Is Crypto dying or just dropping for the moment?

[barbos]

The costs of Visa/Mastercard aren't in the transactions themselves, but all the supporting infrastructure and the fraud losses etc.

Exactly. You can't rob a crypto wallet.

Have been done already.

 

[Jarhyn]

The costs of Visa/Mastercard aren't in the transactions themselves, but all the supporting infrastructure and the fraud losses etc.

Exactly. You can't rob a crypto wallet.

Have been done already.

Bring up the incident(s?) That you are talking about.

The big one I know of on Etherium actually was able to use a network consensus patch to spoil the theft

Other such events have happened as well, if I recall, where the blockchain reacted to protect itself from any real such threat of insecurities.

 

[barbos]

Have been done already.

Bring up the incident(s?) That you are talking about.

The big one I know of on Etherium actually was able to use a network consensus patch to spoil the theft

Other such events have happened as well, if I recall, where the blockchain reacted to protect itself from any real such threat of insecurities.

blockchain itself is fine. People were simply kidnapped and forced to give up their coins
And wallets have been hacked too. Presumed inventor of bitcoin himself claims he was robbed of billions in bitcoins.

 

[Jayjay]

If crypto becomes more widely used, most people using it wouldn't keep it in their own wallets anyway, just like we don't keep all our money under our matresses. Banks have been providing the service of taking care of our money for us for a long time regardless of currency. I think they'll star offering crypto accounts in due time as well.

 

[barbos]

If crypto becomes more widely used, most people using it wouldn't keep it in their own wallets anyway, just like we don't keep all our money under our matresses. Banks have been providing the service of taking care of our money for us for a long time regardless of currency. I think they'll star offering crypto accounts in due time as well.

Kinda makes the whole point of being independent from banks and government mute.

 

[Jayjay]

If crypto becomes more widely used, most people using it wouldn't keep it in their own wallets anyway, just like we don't keep all our money under our matresses. Banks have been providing the service of taking care of our money for us for a long time regardless of currency. I think they'll star offering crypto accounts in due time as well.

Kinda makes the whole point of being independent from banks and government mute.

The option remains. It's slightly easier for crypto than paper money, but of course both have their risks.

 

[Jarhyn]

Have been done already.

Bring up the incident(s?) That you are talking about.

The big one I know of on Etherium actually was able to use a network consensus patch to spoil the theft

Other such events have happened as well, if I recall, where the blockchain reacted to protect itself from any real such threat of insecurities.

blockchain itself is fine. People were simply kidnapped and forced to give up their coins
And wallets have been hacked too. Presumed inventor of bitcoin himself claims he was robbed of billions in bitcoins.

So... Something anyone could do, and ask for compensation via any form of currency?

Or something that could happen to anyone who has a banking app installed on their phone (farming of passwords, etc)?

Those aren't "cryptocurrency problems", those are just "normal crime problems".

Swing again? And bring some evidence next time?

 

[Jarhyn]

If crypto becomes more widely used, most people using it wouldn't keep it in their own wallets anyway, just like we don't keep all our money under our matresses. Banks have been providing the service of taking care of our money for us for a long time regardless of currency. I think they'll star offering crypto accounts in due time as well.

My expectation is rather that a non-bank entity will probably arise (in Etherium most likely, but it's not a unique capability to that chain) where a third party organization has a secondary platform key necessary for a multisig transaction. It would be quite a bit lighter than current fraud protection, as it would essentially just be a "sanity check system" like "oh, your account processed this transaction to an untrusted and unrecognized wallet, did you really want to sign this transaction?" And then on your phone you just click "no".

You could even accomplish this 2FA without a true third party. Or require a third party auth for transactions greater than X.

I strongly doubt with crypto that there will ever be a need for "trusted party banking" ever again.

In fact if I were regulating crypto, I would put a restriction on third party trust, because it is an insecurity. The correct model is around multisig rather than third party trust.

