Pages:
Author

Topic: Computer Scientists say Crypto Industry is Misleading??? (Read 655 times)

legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1338
How can we call someone as scientists when they don't even understand the blockchain and how the computer expert turns out to be a financial advisor?

~snip~
Everyone has the right to have a different opinion. But I also know there are people who support and reject crypto. I respect them, because they certainly have their own reasons. But so far I look at crypto, the blockchain industry is a future. Look at today, many countries are worried and giving rise to CBDCs because they are worried about not being able to control and observe the flow of movement of blockchain transactions.
Without a doubt everyone can have their own opinion, however the weight we give to their opinion will depend on how knowledgeable they are about the subject at hand, the fact they can trivialize our distrust of the banking system is something which should astonish anyone which actually took the time to read through our history, while banks are supposed to be facilitators of loans as a way to increase the economic activity, most of the time what they do is to manipulate the economy to their benefit instead, so it is obvious we do not trust banks and as such a whole system was developed which did not needed them and such a thing will never be a waste.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 3684
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Even banks are unsafe and I'm sure thar those computer scientists are aware of that. Keeping and losing our passwords and seed phrase is our personal responsibility. Even bank ATMs has their pin that we also have to keep. We all have different perspectives about blockchain technology but as long as we're comfortable using it, I don't think we have to fear it because of their opinions.

Banks themselves could be unsafe, but I do get that it's safer for most people.

I know people who can't remember their passwords all the time, people who use 1234 as passwords, who write it down everywhere... Bitcoin self custody is not for them. They need banks and companies who'll help them recover passwords.

You can lose your ATM pin and call a hotline and get a replacement card the next hour.

Also, most banks to have deposit guarantee schemes that will give the user back his deposit if the bank fails. I know it hasn't worked in many countries, but I've also seen it work in my own country in the late 1990s when we lost 80% of the banks we had, the state made sure everyone was whole.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin benefits far outweigh its cons. But I'm not going to drone on about the misleading gospels that the numerous crypto evangelists spread. Those scientists have a valid point, even if they're wrong to paint the entire "crypto industry" as such.
full member
Activity: 1708
Merit: 126
I actually agree, depending on how you define "crypto industry", with industry being commercial companies and business people.

I mean, I couldn't agree more with how everyone used to tout decentralised and secure when the blockchains they were/are running are highly centralised, untested security-wise. And yes, a system where you forget your password and lose everything isn't safe. But safety is not security, not sure if these computer scientists forgot the difference.

Everything they say is true for most of crypto, but doesn't stand up to Bitcoin.

Even banks are unsafe and I'm sure thar those computer scientists are aware of that. Keeping and losing our passwords and seed phrase is our personal responsibility. Even bank ATMs has their pin that we also have to keep. We all have different perspectives about blockchain technology but as long as we're comfortable using it, I don't think we have to fear it because of their opinions.
newbie
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
Here is the letter:

Dear U.S. Congressional Leadership, Committee Chairs and Ranking Members,

We are 26 computer scientists, software engineers, and technologists who have spent decades working in these fields producing innovative and effective products for a variety of applications in database technology, cryptography, open-source software, and financial technology applications.

Today, we write to you urging the Committee to take a critical, skeptical approach toward industry claims that crypto-assets (sometimes called cryptocurrencies, crypto tokens, or web3) are an innovative technology that is unreservedly good. We urge you to resist pressure from digital asset industry financiers, lobbyists, and boosters to create a regulatory safe haven for these risky, flawed, and unproven digital financial instruments and to instead take an approach that protects the public interest and ensures technology is deployed in genuine service to the needs of ordinary citizens.

We strongly disagree with the narrative—peddled by those with a financial stake in the crypto-asset industry—that these technologies represent a positive financial innovation and are in any way suited to solving the financial problems facing ordinary Americans.

