation.
In addition to that, pointing at an issue that effects "way more people than crypto's reach", just brings it in circle to the subject;
And if crypto had the same reach with it's current ratio of fraud, how do you think that would end up looking?
Simply put, it's got big unsolved issues that need to be addressed before being used on the same kind of scale.
Don't ask me, if you want to point to the "big losses" in crypto you need to gain perspective on how bit the losses actually are, which isn't tangential, it's to prove a point. Perceptual losses and actual losses are different. You basically own a bunch of chips in a roulette table unless your transactions are in stable coins, and you have to have trusted and audited stable coins in order for it to work at all.
The "unsolved issues" I'm cryptotokens are irrelevant for the point of what's been stolen, because, again, the point of...well there's billions of actual, non fluctuating currencies, that don't sit on a roulette table, getting stolen, or millions of data points where identities worth infinite amounts of currency are lost from data breaches and fraud, haven't been cured in decades, there's just no real comparison.
Like xiaoki said a trillion in Solana one day is a billion the next. It's not a protocol as a currency it's a protocol to build on for dapps.
It's important because... The amount... Of a currency is different than the price of the currency. You can steal 10 Ethereum at 10k dollars or 1k dollars. But you still end up with 10ETH. This matters, because in the end crypto tokens should be used for value within their ecosystem.
But the underlying issue that fraud and theft occurs..... Not indicative of the extent of the fraud. In most cases the simplest answer is the correct one. FTX didn't manage their cahs flow and assets properly. That's called...going into bankruptcy, despite their CEO defrauding the investors ... But non crypto companies to through that all the time.
Luna lost its peg because they weren't backed or audited with collateral, like USDC is. They utilized their own currency as credit to stabilize the coin which is...the dumbest thing you could do to try and stabilize a coin.
That is tangential. But the point is made that fraud happens everywhere and it's not disproportionately crypto. Even in gaming. Like all those Fallout 76 dupes people were making? Sold on gray markets to trade in RMT... No crypto needed.
"Arguing it isn't losing disproportionately as much by appealing to it's volatility 1) doesn't exactly solve for the statement I made, and 2) just adds another problem to the situation."
If you want to cut the argument of value entirely, then all You're doing is refocusing to the subject of the attacks, methods, and consequences. To which whaboutisms are not going to solve the problem(s) faced.
Rather, all it demonstrates is the idea of trading problems. That isn't making things better, just different. We can see your argument migrated it's examples away from prior examples, moving away from my prior subject of Sybil and Eclipse attacks.
But yes, since you mention it, blockchain is not immune to other classic modes of fraud.
Which seems like an argument tangential to the fundamental point of the frequency of fraud.
Cutting the value to a tenth or less would still proportionately be larger given community scale
Problem with perspective is it goes both ways. People claiming crypto is a more secure option are obfuscating the truth that it's more secure in some ways, and less in others. Hence bringing up the point on Sybil and Eclipse attacks, something Solana had claimed resistance to back in 2019 only to have several attacks made in the following years.
If an honest assessment is ever to be made, it's done by taking the good with the bad and not making roundabout arguments.
But that was the argument.
Crypto loses billions with less adoption.
But the term billions is subjective, because it's volatile, and not liquid. As opposed to the loss of credit fiat that is directly utilized for payments. When fiat is stolen what you have is an actual cost as relevant to one currency from a specific government.
It doesn't mean that fraud is committed less or more, but there are far more detrimental losses that largely go unanswered, and affect way more people than cryptos reach and I think it's interesting to point to crypto and it's perceptual losses as being the worst of the worst when the majority of the funds made were from early adopters, that didn't actually earn a fraction of the value in a meaningful way.
Ehhh, this still seems to be more tangential than an honest straight take.
Arguing it isn't losing disproportionately as much by appealing to it's volatility 1) doesn't exactly solve for the statement I made, and 2) just adds another problem to the situation.
In addition to that, pointing at an issue that effects "way more people than crypto's reach", just brings it in circle to the subject;
And if crypto had the same reach with it's current ratio of fraud, how do you think that would end up looking?
Simply put, it's got big unsolved issues that need to be addressed before being used on the same kind of scale.
