Comment by gridlockd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gridlockd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Those exchanges are those "on and off ramps" that the Facebook is talking about here.

Otherwise, Libra can be used "anonymously" just like Bitcoin. You download a client, you generate an identity and then you can receive/send it.

https://developers.libra.org/docs/my-first-transaction#creat...

That's why the whole money laundering issue comes up in the first place, because Libra is a cryptocurrency much like many others.

Its distinction is really that it's not decentralized (like Ripple), that it's backed by real assets (like Tether - supposedly) and that Facebook and some other big corps are involved.

Those are all reasons for crypto-idealists to hate on it and spread FUD, which the Facebook-hating rest of the interest readily gobbles up.

In practice, those are all reasons for Libra to actually work as a means of exchange, as opposed to a highly speculative risk asset. Ripple transactions are instant. Tether price is stable, despite its sketchy background. Big corporations can influence points-of-sale.

What we call a "cryptocurrency" must be decentralised otherwise it is a Paypal version X. Ripple is 100% centralised by the way.

Who is "we"?

Ripple (or rather XRP, which I referred to as "Ripple") is widely referred to as cryptocurrency. It uses a distributed ledger and cryptography, like a cryptocurrency. It is traded on cryptocurrency exchanges and can be sent/received like a cryptocurrency (requiring no account registration like Paypal). Also, like most cryptocurrency it is backed by nothing and its price fluctuates and moves along with broader cryptocurrency market trends. For most intents and purposes, it is a cryptocurrency.

Of course one can make the distinction that a "true" cryptocurrency should be fully decentralized, but that's besides my point.

If it is not decentralised it defies the whole point of the solution. You then don't need a distributed decentralised network of independent transaction validators aka miners. You don't need any blockchain solution for it all. You can as well stick with MySQL and call it PayPal v2. Paypal also uses a lot of "cryptography" in its solutions but it doesn't make it a cryptocurrency. How many validation nodes are there in ripple? Less than a hundred. Can someone with bad intention and CPU power overtake it? No. It is a payment solution that is using parts of bitcoin ideas for no reason, really, rather than making quick cash on the hype.

Fundamentally I think both XRP and Bitcoin are equally worthless tokens with little practical use. However, XRP at least doesn't waste a huge amount of electricity in the process of sending those tokens around - and it does so instantly. That's a consequence of not being fully decentralized and trustless. Another consequence is that it isn't vulnerable to a 51% attack or a 33% attack.

Of course the market says both of these tokens are worth billions in market cap. It treats it exactly like a cryptocurrency, feeding on the cryptocurrency hype. Clearly the market doesn't value decentralization to the point where XRP is shunned.

Of course it is instant - any centralised payment solution is instant as they live in a a zoo rather than a jungle. That's what I'm saying, Ripple looks like a duck but is not a duck, it has some features of a cryptocurrency but lacks the core one - decentralisation. Also its blockchain is screwed - initial 30k transaction or so are lost. And on a personal level I dislike this company as I was constantly removed from their channels asking why their escrow in 2017 hold more coins than their total supply. They couldn't even get it right. D. Schwartz is probably a decent programmer, and I sort of admire how they became rich by building a lame replica of an expensive watch (bitcoin) - I read all of his posts on bitcoin stackexchange some time ago while learning about the industry...

XRP (or Libra) has decentralization, just not in a form that is accessible to the general public, because that brings in all sorts of other issues.

If you look at how we generally solve problems in the world, the idea that the untrusted general public should be involved as a matter of principle is ludicrous, because that requires significant defenses against bad actors at multiple levels.

Bitcoin didn't even solve this problem, it just raised the economic barrier for bad actors to cause trouble. In practice, many smaller cryptocurrencies are highly vulnerable to 51% attacks, but even Bitcoin mining power is highly centralized to a few companies.

I think the way XRP or Libra solve things (in principle) has very strong arguments going for it, but they are pragmatic, not idealistic. I haven't heard any good arguments on how the way Bitcoin solves things is so beneficial that it becomes a worthwhile tradeoff. I don't see why it should be the defining factor on what is or isn't considered a cryptocurrency.

There are no decentralized cryptocurrencies.

A decentralized cryptocurrency would not reward economies of scale the way Bitcoin does.

I would agree. Ripple is not considered a cryptocurrency by most, as it is simply a centrally validated bank coin.

"Otherwise, Libra can be used "anonymously" just like Bitcoin. You download a client, you generate an identity and then you can receive/send it."

Bitcoin can be used anonymously if you avoid KYC on/off ramps and specific transactions tied to your identity. Hard but possible. From Libra's white paper this appears impossible. That's a big difference.

> From Libra's white paper this appears impossible.

How so? Can you be specific? I quote the whitepaper:

"The Libra Blockchain is pseudonymous and allows users to hold one or more addresses that are not linked to their real-world identity."

The only difference that I see is that you could mine Bitcoin anonymously. You could also buy Bitcoin with cash in a private transaction, but the same can be said for Libra.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com