Not all innovation is unqualifiedly good; not everything that we can build should be built. The history of technology is full of dead ends, false starts, and wrong turns. Append-only digital ledgers are not a new innovation. They have been known and used since 1980 for rather limited functions.

As software engineers and technologists with deep expertise in our fields, we dispute the claims made in recent years about the novelty and potential of blockchain technology. Blockchain technology cannot, and will not, have transaction reversal mechanisms because they are antithetical to its base design. Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a disaster for financial privacy; the exceptions are a handful of emerging privacy-focused blockchain finance alternatives, and these are a gift to money-launderers. Financial technologies that serve the public must always have mechanisms for fraud mitigation and allow a human-in-the-loop to reverse transactions; blockchain permits neither.

By its very design, blockchain technology, specifically so-called “public blockchains”, are poorly suited for just about every purpose currently touted as a present or potential source of public benefit. From its inception, this technology has been a solution in search of a problem and has now latched onto concepts such as financial inclusion and data transparency to justify its existence, despite far better solutions already in use. After more than thirteen years of development, it has severe limitations and design flaws that preclude almost all applications that deal with public customer data and regulated financial transactions and are not an improvement on existing non-blockchain solutions.

Finally, blockchain technologies facilitate few, if any, real-economy uses. On the other hand, the underlying crypto-assets have been the vehicle for unsound and highly volatile speculative investment schemes that are being actively promoted to retail investors who may be unable to understand their nature and risk. Other significant externalities include threats to national security through money laundering and ransomware attacks, financial stability risks from high price volatility, speculation and susceptibility to run risk, massive climate emissions from the proof-of-work technology utilized by some of the most widely traded crypto-assets, and investor risk from large scale scams and other criminal financial activity.

We ask you to take a truly responsible approach to technological innovation and ensure that individuals in the US and elsewhere are not left vulnerable to predatory finance, fraud, and systemic economic risks in the name of technological potential which does not exist.

The risks and externalities related to blockchain technologies and crypto-asset investments are neither isolated nor are they the growing pains of a nascent technology. They are the inevitable outcomes of a technology that is not built for purpose and will remain forever unsuitable as a foundation for large-scale economic activity.

Given these risks and externalities, together with the—at best still-ambiguous and at worst non-existent—uses of blockchain, we recommend that the Committee look beyond the hype and bluster of the crypto industry and understand not only its inherent flaws and extraordinary defects but also the litany of technological fallacies it is built upon.

We need to act now to protect investors and the global financial marketplace from the severe risks posed by crypto-assets and must not be distracted by technical obfuscations which mask an abject lack of technological utility. We thank you for your leadership on financial technology and regulation and urge you to consider our objective and independent expert judgments to guide your legislative priorities, which we remain happy to discuss anytime.



WHAT IS MOENY
Since Li Ka-shing, Li Yanhong, And Zuckerberg chose to enter the metasurverse, and the metasurverse came into people's view, I don't know if they know what the metasurverse is. You might think that with all their success, there would be no problem. The fact that they have made achievements in the past does not indicate that they have a great understanding of the new field.

The meta-universe has six blocks, and its most important and basic economic system is blockchain technology. What is blockchain technology? Most of them don't, they don't know the basic logic of blockchain technology that we're talking about, they don't know the re-Walth that we're talking about recently. We do not know the basic consensus trust problem, however, we are also in practice to block chain landing applications, to solve the problem of hashing.

For the most basic blockchain technology, I have mastered the code that makes up it, the data, and the direction of its extension

The development of blockchain to the present, but also extended many modes, chain games, decentralized exchanges, metaverse, and so on. There are some true and some false, but we all remember satoshi nakamoto's words, if you don't trust me, I will have no time to explain to you, so BTC to build blockchain technology is the essence of everything

At a time of cholera, when communication is difficult and flights are suspended, we can assume that if conflicts in the world intensify, leading to local wars and even affecting the whole world, in today's globalization, it will have a far-reaching impact. To return to the essence of everything, the first thing for human beings is survival, coordinated development of group society, cooperation and consensus. If the social order breaks down, how can that person survive independently, and it is difficult for individuals to return to the age that has been adapted to the industrialization, we return to our roots, to make people cooperate again, which undoubtedly needs to solve the problem of people's trust

Trust is fundamentally about consensus. In the 19th century, the West had established the gold standard system, and the Bretton Woods system of the United States also broke away from the link with gold. The US dollar became the circulating currency of the world, but it did not constitute credit. Dollar hegemony.