Don't ask me, if you want to point to the "big losses" in crypto you need to gain perspective on how bit the losses actually are, which isn't tangential, it's to prove a point. Perceptual losses and actual losses are different. You basically own a bunch of chips in a roulette table unless your transactions are in stable coins, and you have to have trusted and audited stable coins in order for it to work at all.
The "unsolved issues" I'm cryptotokens are irrelevant for the point of what's been stolen, because, again, the point of...well there's billions of actual, non fluctuating currencies, that don't sit on a roulette table, getting stolen, or millions of data points where identities worth infinite amounts of currency are lost from data breaches and fraud, haven't been cured in decades, there's just no real comparison.
Like xiaoki said a trillion in Solana one day is a billion the next. It's not a protocol as a currency it's a protocol to build on for dapps.
It's important because... The amount... Of a currency is different than the price of the currency. You can steal 10 Ethereum at 10k dollars or 1k dollars. But you still end up with 10ETH. This matters, because in the end crypto tokens should be used for value within their ecosystem.
But the underlying issue that fraud and theft occurs..... Not indicative of the extent of the fraud. In most cases the simplest answer is the correct one. FTX didn't manage their cahs flow and assets properly. That's called...going into bankruptcy, despite their CEO defrauding the investors ... But non crypto companies to through that all the time.
Luna lost its peg because they weren't backed or audited with collateral, like USDC is. They utilized their own currency as credit to stabilize the coin which is...the dumbest thing you could do to try and stabilize a coin.
That is tangential. But the point is made that fraud happens everywhere and it's not disproportionately crypto. Even in gaming. Like all those Fallout 76 dupes people were making? Sold on gray markets to trade in RMT... No crypto needed.
"Arguing it isn't losing disproportionately as much by appealing to it's volatility 1) doesn't exactly solve for the statement I made, and 2) just adds another problem to the situation."
If you want to cut the argument of value entirely, then all You're doing is refocusing to the subject of the attacks, methods, and consequences. To which whaboutisms are not going to solve the problem(s) faced.
Rather, all it demonstrates is the idea of trading problems. That isn't making things better, just different. We can see your argument migrated it's examples away from prior examples, moving away from my prior subject of Sybil and Eclipse attacks.
But yes, since you mention it, blockchain is not immune to other classic modes of fraud.
It isn't a moving away from Sybil or eclipse attacks it's the point that they are largely unsuccessful. Only in rare cases in conjunction with a 51% attack would a hack like that be a concern.
And that's not possible with POS anyhow. It's a moot point in terms of ongoing security issues. Not to say it won't happen ever, but, it's a lot of junk to simply say... Fraud happens.
But again to pretend it's disproportionate in Blockchain or somehow makes it less secure, it's wrong.
On the contrary one thing these currencies are actually really good at mitigating is identity theft. Identity theft can take bank accounts, utilities and even your medical identity, but no matter how much information you have, you don't gain access to crypto funds that way.
But that is a tangent. And again, the "whataboutism" is simply stated that when you try and paint something as "the devil" because fraud occurs without noting that it has happened with all currency in every aspect and it isn't somehow new, or worse, it's just demonizing something because you don't like it.
Which seems like an argument tangential to the fundamental point of the frequency of fraud.
Cutting the value to a tenth or less would still proportionately be larger given community scale
Problem with perspective is it goes both ways. People claiming crypto is a more secure option are obfuscating the truth that it's more secure in some ways, and less in others. Hence bringing up the point on Sybil and Eclipse attacks, something Solana had claimed resistance to back in 2019 only to have several attacks made in the following years.
If an honest assessment is ever to be made, it's done by taking the good with the bad and not making roundabout arguments.
But that was the argument.
Ehhh, this still seems to be more tangential than an honest straight take.
Arguing it isn't losing disproportionately as much by appealing to it's volatility 1) doesn't exactly solve for the statement I made, and 2) just adds another problem to the situation.
In addition to that, pointing at an issue that effects "way more people than crypto's reach", just brings it in circle to the subject;
And if crypto had the same reach with it's current ratio of fraud, how do you think that would end up looking?
Simply put, it's got big unsolved issues that need to be addressed before being used on the same kind of scale.