 

[Jayjay]

If crypto becomes more widely used, most people using it wouldn't keep it in their own wallets anyway, just like we don't keep all our money under our matresses. Banks have been providing the service of taking care of our money for us for a long time regardless of currency. I think they'll star offering crypto accounts in due time as well.

My expectation is rather that a non-bank entity will probably arise (in Etherium most likely, but it's not a unique capability to that chain) where a third party organization has a secondary platform key necessary for a multisig transaction. It would be quite a bit lighter than current fraud protection, as it would essentially just be a "sanity check system" like "oh, your account processed this transaction to an untrusted and unrecognized wallet, did you really want to sign this transaction?" And then on your phone you just click "no".

You could even accomplish this 2FA without a true third party. Or require a third party auth for transactions greater than X.

I strongly doubt with crypto that there will ever be a need for "trusted party banking" ever again.

In fact if I were regulating crypto, I would put a restriction on third party trust, because it is an insecurity. The correct model is around multisig rather than third party trust.

Not all people consider the risk worth the effort of maintaining their own keys. What if your phone is stolen or you forget your passphrase? With crypto, your money is gone, there is no instance you can appeal or sue. Banks are also providing a service to protect you from yourself.

Besides, banks will still want to do fractional reserve lending. If cryptos become popular, they'll want their share of that pie too.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If crypto becomes more widely used, most people using it wouldn't keep it in their own wallets anyway, just like we don't keep all our money under our matresses. Banks have been providing the service of taking care of our money for us for a long time regardless of currency. I think they'll star offering crypto accounts in due time as well.

My expectation is rather that a non-bank entity will probably arise (in Etherium most likely, but it's not a unique capability to that chain) where a third party organization has a secondary platform key necessary for a multisig transaction. It would be quite a bit lighter than current fraud protection, as it would essentially just be a "sanity check system" like "oh, your account processed this transaction to an untrusted and unrecognized wallet, did you really want to sign this transaction?" And then on your phone you just click "no".

You could even accomplish this 2FA without a true third party. Or require a third party auth for transactions greater than X.

I strongly doubt with crypto that there will ever be a need for "trusted party banking" ever again.

In fact if I were regulating crypto, I would put a restriction on third party trust, because it is an insecurity. The correct model is around multisig rather than third party trust.

Not all people consider the risk worth the effort of maintaining their own keys. What if your phone is stolen or you forget your passphrase? With crypto, your money is gone, there is no instance you can appeal or sue. Banks are also providing a service to protect you from yourself.

Besides, banks will still want to do fractional reserve lending. If cryptos become popular, they'll want their share of that pie too.

Yep. I keep all emergency and daily cash with the bank where I know it's 100% safe. Guarantied by the US government to be safe. And my LOC is safe as long as I mostly hit my covenants. The crypto currencies are excited and offer great returns - but with great risk. Not interested (but I'll admit that I'm old and maybe set in my ways).

 

[Jarhyn]

If crypto becomes more widely used, most people using it wouldn't keep it in their own wallets anyway, just like we don't keep all our money under our matresses. Banks have been providing the service of taking care of our money for us for a long time regardless of currency. I think they'll star offering crypto accounts in due time as well.

My expectation is rather that a non-bank entity will probably arise (in Etherium most likely, but it's not a unique capability to that chain) where a third party organization has a secondary platform key necessary for a multisig transaction. It would be quite a bit lighter than current fraud protection, as it would essentially just be a "sanity check system" like "oh, your account processed this transaction to an untrusted and unrecognized wallet, did you really want to sign this transaction?" And then on your phone you just click "no".

You could even accomplish this 2FA without a true third party. Or require a third party auth for transactions greater than X.

I strongly doubt with crypto that there will ever be a need for "trusted party banking" ever again.

In fact if I were regulating crypto, I would put a restriction on third party trust, because it is an insecurity. The correct model is around multisig rather than third party trust.

Not all people consider the risk worth the effort of maintaining their own keys. What if your phone is stolen or you forget your passphrase? With crypto, your money is gone, there is no instance you can appeal or sue. Banks are also providing a service to protect you from yourself.

Besides, banks will still want to do fractional reserve lending. If cryptos become popular, they'll want their share of that pie too.

Not true. Wallets are a function generally of a mnemonic, and in recent rollings of it this means a series of 12 random words. This mnemonic CAN be held in trust, physically.

It doesn't matter though that banks may WANT to do fractional reserve lending on crypto,.
because with crypto, generally they can't; They don't have direct authority over that money and many people, myself included, would not ever give it to them. Leveraging what you have to have more is not ethical. With crypto, additionally, you don't have to.

You don't seem to understand, though, what multisig is or implies. Multisig is a technology where there are multiple keys to a single wallet, and a consensus of signatures must be reached to transact. It wouldn't matter then if a thief got your card and pin, assuming you didn't unlock your phone for them as well. Or if a hacker invaded your phone as they then lack your card and pin.

2FA has been the standard for MILITARY level security for some time now, I'm sure it's sufficient for banking.

So, I might have a crypto card that is my crypto wallet that has my crypto pin(s). I can have a mnemonic stored and encrypted in "a safe place", as well, in case I lose the card.

Anyone can want anything they care to or happen to desire. Doesn't mean they have a viable path to actually acquire it.

"Cryptos" don't "want" for anything. They aren't overseen by some heirarchy who can together bow to Mammon and leverage this fealty against the network. There's no "systemic" slice of the pie, and it's designed that way on purpose for most (though not necessarily all; it's a mutable algorithm, and so not set in stone).

Really, crypto is not one specific thing but rather a technological foundation/description for pure digital currency with all the lessons learned from precious attempts at systems of credit and checking.

 

[barbos]

blockchain itself is fine. People were simply kidnapped and forced to give up their coins
And wallets have been hacked too. Presumed inventor of bitcoin himself claims he was robbed of billions in bitcoins.

So... Something anyone could do, and ask for compensation via any form of currency?

Or something that could happen to anyone who has a banking app installed on their phone (farming of passwords, etc)?

Those aren't "cryptocurrency problems", those are just "normal crime problems".

Swing again? And bring some evidence next time?

Actually it is somewhat unique problem of cryptocurrency. It makes robbing and ransoming people much easier and less risky.

 

[Jarhyn]

blockchain itself is fine. People were simply kidnapped and forced to give up their coins
And wallets have been hacked too. Presumed inventor of bitcoin himself claims he was robbed of billions in bitcoins.

So... Something anyone could do, and ask for compensation via any form of currency?

Or something that could happen to anyone who has a banking app installed on their phone (farming of passwords, etc)?

Those aren't "cryptocurrency problems", those are just "normal crime problems".

Swing again? And bring some evidence next time?

Actually it is somewhat unique problem of cryptocurrency. It makes robbing and ransoming people much easier and less risky.

You're WAY past three strikes at bat here.

Blockchains are generally open. We're the actual government to build a blockchain for currency transfwr, they could: control all the wallets; issue them only to known persons; see the history of all transactions that occurred on that currency; issue it as they see fit same as fiat; insure deposits against hacking.

And while there are some currencies that have opaque blockchains (such as Monero, which subsequently sees large volume on darknet markets), the accessibility of those blockchains is generally gatekept still through non-anonymous channels.

As it is blockchain heuristics are good enough at this point to trace through a tumbler anyway.

The point is that this is a function of design considerations for the currency. If you design your currency to be convenient to crime, you get crimebux. If you design your currency so that Big Brother can watch everything... Big Brother is Watching.

You act like you don't understand that software does what you design it to do, and you can design it to do damn near anything. This is a design pattern for "secure digital currency" whose core principle is a common, shared, version-controlled ledger on which consensus is enforced and transactions are authorized through cryptographic signature.

 

[ZiprHead]

U.S. Treasury calls for stricter cryptocurrency compliance with IRS, says they pose tax evasion risk

The Treasury Department on Thursday announced that it is taking steps to crack down on cryptocurrency markets and transactions, and said it will require any transfer worth $10,000 or more to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service.

“Cryptocurrency already poses a significant detection problem by facilitating illegal activity broadly including tax evasion,” the Treasury Department said in a release.

“This is why the President’s proposal includes additional resources for the IRS to address the growth of cryptoassets,” the department added. “Within the context of the new financial account reporting regime, cryptocurrencies and cryptoasset exchange accounts and payment service accounts that accept cryptocurrencies would be covered. Further, as with cash transactions, businesses that receive cryptoassets with a fair market value of more than $10,000 would also be reported on.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The costs of Visa/Mastercard aren't in the transactions themselves, but all the supporting infrastructure and the fraud losses etc.

Exactly. You can't rob a crypto wallet. You can ostensibly scam one if the parties are too dumb to involve a multisig, but then that's their own dumbass fault.

I suggest you google sim swap attack.

 

[barbos]

Actually it is somewhat unique problem of cryptocurrency. It makes robbing and ransoming people much easier and less risky.

You're WAY past three strikes at bat here.

No, it's you.

Nearly a week after a ransomware attack led Colonial Pipeline to halt fuel distribution on the East Coast, reports emerged on Friday that the company paid a 75 bitcoin ransom—worth as much as $5 million, depending on the time of payment—in an attempt to restore service more quickly.

 

[Gospel]

U.S. Treasury calls for stricter cryptocurrency compliance with IRS, says they pose tax evasion risk

The Treasury Department on Thursday announced that it is taking steps to crack down on cryptocurrency markets and transactions, and said it will require any transfer worth $10,000 or more to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service.

“Cryptocurrency already poses a significant detection problem by facilitating illegal activity broadly including tax evasion,” the Treasury Department said in a release.

“This is why the President’s proposal includes additional resources for the IRS to address the growth of cryptoassets,” the department added. “Within the context of the new financial account reporting regime, cryptocurrencies and cryptoasset exchange accounts and payment service accounts that accept cryptocurrencies would be covered. Further, as with cash transactions, businesses that receive cryptoassets with a fair market value of more than $10,000 would also be reported on.”

The IRS money bagged around 37% of my earnings from Bitcoin. If anyone is money laundering it's them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

U.S. Treasury calls for stricter cryptocurrency compliance with IRS, says they pose tax evasion risk

The Treasury Department on Thursday announced that it is taking steps to crack down on cryptocurrency markets and transactions, and said it will require any transfer worth $10,000 or more to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service.

“Cryptocurrency already poses a significant detection problem by facilitating illegal activity broadly including tax evasion,” the Treasury Department said in a release.

“This is why the President’s proposal includes additional resources for the IRS to address the growth of cryptoassets,” the department added. “Within the context of the new financial account reporting regime, cryptocurrencies and cryptoasset exchange accounts and payment service accounts that accept cryptocurrencies would be covered. Further, as with cash transactions, businesses that receive cryptoassets with a fair market value of more than $10,000 would also be reported on.”

The IRS money bagged around 37% of my earnings from Bitcoin. If anyone is money laundering it's them.

37% for no real effort? Seems like a good deal.

 

[Gospel]

The IRS money bagged around 37% of my earnings from Bitcoin. If anyone is money laundering it's them.

37% for no real effort? Seems like a good deal.

Yeah, it's a great deal! I'm alright with that since I was still able to pay my mother's house off. But doesn't the US Government sell bitcoin at auctions too? Granted they have seized bitcoin, but if the coin is being used for nothing but criminal activity (AKA Ponzi scheme) as some on this thread seem to think, then why is the US Government selling bitcoin?

 

[Swammerdami]

The IRS money bagged around 37% of my earnings from Bitcoin. If anyone is money laundering it's them.

Did you report the earnings voluntarily? If not, how were they informed?

(I am NOT encouraging tax evasion; I'm just curious how IRS would detect tax evaders. Is it large infusions from Bitcoin sales into a regular bank account that would alert them to possible evasion?)