Hayek proposed a world free economy, avoiding the economic intervention of power in the world, and it was not until 2009 that blockchain saw the dawn of the economy into a decentralized, restricted, verifiable, by a series of mathematical logic codes constitute the basic trust

Today, the world is diversified and contradictory. It not only has the gold standard in the past, but also the currency standard, the US dollar and the RMB. Economy, culture and civilization all have unique systems.

There are 7.6 billion people in the world, and interpersonal links are structured, social order is stable, and individuals are connecting with the world society
legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 1360
Don't let others control your BTC -> self custody
How can we call someone as scientists when they don't even understand the blockchain and how the computer expert turns out to be a financial advisor?

~snip~
Everyone has the right to have a different opinion. But I also know there are people who support and reject crypto. I respect them, because they certainly have their own reasons. But so far I look at crypto, the blockchain industry is a future. Look at today, many countries are worried and giving rise to CBDCs because they are worried about not being able to control and observe the flow of movement of blockchain transactions.

They have the right to their opinion but if they gather in groups to go against something that isn't in any way invading their space and trying to make the government fight it, they must be some really angry and frustrated bunch of people.

I don't like many things like people driving on quad bikes near my house and people parking so that they block me and make it hard to drive around them, but I don't record them on my phone and go to the police, even though they in a way make my life harder. I understand that people have their own lives and their own problems and sometimes it's just them being stupid.
Bitcoin has completely no negative influence on people's lives. It improves them! If you can't stand that it's there and try to fight it, like you'd fight your neighbor because you don't like the color of his car or the size of his dog, you're the asshole.
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 421
Bitcoindata.science
This is a polite way of saying give us back your privacy. If they so claim that "Any system where you forget your password and you lose your life savings is not a safe system."  Then what will be said of a system where you can always reset your password but can be logged out of the system anytime or froze your account because they think the have control of your funds. In this era and age i choose to be the main custodian of my key and coin 
hero member
Activity: 2366
Merit: 793
Bitcoin = Financial freedom
How can we call someone as scientists when they don't even understand the blockchain and how the computer expert turns out to be a financial advisor?

~snip~
Everyone has the right to have a different opinion. But I also know there are people who support and reject crypto. I respect them, because they certainly have their own reasons. But so far I look at crypto, the blockchain industry is a future. Look at today, many countries are worried and giving rise to CBDCs because they are worried about not being able to control and observe the flow of movement of blockchain transactions.
Countries are worried about the decentralization that is why they are trying to enforce the use of CBDC before most people realize the actual difference between cryptocurrency and thise centralized tokens printed by the government. Blockchain transactions are irreversible and any expert who can understand the blockchain technology will agree that but those so called expert maybe tech-savvy still don't even have basic knowledge of blockchain or they just don't want people to have decentralized monetary system.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1081
Goodnight, o_e_l_e_o 🌹
How can we call someone as scientists when they don't even understand the blockchain and how the computer expert turns out to be a financial advisor?