Don't ask me, if you want to point to the "big losses" in crypto you need to gain perspective on how bit the losses actually are, which isn't tangential, it's to prove a point. Perceptual losses and actual losses are different. You basically own a bunch of chips in a roulette table unless your transactions are in stable coins, and you have to have trusted and audited stable coins in order for it to work at all.
The "unsolved issues" I'm cryptotokens are irrelevant for the point of what's been stolen, because, again, the point of...well there's billions of actual, non fluctuating currencies, that don't sit on a roulette table, getting stolen, or millions of data points where identities worth infinite amounts of currency are lost from data breaches and fraud, haven't been cured in decades, there's just no real comparison.
Like xiaoki said a trillion in Solana one day is a billion the next. It's not a protocol as a currency it's a protocol to build on for dapps.
It's important because... The amount... Of a currency is different than the price of the currency. You can steal 10 Ethereum at 10k dollars or 1k dollars. But you still end up with 10ETH. This matters, because in the end crypto tokens should be used for value within their ecosystem.
But the underlying issue that fraud and theft occurs..... Not indicative of the extent of the fraud. In most cases the simplest answer is the correct one. FTX didn't manage their cahs flow and assets properly. That's called...going into bankruptcy, despite their CEO defrauding the investors ... But non crypto companies to through that all the time.
Luna lost its peg because they weren't backed or audited with collateral, like USDC is. They utilized their own currency as credit to stabilize the coin which is...the dumbest thing you could do to try and stabilize a coin.
That is tangential. But the point is made that fraud happens everywhere and it's not disproportionately crypto. Even in gaming. Like all those Fallout 76 dupes people were making? Sold on gray markets to trade in RMT... No crypto needed.
"Arguing it isn't losing disproportionately as much by appealing to it's volatility 1) doesn't exactly solve for the statement I made, and 2) just adds another problem to the situation."
If you want to cut the argument of value entirely, then all You're doing is refocusing to the subject of the attacks, methods, and consequences. To which whaboutisms are not going to solve the problem(s) faced.
Rather, all it demonstrates is the idea of trading problems. That isn't making things better, just different. We can see your argument migrated it's examples away from prior examples, moving away from my prior subject of Sybil and Eclipse attacks.
But yes, since you mention it, blockchain is not immune to other classic modes of fraud.
It isn't a moving away from Sybil or eclipse attacks it's the point that they are largely unsuccessful. Only in rare cases in conjunction with a 51% attack would a hack like that be a concern.
And that's not possible with POS anyhow. It's a moot point in terms of ongoing security issues. Not to say it won't happen ever, but, it's a lot of junk to simply say... Fraud happens.
But again to pretend it's disproportionate in Blockchain or somehow makes it less secure, it's wrong.
On the contrary one thing these currencies are actually really good at mitigating is identity theft. Identity theft can take bank accounts, utilities and even your medical identity, but no matter how much information you have, you don't gain access to crypto funds that way.
But that is a tangent. And again, the "whataboutism" is simply stated that when you try and paint something as "the devil" because fraud occurs without noting that it has happened with all currency in every aspect and it isn't somehow new, or worse, it's just demonizing something because you don't like it.
Neither Sybil nor Eclipse attacks require a 51% attack to be successful. Part of the whole point of them is disrupting the nodes, hash rates, and breaking consensus of the mesh network. This is again how Solana has been successfully attacked before, and minor attacks targeting specific nodes for the duration for faking a transaction serve just as well even if corrected by the network later, since whoever did the false transaction has already made the exchange for the desired good.
POS exist on networks. The point of these attacks is targeting the networks.
We're talking about scenarios here where it's not just digital goods and fraudulent charges can be made without the ability to take back part of the transaction.
And I'll take your crypto identity fraud claims with a grain of salt.
No, demonizing is when you take another's argument presenting that things aren't all sunshine and roses, and that things need to be viewed holistically as to what the current state of technology is, and try to label it as strictly negative opinion.
You're trying to make this last comment of yours towards someone who has never called any of this as just being worse, but as trading problems and noting the importance of acknowledging current problems to address when it's still a smaller part of the industry.
Except that... Blockchain transactions are actually much faster per second than payment card transactions. For example Solana can handle transactions 3 times faster than Visa, which is partially why the payment card industry is looking into utilizing Blockchain.
