this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
556 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

57997 readers
2866 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
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There is value in a fully distributed append-only database system that can run on nodes that don't trust each other. We just haven't found any valid use of it ~~outside crypto~~ yet.

FTFY

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How is crypto not a valid use? Crypto as a get rich quick scheme is stupid and useless, but crypto for peer to peer payments is perfectly valid.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What (of value) does crypto do that existing payment services don't?

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not suggesting that crypto replace any existing use for bank cards or apps like zelle or cash app. I'm suggesting that there are other payment scenarios where excusing systems don't fit, like a dispensary that lost access to a payment processor (hypothetical, not sure if this has happened) or a merchant wanting to avoid transaction fees. It's absolutely useless in 99% of all transactions, but it's not 100%.

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you arguing that any technology that does the same thing as an existing one has zero value whatsoever?

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If I had to spitball an answer, I'd say the value of an innovation increases as it improves on existing similar things, and decreases as it worsens from them.

I don't see any benefit to crypto for sending money, and introducing a new, volatile currency backed by people's imagination is a detraction to me.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh yeah I love paying someone using a wildly volatile currency that goes up and down like a roller coaster and has exorbitant transaction fees. But at least I'm not a chump who uses a bank card.

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not anti bank or bank card, when those aren't an option crypto is a valid option. Ideally something without much for transaction fees, of course. Since prices are volatile, you would likely only purchase what you needed when you needed it.

This is wildly inconvenient, but remember this is a "banks are not an option" scenario. That's really up to the recipient. It could be a dispensary that got shut down by their payment processor, or another shop that wants to avoid the 3-5% transaction fee that payment processors charge. And yes, it could be something nefarious or illegal on the dark web.

To say crypto has no valid uses is simply inaccurate. For most people, though, there are better options like peer-to-peer payment apps (zelle, cash app, etc.) or just plain old cash.

[–] vladmech@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve read both these five times and I’m not seeing the difference, help!

[–] Kaiserschmarrn@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"outside crypto" at the end is crossed out.

[–] Fraubush@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Huh. Thank you. It's not showing that for me using the Voyager app on Android. Thought I was losing my marbles

[–] vladmech@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh weird must be a Voyager issue then, not seeing it via that on iOS, thanks for the reply!