~snip~
Everyone has the right to have a different opinion. But I also know there are people who support and reject crypto. I respect them, because they certainly have their own reasons. But so far I look at crypto, the blockchain industry is a future. Look at today, many countries are worried and giving rise to CBDCs because they are worried about not being able to control and observe the flow of movement of blockchain transactions.
Yea, opinion differs and people have their area of specialty. Majority of us here believe and know that blockchain is the future, yet, there are some even in this space who does not believe in blockchain.
Meanwhile, computer scientists have been in existence before blockchain, so the knowledge of blockchain shouldn't be a criterion to quality or discredit a scientist. However, my concern is that those criticising and defaming crypto has no indept knowledge of it. They just see through one side of the mirror and conclude what happens the other side. Well, things aren't done that way. Let us be patient, the end has never failed to justify the means. Blockchain will prove them wrong.
legendary
Activity: 2338
Merit: 1084
zknodes.org
How can we call someone as scientists when they don't even understand the blockchain and how the computer expert turns out to be a financial advisor?

~snip~
Everyone has the right to have a different opinion. But I also know there are people who support and reject crypto. I respect them, because they certainly have their own reasons. But so far I look at crypto, the blockchain industry is a future. Look at today, many countries are worried and giving rise to CBDCs because they are worried about not being able to control and observe the flow of movement of blockchain transactions.
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1338
“We’re essentially wasting millions of dollars worth of equipment because we’ve decided that we don’t trust the banking system.”
Of course we do not trust the banking system, those computer scientist know nothing about the economy as it is obvious they are living in another world in which the banking system is reliable and honest with their customers while not being exploitative at all, but for us which live at the real world we can see all the supposed benefits the banking system have brought us and we are not willing to be victimized anymore, so without a doubt the money used on bitcoin is not a waste and if anything is the best investment ever, as it give us something we did not have for centuries, independence from the banks.
hero member
Activity: 3164
Merit: 675
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
We all know what this whole big fiasco about Bitcoin is. same old people now using so-called computer scientists to try to discredit Bitcoin so it will look more valid because other people have tried and have failed. It's simple, don't invest in what you don't understand as someone also mentioned earlier but I don't get why you need to convince others to follow you.  
The part where it says "computer scientists" is the funniest bit. Like if a computer scientist says so, then it must be true! Lol, why would we ignore everyone else, and only care about how bitcoin is "misleading" just because a computer scientist said it, why not a lawyer, or a financial investor, why computer scientist? Just because we are using blockchain?

We use laws and money as well but we ignore the other two, what makes anyone think we would give a flying flamingo about a computer scientist. Bitcoin is great, blockchain is great, we are improving every single day and we are going to be much better in the long run, and that’s it.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 3684
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
I actually agree, depending on how you define "crypto industry", with industry being commercial companies and business people.

I mean, I couldn't agree more with how everyone used to tout decentralised and secure when the blockchains they were/are running are highly centralised, untested security-wise. And yes, a system where you forget your password and lose everything isn't safe. But safety is not security, not sure if these computer scientists forgot the difference.

Everything they say is true for most of crypto, but doesn't stand up to Bitcoin.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 560
These Computer Scientists have given few statements on cryptocurrency and Blockchain technology.

what piece of crap are they saying here, do they even realize that blockchain technology is not only applicable for the cryptocurrency use only but rather every aspects of the economy now key into the use of blockchain name it: health and medical line, academics, business, industries and even the government and i will tell you why, this is because one of the characteristics of the distributed ledger of blockchain is immutability, meaning it stores data that cannot be altered, what a unique advantage blockchain present us over the centralized service providers and online storage third party agents like iCloud, drop box etc.

here in blockchain technology you got the maximum security needed while being decentralized, i want to believe this statement i wouldn't love to read the contents is coming from the wrong end because in an ordinary manner, computer scientist should be the ones to understand more the whole logic behind blockchain, but nevertheless their ranting has nothing to do affecting the move of bitcoin or the blockchain it works along with.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1075
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
I agree with them that some regulation is needed. It's not okay that crypto exchanges buy ads and tell people that they can become rich today if they register and start trading crypto (same goes for stocks and forex). Then those people lose their savings in the process, while exchanges can rich regardless of happens with crypto, because they get fees. In a gold rush, sell the shovels. Crypto shouldn't be banned, and government shouldn't interfere with innovation and open source software development, but regulating exchanges more tightly would be a good thing. And right now exchanges are lobbying to keep things as they are - letting them list whatever coin they want, create their own coins, offer extremely high leverage and so on. This doesn't create economic growth, it's just a transfer of money from the masses into the pockets of crypto elite.
Cryptocurrency is totally new, and it is the first of its kind to ever be made.  It is volatile, and anyone who is getting to know about it for the first time will always doubt it, and they will always think it is something that isn’t legit because of its volatile nature.