That's just Solana comparing how many transactions per second they can do in theory in 2022 to what Visa achieved in their tests with IBM in 2010.
Today either Visa has improved their hardware so that it's able to handle about as many transactions as Solana can as computer hardwares have improved, or if Visa hasn't done that then it's because they've already been able to handle all the transactions and don't want too much unused extra capacity sitting idle.
Payment processing companies are looking into blockchain tech because a blockchain database will likely be good for their purposes, but it's not really because actors like Visa wouldn't already have the capacity to process as many transactions as they wish.
They're looking into it because it's a growing technology with a lot of uses. Solana is highly scalable, that's the thing. Visa can handle as many transactions as solana, around 65K TPS, give or take, but Solana, even in this early unstable stage has the potential of up to 700K TPS. That doesn't even get into what the cost of validating those transactions are and the cost of visas infrastructure to do that, in comparison to something like Solana, that... I mean, their infrastructure lives on a public chain run by decentralized nodes.
That doesn't mean that's a great thing. In fact, Solana has been shown in multiple cases to be unreliable, when there's a transaction flood of more transactions then they can process, which has previously been done on purpose to break the protocol and knock it out for hours... definitely part of the growing pains of these kinds of protocols...
But It's not necessarily that Visa CAN'T compete with the transaction rate of a blockchain like solana, but, considering that Solana is also extremely efficient in processing data. While the energy consumption rate between a visa transactio nand solana transaction is generally similar, efficiency comes with maturity, and that's why there's so much investment in the tech.
Payments really don't work the way you are describing, you totally are omitting the various AML flows including sanctions, fraud and KYC screening which all payments involving any sort of financial institution or payment clearer such T2, Fed, CHIPS, MAS and many others route through.
There's also recent requirements that all payment activities for countries such as China and India have to be cleared and screened by onshore resources including hardware and staff.
It's not to say that the presence of these hoops some payment card transactions go through don't slow down their transactions, but, card fraud is in the billions of dollars every year and rising, so, I wouldn't say they are doing that much of a bang up job.
Crypto fraud is in the billions of dollars a year and rising as well.
And that's with a million times less people using crypto compared to people using credit cards.
Yes...annnd no
The problem with equating crypto losses to real money is that it's so volatile. You can say you stole 1million in ...say Solana since we talk about that... But... Solana has grown and contracted several times it's worth.
Did you steal 1 million when it was at 15 dollars? Or at 50 dollars? Or when it declined again to 20 dollars?
Just in the past week it fluctuated 2 dollars.
And generally when there's a big news article or report that a coin was stolen, it deflates the price insanely fast, unless it's a stable coin, and there have been only rare cases of those losses.
But the point is, news reports the big numbers at the time it was taken, but, that doesn't mean that's how much it was actually worth or how much the thieves actually got. In fact, it's highly unlikely they end up with that much money in the end anyways, simply because most of the time you can trace the transactions through their wallets, and in some cases, millions have been recovered by doing that.
But, you're not wrong, I'm just trying to give some perspective... Cryptocurrency prices in most cases are not cryptocurrency prices from one day to the next.
Solana lost 96% of its value in 2022 alone. Which was over $50 billion. You dismiss that as just volatility?!
Alright, if you dont want market cap going up and down then how about OneCoin. A pure fraud crypto coin that stole over $4 billion.
How about FTX? Or Binance? Or Luna? How about at the end of 2021 crypto market capitalization was at $3 trillion and at the end of 2022 it was at $800 billion?
That's... Literally proving the point. "Billions" in crypto losses that have then lost 96% of their value sure appears to be far less than billions. It's really only proving that if you want to utilize a real crypto currency you need to utilize currencies that are made to do that, and audited, like USDC.
The fact that the market on non stable coins are so volatile only prices that the actual amount stolen ends up being extremely trivial.
Suppose that you spend $1 million to buy some cryptocurrency, then it gets stolen, and then the price tanks so that it's now only worth $100k rather than $1 million. Was the amount stolen $100k or $1 million? Even if the thieves only got $100k, you're still out the full $1 million.
Except that... Blockchain transactions are actually much faster per second than payment card transactions. For example Solana can handle transactions 3 times faster than Visa, which is partially why the payment card industry is looking into utilizing Blockchain.
That's just Solana comparing how many transactions per second they can do in theory in 2022 to what Visa achieved in their tests with IBM in 2010.
Today either Visa has improved their hardware so that it's able to handle about as many transactions as Solana can as computer hardwares have improved, or if Visa hasn't done that then it's because they've already been able to handle all the transactions and don't want too much unused extra capacity sitting idle.
Payment processing companies are looking into blockchain tech because a blockchain database will likely be good for their purposes, but it's not really because actors like Visa wouldn't already have the capacity to process as many transactions as they wish.
They're looking into it because it's a growing technology with a lot of uses. Solana is highly scalable, that's the thing. Visa can handle as many transactions as solana, around 65K TPS, give or take, but Solana, even in this early unstable stage has the potential of up to 700K TPS. That doesn't even get into what the cost of validating those transactions are and the cost of visas infrastructure to do that, in comparison to something like Solana, that... I mean, their infrastructure lives on a public chain run by decentralized nodes.
That doesn't mean that's a great thing. In fact, Solana has been shown in multiple cases to be unreliable, when there's a transaction flood of more transactions then they can process, which has previously been done on purpose to break the protocol and knock it out for hours... definitely part of the growing pains of these kinds of protocols...
But It's not necessarily that Visa CAN'T compete with the transaction rate of a blockchain like solana, but, considering that Solana is also extremely efficient in processing data. While the energy consumption rate between a visa transactio nand solana transaction is generally similar, efficiency comes with maturity, and that's why there's so much investment in the tech.
Payments really don't work the way you are describing, you totally are omitting the various AML flows including sanctions, fraud and KYC screening which all payments involving any sort of financial institution or payment clearer such T2, Fed, CHIPS, MAS and many others route through.
There's also recent requirements that all payment activities for countries such as China and India have to be cleared and screened by onshore resources including hardware and staff.
It's not to say that the presence of these hoops some payment card transactions go through don't slow down their transactions, but, card fraud is in the billions of dollars every year and rising, so, I wouldn't say they are doing that much of a bang up job.
Crypto fraud is in the billions of dollars a year and rising as well.
And that's with a million times less people using crypto compared to people using credit cards.
Yes...annnd no
The problem with equating crypto losses to real money is that it's so volatile. You can say you stole 1million in ...say Solana since we talk about that... But... Solana has grown and contracted several times it's worth.
Did you steal 1 million when it was at 15 dollars? Or at 50 dollars? Or when it declined again to 20 dollars?
Just in the past week it fluctuated 2 dollars.
And generally when there's a big news article or report that a coin was stolen, it deflates the price insanely fast, unless it's a stable coin, and there have been only rare cases of those losses.
But the point is, news reports the big numbers at the time it was taken, but, that doesn't mean that's how much it was actually worth or how much the thieves actually got. In fact, it's highly unlikely they end up with that much money in the end anyways, simply because most of the time you can trace the transactions through their wallets, and in some cases, millions have been recovered by doing that.
But, you're not wrong, I'm just trying to give some perspective... Cryptocurrency prices in most cases are not cryptocurrency prices from one day to the next.
Solana lost 96% of its value in 2022 alone. Which was over $50 billion. You dismiss that as just volatility?!
Alright, if you dont want market cap going up and down then how about OneCoin. A pure fraud crypto coin that stole over $4 billion.
How about FTX? Or Binance? Or Luna? How about at the end of 2021 crypto market capitalization was at $3 trillion and at the end of 2022 it was at $800 billion?
That's... Literally proving the point. "Billions" in crypto losses that have then lost 96% of their value sure appears to be far less than billions. It's really only proving that if you want to utilize a real crypto currency you need to utilize currencies that are made to do that, and audited, like USDC.
The fact that the market on non stable coins are so volatile only prices that the actual amount stolen ends up being extremely trivial.
Suppose that you spend $1 million to buy some cryptocurrency, then it gets stolen, and then the price tanks so that it's now only worth $100k rather than $1 million. Was the amount stolen $100k or $1 million? Even if the thieves only got $100k, you're still out the full $1 million.
I agree. It seems bizarre to argue in defense of this by stating "yeah, well once they get hacked the value goes down, so the thieves end up with less value than they stole!"
The comparison should be the frequency of fraud along with severity of invested money *lost*. Not money illegally gained.
"Arguing it isn't losing disproportionately as much by appealing to it's volatility 1) doesn't exactly solve for the statement I made, and 2) just adds another problem to the situation."
If you want to cut the argument of value entirely, then all You're doing is refocusing to the subject of the attacks, methods, and consequences. To which whaboutisms are not going to solve the problem(s) faced.
Rather, all it demonstrates is the idea of trading problems. That isn't making things better, just different. We can see your argument migrated it's examples away from prior examples, moving away from my prior subject of Sybil and Eclipse attacks.
But yes, since you mention it, blockchain is not immune to other classic modes of fraud.
It isn't a moving away from Sybil or eclipse attacks it's the point that they are largely unsuccessful. Only in rare cases in conjunction with a 51% attack would a hack like that be a concern.
And that's not possible with POS anyhow. It's a moot point in terms of ongoing security issues. Not to say it won't happen ever, but, it's a lot of junk to simply say... Fraud happens.
But again to pretend it's disproportionate in Blockchain or somehow makes it less secure, it's wrong.
On the contrary one thing these currencies are actually really good at mitigating is identity theft. Identity theft can take bank accounts, utilities and even your medical identity, but no matter how much information you have, you don't gain access to crypto funds that way.
But that is a tangent. And again, the "whataboutism" is simply stated that when you try and paint something as "the devil" because fraud occurs without noting that it has happened with all currency in every aspect and it isn't somehow new, or worse, it's just demonizing something because you don't like it.
Neither Sybil nor Eclipse attacks require a 51% attack to be successful. Part of the whole point of them is disrupting the nodes, hash rates, and breaking consensus of the mesh network. This is again how Solana has been successfully attacked before, and minor attacks targeting specific nodes for the duration for faking a transaction serve just as well even if corrected by the network later, since whoever did the false transaction has already made the exchange for the desired good.
POS exist on networks. The point of these attacks is targeting the networks.
We're talking about scenarios here where it's not just digital goods and fraudulent charges can be made without the ability to take back part of the transaction.
And I'll take your crypto identity fraud claims with a grain of salt.
No, demonizing is when you take another's argument presenting that things aren't all sunshine and roses, and that things need to be viewed holistically as to what the current state of technology is, and try to label it as strictly negative opinion.
You're trying to make this last comment of yours towards someone who has never called any of this as just being worse, but as trading problems and noting the importance of acknowledging current problems to address when it's still a smaller part of the industry.
Do not delve into such dishonesty, please.
The entire premise of an eclipse attack is trying to change information on a single node, by disconnecting from the network and authenticating on their own nodes. It's essentially the same as a 51% attack, and equally so Sybil works the same way. It all requires multiple nodes for authentication, and it gets substantially more difficult when you start to consider the ZKPOI's, which a lot of protocols use. More importantly, in most cases you can't target specific transactions on a weighted POS node pattern, which are generally far more resistance to those kind of attacks. This concludes why the majority of the stolen currencies don't revolve around these kind of attacks and instead revolve around vulnerabilities in cross chain bridges.
As for crypto "identity fraud" the links you posted don't provide any real information related to the type of identity fraud I'm talking about. I'm talking about identity access. You cannot access crypto assets through your identity. Crypto fraud cases are still high, but *identity fraud* is different. If I have your SSN address and/or bank account or credit card number - all of which have been leaked and lost by multiple websites over the years, the T-mobile hack of late being especially damaging with 77 million users having their information stolen, I could conceivably drain your bank account with a phone call.
But no matter who I call, without the seed phrase, I can't access a crypto wallet. There definitely are other ways to gain access to your funds or wallets, with even some people I know personally falling for a few tricks, but that's what I mean.
In the end, all of these cases are far off from the topic of blockchain gaming, and actually blockchain as a technology at all. Everyone is too wrapped up in the currency aspect of it.
Comments
That doesn't mean that's a great thing. In fact, Solana has been shown in multiple cases to be unreliable, when there's a transaction flood of more transactions then they can process, which has previously been done on purpose to break the protocol and knock it out for hours... definitely part of the growing pains of these kinds of protocols...
But It's not necessarily that Visa CAN'T compete with the transaction rate of a blockchain like solana, but, considering that Solana is also extremely efficient in processing data. While the energy consumption rate between a visa transactio nand solana transaction is generally similar, efficiency comes with maturity, and that's why there's so much investment in the tech.
There's also recent requirements that all payment activities for countries such as China and India have to be cleared and screened by onshore resources including hardware and staff.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's not to say that the presence of these hoops some payment card transactions go through don't slow down their transactions, but, card fraud is in the billions of dollars every year and rising, so, I wouldn't say they are doing that much of a bang up job.
Still though, it's strange to argue that there isn't a merit to blockchain. It doesn't sound like big financial industry players are investing in and using the technology just for the sake of fleecing the users. It doesn't really make much sense to do so. We're not going to wake up tomorrow to "Visa Coin, INVEST NOW"
Just doesn't make sense, they aren't using blockchain as a cryptocurrency but for what it's actually used for, a secure distributed database. And TBH bringing up that Solana can potentially do 700K transactions a second doesn't really even matter all that much, when you consider it's highly unlikely they would want to use an established decentralized protocol. More than likey they'll use a centralized proprietary protocol. It would be stupid not to.
The problem with equating crypto losses to real money is that it's so volatile. You can say you stole 1million in ...say Solana since we talk about that... But... Solana has grown and contracted several times it's worth.
Did you steal 1 million when it was at 15 dollars? Or at 50 dollars? Or when it declined again to 20 dollars?
Just in the past week it fluctuated 2 dollars.
And generally when there's a big news article or report that a coin was stolen, it deflates the price insanely fast, unless it's a stable coin, and there have been only rare cases of those losses.
But the point is, news reports the big numbers at the time it was taken, but, that doesn't mean that's how much it was actually worth or how much the thieves actually got. In fact, it's highly unlikely they end up with that much money in the end anyways, simply because most of the time you can trace the transactions through their wallets, and in some cases, millions have been recovered by doing that.
But, you're not wrong, I'm just trying to give some perspective... Cryptocurrency prices in most cases are not cryptocurrency prices from one day to the next.
Cutting the value to a tenth or less would still proportionately be larger given community scale
Problem with perspective is it goes both ways. People claiming crypto is a more secure option are obfuscating the truth that it's more secure in some ways, and less in others. Hence bringing up the point on Sybil and Eclipse attacks, something Solana had claimed resistance to back in 2019 only to have several attacks made in the following years.
If an honest assessment is ever to be made, it's done by taking the good with the bad and not making roundabout arguments.
Crypto loses billions with less adoption.
But the term billions is subjective, because it's volatile, and not liquid. As opposed to the loss of credit fiat that is directly utilized for payments. When fiat is stolen what you have is an actual cost as relevant to one currency from a specific government.
It doesn't mean that fraud is committed less or more, but there are far more detrimental losses that largely go unanswered, and affect way more people than cryptos reach and I think it's interesting to point to crypto and it's perceptual losses as being the worst of the worst when the majority of the funds made were from early adopters, that didn't actually earn a fraction of the value in a meaningful way.
For these facts Visa/Mastercard, and every other payment processor has been building and investing in blockchain for the past 6 years.
There's are cryptocurrencies that make sense, but most of the ones getting hacked or those that are volatile at best pretend to be value stores when it comes to currency. In reality the best they could hope for is a widely adopted useful protocol.
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
Arguing it isn't losing disproportionately as much by appealing to it's volatility 1) doesn't exactly solve for the statement I made, and 2) just adds another problem to the situation.
In addition to that, pointing at an issue that effects "way more people than crypto's reach", just brings it in circle to the subject;
And if crypto had the same reach with it's current ratio of fraud, how do you think that would end up looking?
Simply put, it's got big unsolved issues that need to be addressed before being used on the same kind of scale.
The fact that the market on non stable coins are so volatile only prices that the actual amount stolen ends up being extremely trivial.
The "unsolved issues" I'm cryptotokens are irrelevant for the point of what's been stolen, because, again, the point of...well there's billions of actual, non fluctuating currencies, that don't sit on a roulette table, getting stolen, or millions of data points where identities worth infinite amounts of currency are lost from data breaches and fraud, haven't been cured in decades, there's just no real comparison.
Like xiaoki said a trillion in Solana one day is a billion the next. It's not a protocol as a currency it's a protocol to build on for dapps.
It's important because... The amount... Of a currency is different than the price of the currency. You can steal 10 Ethereum at 10k dollars or 1k dollars. But you still end up with 10ETH. This matters, because in the end crypto tokens should be used for value within their ecosystem.
But the underlying issue that fraud and theft occurs..... Not indicative of the extent of the fraud. In most cases the simplest answer is the correct one. FTX didn't manage their cahs flow and assets properly. That's called...going into bankruptcy, despite their CEO defrauding the investors ... But non crypto companies to through that all the time.
Luna lost its peg because they weren't backed or audited with collateral, like USDC is. They utilized their own currency as credit to stabilize the coin which is...the dumbest thing you could do to try and stabilize a coin.
That is tangential. But the point is made that fraud happens everywhere and it's not disproportionately crypto. Even in gaming. Like all those Fallout 76 dupes people were making? Sold on gray markets to trade in RMT... No crypto needed.
Didn't turn out so well. Far too many one hit wonders.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
If you want to cut the argument of value entirely, then all You're doing is refocusing to the subject of the attacks, methods, and consequences. To which whaboutisms are not going to solve the problem(s) faced.
Rather, all it demonstrates is the idea of trading problems. That isn't making things better, just different. We can see your argument migrated it's examples away from prior examples, moving away from my prior subject of Sybil and Eclipse attacks.
But yes, since you mention it, blockchain is not immune to other classic modes of fraud.
And that's not possible with POS anyhow. It's a moot point in terms of ongoing security issues. Not to say it won't happen ever, but, it's a lot of junk to simply say... Fraud happens.
But again to pretend it's disproportionate in Blockchain or somehow makes it less secure, it's wrong.
On the contrary one thing these currencies are actually really good at mitigating is identity theft. Identity theft can take bank accounts, utilities and even your medical identity, but no matter how much information you have, you don't gain access to crypto funds that way.
But that is a tangent. And again, the "whataboutism" is simply stated that when you try and paint something as "the devil" because fraud occurs without noting that it has happened with all currency in every aspect and it isn't somehow new, or worse, it's just demonizing something because you don't like it.
POS exist on networks. The point of these attacks is targeting the networks.
We're talking about scenarios here where it's not just digital goods and fraudulent charges can be made without the ability to take back part of the transaction.
And I'll take your crypto identity fraud claims with a grain of salt.
No, demonizing is when you take another's argument presenting that things aren't all sunshine and roses, and that things need to be viewed holistically as to what the current state of technology is, and try to label it as strictly negative opinion.
You're trying to make this last comment of yours towards someone who has never called any of this as just being worse, but as trading problems and noting the importance of acknowledging current problems to address when it's still a smaller part of the industry.
Do not delve into such dishonesty, please.
The comparison should be the frequency of fraud along with severity of invested money *lost*. Not money illegally gained.
The entire premise of an eclipse attack is trying to change information on a single node, by disconnecting from the network and authenticating on their own nodes. It's essentially the same as a 51% attack, and equally so Sybil works the same way. It all requires multiple nodes for authentication, and it gets substantially more difficult when you start to consider the ZKPOI's, which a lot of protocols use. More importantly, in most cases you can't target specific transactions on a weighted POS node pattern, which are generally far more resistance to those kind of attacks. This concludes why the majority of the stolen currencies don't revolve around these kind of attacks and instead revolve around vulnerabilities in cross chain bridges.
As for crypto "identity fraud" the links you posted don't provide any real information related to the type of identity fraud I'm talking about. I'm talking about identity access. You cannot access crypto assets through your identity. Crypto fraud cases are still high, but *identity fraud* is different. If I have your SSN address and/or bank account or credit card number - all of which have been leaked and lost by multiple websites over the years, the T-mobile hack of late being especially damaging with 77 million users having their information stolen, I could conceivably drain your bank account with a phone call.
But no matter who I call, without the seed phrase, I can't access a crypto wallet. There definitely are other ways to gain access to your funds or wallets, with even some people I know personally falling for a few tricks, but that's what I mean.
In the end, all of these cases are far off from the topic of blockchain gaming, and actually blockchain as a technology at all. Everyone is too wrapped up in the currency aspect of it.