I believe that majority of us when we got to know about cryptocurrency the first time, we felt this doubt where we couldn’t trust it as to whether to invest our money in it or not. So, it should be a decision you make for yourself, if you feel that the risk is what you can afford to take, you can go ahead and do it, nobody is really forcing you to do it.

Moreover, no exchanges are advertising that you are going to get rich from trading cryptocurrency on their platform, majority of them would always state it even on their website that there are risks involved in trading cryptocurrency or any assets at all. So you all have to be careful.
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1402
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Good points about security of Bitcoin and decentralization were already made in the thread. I want to add that I think they (the computer scientists whose claims we're discussing) are confusing security and safety. At first there's a claim that blockchain is not secure, and then the example is given about losing a password, concluding that it's not a safe system. Secure means unhackable, and that is the case with blockchain. Whether it is safe from personal perspective and the ability to access the coins in an unfortunate event of losing the keys is another matter. Or, to put it differently, blockchain is secure and ensures the safety of one's coins, but not easy accessibility of coins by a person who lost something essential to access them.
And on the last point, about deciding not to trust the banking system, it's not like there was no good reason for this decision. Banks go bankrupt, often engage in illegal activities, can freeze one's funds and can steal the money without getting back to their customers. And the strongest among them get bailed out for mistakes they're at least partially responsible for at the expense of the most vulnerable people (I'm talking about the 2008 economic crisis).
Ucy
sr. member
Activity: 2674
Merit: 403
Compare rates on different exchanges & swap.
Sounds like statements from politicians instead of scientists.
legendary
Activity: 3374
Merit: 2198
I stand with Ukraine.
~
  • The computational power behind blockchain is the equivalent of what one could do in a centralized way with a $100 computer.

If you want a centralized server you can have one for $100. The price for decentralization is much higher. So?
~

That's right, the price is higher, but it's fully worth it. Imagine all your life savings put in a bank which works for many years without problems, but one day you wake up and read in the news that today you can buy 5 times less for your money than yesterday, and tomorrow it will be even worse. You go to the bank hoping to withdraw your money and buy gold or something with it, and see a huge line of angry people in front of the closed door.

Also, the "$100" argument here is a weak one. Banks spend more than $100 on security, right?
hero member
Activity: 2366
Merit: 793
Bitcoin = Financial freedom
How can we call someone as scientists when they don't even understand the blockchain and how the computer expert turns out to be a financial advisor?

Not everyone who is an expert in tech related thing has to be an blockchain expert which is like when we ask an general doctor who is very popular but he can operate something related to neurology right?
hero member
Activity: 1918
Merit: 564
Those 26 scientists are too busy with their work (not crypto related) which is why they gave those false claims about cryptocurrency.  If they are given ample time to dig in about cryptocurrency, I bet they will change their statement right after they fully understand cryptocurrency and blockchain.  But sadly they are contented with the script that authorities handed them to say.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
I agree with them that some regulation is needed. It's not okay that crypto exchanges buy ads and tell people that they can become rich today if they register and start trading crypto (same goes for stocks and forex). Then those people lose their savings in the process, while exchanges can rich regardless of happens with crypto, because they get fees.

For a start, Google and Facebook should ban all ads coming from crypto exchanges, since they have no interest in regulating these types of ads (they're either going to allow all of them or ban all of them).
Pages:
Jump to: