Yes, I know that it still exist, and yes, decentralized currency which utilizes distributed, cryptographic validation is not actually a strictly bad idea, but…

Is the speculative investment scam, which crypto substantially represented, finally dead? Can we go back to buying gold bars and Pokemon cards?

I feel like it is, but I’m having a hard time putting my finger on why it lost its sheen. Maybe crypto scammers moved on to selling LLM “prompts?” Maybe the rug just got pulled enough times that everyone lost trust.

  • davehtaylor@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago
    • As an actual currency, it’s functionally useless. Even if every retailer on the planet were to accept it, the overhead for making the transaction is just a non-starter

    • Because of that, it’s entirely just funny money. Even further, since it’s entirely a virtual asset, if the power goes out, your wallet goes with it

    • The environmental impacts are horrifying. This fact alone means that it should all be eradicated. Destroying the planet for Internet funny money isn’t an acceptable proposition

    • For a decentralized currency, people sure do love centralizing under large exchanges, and the massive losses, thefts, fraud, etc. have shown that no matter how “decentralized” it’s supposed to be, it’s still susceptible to the same bullshit as any other currency

    • Its high profile association with grifters, scammers, malware, and dark web shenanigans has completely soured its image in the public mind

    • It’s entirely a speculative investment scam now. There’s no way to decouple it from that.

    • liminis@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but since ETH moved to a proof of stake model rather than proof of work (i.e. “mining”), isn’t its environmental footprint now a fraction of the wasteful behemoth it was previously?

      (Though I 100% agree given the ‘gas fees’ (transaction costs), it’s still absolutely useless as an actual currency.)

        • nii236@lemmy.jtmn.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not recommended though, RPIs aren’t really suited for production, plus I think only Nimbus runs well on RPIs/

          • Schooner@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think he’s confusing a validator with a node. You can easily run a node on a Pi.

            • nii236@lemmy.jtmn.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah that would be make sense, but most people wouldn’t see the point in running a node. People automatically think of “mining” or “validator”

      • xenos@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right about the environmental footprint - proof of stake dropped the energy consumption by 99.95%

        Ether (ETH) was never intended to serve as a digital currency. it was only meant to be the fuel or incentive for computational tasks on the Ethereum network. An L2 like Optimism or Arbitrum runs on top of Ethereum and facilitates transactions that are significantly faster (tens of thousands of transactions per second), for a fraction of the cost (pennies or fractions of pennies)

    • I have a few bitcoin that I got when it was new, and I was playing around with it; then I forgot about my coins until it exploded and made it into the public (non-tech) news. I luckily still had my wallet, and I bought a quite expensive watch with Bitcoin when it was near its price peak. The transaction was no more difficult than using Paypal. I could have bought a lot of things; at one point, I could have bought a car with it. There are many vendors who’ll accept Bitcoin even today. So, regardless of your other points, saying that it’s funny money that you can’t buy anything with is simply false. It’s worth what people will pay for it, just like the American dollar, or gold, or the artificially inflated price of blood diamonds.

      I don’t think promoting falsehoods helps any argument. If that one is obviously wrong, what about your other points? Lots of people want cryptocurrency to fail. Lots of people want to maintain the hegemony of the US dollar. Some people even have valid criticisms of proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, and the giant farming installations. It’s certainly something to discuss, as long as it’s kept to facts.

      • davehtaylor@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue with retail is how long it takes for a bitcoin transaction to be confirmed. The overhead simply isn’t feasible. A vendor isn’t going to sit around an wait an hour for confirmation that payment has been received. A private seller might not care. But a company that processes millions of transactions per day isn’t going to deal with that. It has nothing to do with the belief in it and its worth.

        And yes, let me be perfectly clear: I absolutely do want cryptocurrency to fail. That’s not about being a shill for government hegemony. It’s about there being literally no inherent good in it, either in principle or in practice. From the fact that it consumes more energy than entire countries and pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than entire major industries, to the environmental impact of increased mining for rare earths, increased manufacturing strain, and supply chain disruption due to the demand for the chips to drive the miners.

        Also I really don’t appreciate your passive aggressive way of calling me a liar

        • Your position was clear.

          I’m not sure how else you’d prefer someone to call out untruths that you’ve posted. It’s either calling you a liar, or some version of saying you’re talking out your ass, or what not. But you’re right, that’s what I was saying. FWIW, I don’t think it’s lying the way Trump lies; I think there’s just a lot of uninformed knee-jerk reactionism. For example, you talk about processing times; have you ever heard of Lightning? It’s a crypto used a lot in Nostr and which has instant transfer times.

          My point is that I you’re arguing a point that is easily refuted, when you have other points that are reasonable and justifiable. I could argue against the other points, too; for example, I could bring up proof-of-stake crypto-currencies which do not have huge energy use, and which haveno more energy footprint than the SSL transactions that you’re using constantly, every day. But it would be a harder arguement for me to make because the original cryptocoin, Bitcoin, is proof-of-work and has had a huge eco impact.

          And I might not try to argue that unless I thought you were open to discussing the topic in good faith. Which I don’t believe you are; I think you’ve already made up your mind on the topic, and now all that’s left is evangelism.

          I do have a question, though: do you understand how blockchains work, and the what the various kinds of proofs are? Not in the “could you program it” sense, but in general, like could you describe how they work to someone over beer? Or have you just read a lot about how bad they are? How much of your opinion is based on your social media filter biases?

          • Dymonika@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s exactly what I was gonna say: @davehtaylor must have no idea of the nearly-cost-free Layer 2 network.

            Additionally, how much money does it take to power banks? All the staff, the electricity, the Brinks armored cars, the accounting for all that cash, the safety deposit boxes and all of their contents and insurance… Does he think ACH transfers or, worse, checks or money orders, are free on an environmental level? How is USD with all of its nonstop-growing debt safe in any long-term way?

        • arbitrary@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also I really don’t appreciate your passive aggressive way of calling me a liar

          They’re not wrong to do so when most of your points are outdated or crap:

          the overhead for making the transaction is just a non-starter

          Outdated

          if the power goes out, your wallet goes with it

          Bullshit

          For a decentralized currency, people sure do love centralizing under large exchanges, and the massive losses, thefts, fraud, etc. have shown that no matter how “decentralized” it’s supposed to be, it’s still susceptible to the same bullshit as any other currency

          Privacy coins are the best way to live the dream of fungible secure currency, which is why they’re being suppressed. All the others are an experiment in how to monitor transactions more deeply.

          Its high profile association with grifters, scammers, malware, and dark web shenanigans has completely soured its image in the public mind

          If I may don a tin foil hat, likely left rampant by design. The proof of concept has been done, the tech works and has been in the hands of the public long enough that it’s normalized. This may be to pave the way for countries to replace their currency with “legit” crypto versions in the next decade or two, which requires putting a bullet in the head of the rest.

          It’s entirely a speculative investment scam now.

          If you talk in absolutes you’re destined to be wrong.

          The issue with retail is how long it takes for a bitcoin transaction to be confirmed. The overhead simply isn’t feasible. A vendor isn’t going to sit around an wait an hour for confirmation that payment has been received.

          Outdated.

          And yes, let me be perfectly clear: I absolutely do want cryptocurrency to fail. That’s not about being a shill for government hegemony. It’s about there being literally no inherent good in it, either in principle or in practice. From the fact that it consumes more energy than entire countries and pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than entire major industries, to the environmental impact of increased mining for rare earths, increased manufacturing strain, and supply chain disruption due to the demand for the chips to drive the miners.

          At some point PoW will probably die a death and PoS will be all that remains. PoS is cheap.

    • Sodis@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some of these points are not inherent properties of cryptos, like the environmental impact and the transaction overhead.

      • goatmeal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s not even just that. if you count the number of transactions across all cryptocurrencies that are confirmed by mining, they are absolutely dwarfed by the number of transactions that are not confirmed by mining. same thing with volume of money moved. the environmental complaint applies to a minority of the total activity.

        • limelight79@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          And shouldn’t the environmental cost of “real” currencies be compared as well? It’s not like printing and minting all those bills and coins is zero energy. Even treating it virtually (direct deposit, etc - we rarely handle cash) has some overhead.

          I don’t have a horse in this race, but comments that are obviously trying to grind an ace are suspicious to me.

          • HER0@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            On the tech side of things, the environmental impact of running traditional, centralized services is inherently lower than running any cryptocurrency off of a blockchain. To overcome the technical limitations would be to create another centralized service.

            But yeah, there are almost certainly ways that traditional currency can reduce their environmental impact, too.

    • The Doctor@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve found that the same folks who crowed the loudest about cryptocurrencies being decentralized were working the hardest behind the scenes to build the first generation of exchanges and online wallets.

    • Aetherion@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny how people are creating bullshit by taking about things they don’t know.

      Hint: Blockchain is more than just currency and when your centralised e-mail server is taken down with all of your e-mail’s, than you will think back at people who did the switch to decentralisation.

      Another hint: Ethereum did lower its CO2 emissions by 99%, just by changing its code. Can your 100% virtual currency, parked at your favorite bank in a country like sweden, where there is no cash anymore, do the same?

    • MissTaken@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As an actual currency, it’s functionally useless. Even if every retailer on the planet were to accept it, the overhead for making the transaction is just a non-starter

      New technologies such as the lightning network will fix this.

      Because of that, it’s entirely just funny money. Even further, since it’s entirely a virtual asset, if the power goes out, your wallet goes with it

      If the power goes out, your local ATMs and card readers will stop working as well. It’d have to take a global power outage to bring a crypto network down, and at that point we probably have more important issues to deal with.

      The environmental impacts are horrifying. This fact alone means that it should all be eradicated. Destroying the planet for Internet funny money isn’t an acceptable proposition

      This is fixed by proof-of-stake.

      For a decentralized currency, people sure do love centralizing under large exchanges, and the massive losses, thefts, fraud, etc. have shown that no matter how “decentralized” it’s supposed to be, it’s still susceptible to the same bullshit as any other currency

      True, but it’s a personal choice. You don’t have to have to store them centralized if you don’t want to. The same cannot be said about traditional currencies, as it’s not feasable to have stacks of cash lying around.

      Its high profile association with grifters, scammers, malware, and dark web shenanigans has completely soured its image in the public mind

      Also true, but that has nothing to do with the actual currencies. The public image will improve once people learns how it works.

      It’s entirely a speculative investment scam now. There’s no way to decouple it from that.

      Maturity will make it decouple from that.

    • arquebus_x@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Beeple sale got a lot of press. That was the extent of the novelty, but then the money-eyed scammers figured they had a new grift in the making. But it started with the media surprise and interest over how big the Beeple sale was.

    • Valdair@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Idiots saw the explosion of speculation on crypto and a few people got lucky and got rich. They jumped on the next new buzzword in tech expecting it to have an equivalent speculative boom, which obviously never happened.

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m a fan of cryptocurrencies, and I would dearly love for the “speculative investment scam” aspect of it to be dead. It’s been a massive drag on the technology’s reputation for many years, preventing it from being used for all kinds of applications that would really benefit from some form of cryptocurrency integration. Unfortunately even if the “speculative investment scam” aspect dies the bad reputation will linger, so hopefully those applications will find ways to sneak it in where useful without drawing too much attention.

    • s_s@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s been 13 years and the only applications found have been in fraud.

      Over and over, blockchain is a solution to a question nobody asked.

      You might as well say you’re a biplane enthusiast or something.

      • kestrel7@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey. Biplanes are actually much more relevant in today’s world than crypto. They aren’t common, but there are still new biplanes made because they are a valid solution for certain problems. Unlike blockchain.

      • Sens@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s nice-to-have if shit really did hit the fan economically and hyper inflation took over. Glad the hype is over though.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not actually interested in the value of the tokens, I only own a few tens of dollars’ worth myself. I’m interested in the application-related aspects of it.

          For example, something applicable to the Fediverse that comes to mind is the Ethereum Name System. That’s a blockchain-based mechanism that allows for DNS-like “domain names” to be claimed by users. Something like it could serve as a way of registering a username for the Fediverse and then having it be completely portable between instances without the need to rely on any centralized authentication provider. Since they do cost a small amount of actual money to register they’d make for a good spam prevention method - a regular user only needs to register a name every once in a rare while, but a spammer needs to register a new one each time their existing name gets blocked. It’d get expensive real fast for a spammer.

          Unfortunately this adds some complication to the registration process that the Fediverse really can’t afford right now. And worse, it has the dreaded “NFT” label hanging around its neck because technically a username registration is indeed an NFT if you want to categorize it like that. So I can only sigh and watch a perfectly useful technology go unused due to the bad name it’s been given.

          Oh well. Someday the usefulness will overcome the perception.

          • androogee (they/she)@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Tons of people already can’t handle signing up for a simple account. You think having to get a crypto wallet, figure out how to use it, and pay money into it before you can even start actually signing up for a social media account is ever gonna fly? Not in a million years.

            NFTs truly are the best imaginable example of a solution in search of a problem. Every single use case I’ve ever heard someone pitch is something that already exists and works. But like… what if your hotel key was an NFT, bro? Whoa.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I explicitly said in my comment:

              Unfortunately this adds some complication to the registration process that the Fediverse really can’t afford right now.

              You don’t appear to have actually read it all the way through, just triggered a standard anti-NFT rant off of the fact that the word “NFT” was present in it. Which is ironically exactly the problem I was complaining about.

              • androogee (they/she)@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I read it. And I disagree. stupid.

                It isn’t that it can’t handle it “right now.” It will never handle it. Nobody wants it.

                But I bet “you can’t read, you’re just triggered by a word” is way easier to fantasize about than actually paying attention to reality.

          • coolin@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            The one SIMPLE trick crypto bros HATE: Blockchain -> “Distributed Ledger” NFT -> “Unique Identifier”

            Like and share with your friends

          • Sens@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have you heard of hashcash, it’s POW precursor to bitcoin. It stops spam, was originally developed for email but could be incorporated into Lemmy eventually on sign up. Principal is similar to what you suggest.

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                @shipp Ethereum switched to Proof-of-Stake consensus nine months ago, it no longer burns a significant amount of energy to operate. I’m primarily interested in Ethereum because it’s got smart contracts, allowing a huge variety of applications that older, simpler cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin can’t handle.

              • Sens@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s a small foot print for a real user and expensive for bots who are generating enmasse. It worked on Windows 98 PCs so isn’t really an issue like you describe.

        • androogee (they/she)@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s nice-to-have if shit really did hit the fan economically and hyper inflation took over. Glad the hype is over though.

          Yeah i guess you’re right, a biplane would be pretty useful in that scenario.

    • dreadgoat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Technology rarely advances for reasons that benefit the majority. It advances to make a few people rich, kill people very efficiently, or to increase profit margins on porn sales (see item 1, I guess).

      If you think about the really good applications of things like crypto, NFTs, blockchain, etc., you quickly realize that they are things that aren’t marketable or profitable for the entities that would need to implement them. If all the banks and credit companies bought into something like blockchain or NFTs, then transaction fraud and identity theft would disappear overnight… but what would THEY get out of it? The only way it’s ever going to happen is with coordinated government mandates, and nobody running for office has the faintest idea of what crypto tech is other than “dumb way for the nouveau riche to waste their money”

      • beefcat@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think transaction fraud or identity theft would disappear overnight, they would just take on different forms.

        I think a big part of why cryptocurrencies don’t take off as actual currencies (beyond speculative investors ruining everything), is the fact that there are a lot of clear benefits to a centralized system that blockchains have yet to adequately replace.

        1: Scale. The amount of processing power it would require to process all McDonald’s daily credit card transactions on a blockchain is many orders of magnitude greater than that of using Visa or Mastercard. Even when you account for proof-of-stake coins like Ethereum. Maintaining a single large centralized database will always be more energy efficient than maintaining many large decentralized databases, especially when the latter comes wrapped in a dozen layers of cryptography.

        2: Reversibility. If I buy something from a stranger on the internet and use my debit or credit card, my bank can issue a chargeback if said stranger tries to screw me over. This is fundamentally impossible on a blockchain without relying on some kind of middleman to hold funds in escrow, at which point you’re basically back to using big centralized banks to do all the heavy lifting. Sellers may view this as a positive aspect of using a blockchain, but they can’t realistically force buyers to use a payment processor more amenable to their desires. If they could, PayPal would have vanished years ago.

        On top of that, one of the big problems that blockchain solves can be solved through centralized systems as well. The big one that people bring up is credit card fraud, but what a lot of people don’t realize is that credit card fraud is a lot less common outside the US than within. This is because places like the EU have mandated security measures such as chip-and-pin (the US only requires the chip part). Smartphone-based contactless payment systems like Apple Pay also provide effective 2-factor authentication at the point of sale. And while blockchain is theoretically more secure, in practice these mechanisms are “good enough” for everyday use.

      • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        How does crypto stop identity theft or transaction fraud? Crypto does nothing for credit, which is basically what identity theft is, and if you’re missing how widely there’s transaction fraud on crypto you haven’t been paying attention.

        • dreadgoat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not the cryptocurrency itself that prevents fraud, it’s the surrounding technologies such as blockchains and NFTs.

          Using NFT to own the address to a PNG is hilariously stupid and worthless, but what it’s actually great for is receipts. If I buy a donut and get an NFT proving that I now own the donut (along with metadata about where and when I purchased the donut) and months later I am on trial for murder, I can prove to the court with absolute mathematical certainty that I couldn’t have killed anyone at that time because I was eating a donut halfway across town.

          Using blockchain similarly is great for proving your transaction history. Maybe I somehow faked that NFT about the donut? Well, I couldn’t have, because it was months ago and blockchain history is cryptographically impossible to spoof.

          These are obviously contrived examples, but when applied at scale it becomes an extremely powerful way to verify truth. Yes, I did in fact buy those tickets, here’s my NFT, now let me on the plane. No, I did not spend $3000 on knock-off accessories, here is my blockchain. The odds of someone being able to fake these is extremely low.

          But, again, this will never come into practice, at least not in the near future. As @beefcat pointed out, implementing these systems would be expensive for the established financial institutions, and would present new challenges for them to create new processes for handling. An awful lot of work to create something that is stronger and safer when there is little motivation for them to do so.

          • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know, this sounds a lot like DNA evidence. Sounds great in theory, but doesn’t actually mean what TV implies it to mean. In terms of a receipt, you still need to tie that to a person, or the wallet to the person. Given how easily people have lost their wallets, it’ll be a similar issue to “My credit card was used at that time”. Yes, the wallet / CC was used at a place at a time, but who was the person using it? In either case, they’ll want to use the security video or clerk witness testimony to tie it together.

            I’m not even sure what situation you’re thinking that the airline would not accept their own printed ticket or shot of the ticket PDF or whatever they send you today, but the NFT would make all the difference. Again, either the Airline system reads your ticket data, whether it’s NFT, barcode, or traditional digital and can tie it to a sale in their system or they can’t. They can lose the NFT link just as well as the barcode link, and the gate agent isn’t going to understand or care that you have an NFT that cryptographically proves “blah blah blah”. They’re already checking ID. For someone to fake the barcode version, they would also need a fake ID or Passport to match it.

            I sort of see what you’re saying if you went to court, and the airline wouldn’t do discovery or purposefully shredded their records of your ticket for some reason, but we already have receipts and bank statements and the like that do the same thing, and an NFT doesn’t change needing to prove you bought it in this case, presumably via linking a wallet rather than a bank account, though wallets don’t have the ID requirements bank accounts do, so in court that could actually be rather harder to do.

            • dreadgoat@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Looking at each piece in isolation it’s hard to see the real world value. You have to put it all together. Let’s do the airline ticket example.

              Real world today, the information involved in purchasing a ticket is controlled by three parties: The customer, the airline, and the financial institute (assuming you didn’t walk up and pay cash). Anybody involved here screw up or be malicious. You lost your ticket. The airline had a database malfunction. The bank/creditor improperly recorded the transaction. All parties are aware of these potential failures, so there are contingencies in place in case of a missing ticket, a ticket that can’t be found the system, a bad or missing financial transaction. But these backup plans also open the door to fraud, so there need to be even more plans on top of the backups: How to verify the integrity of a seemingly real ticket, protocol for re-verifying a financial event, etc.

              It’s simple because it’s familiar, but it’s really ridiculously complicated and error prone.

              Let’s introduce NFTs and blockchain.
              You buy the airline ticket and the following things happen:
              The bank performs the transaction and records it to the blockchain, which is decentralized and owned by no one, so it is verified by all parties before anything else happens. Bank errors are now impossible.
              You and the airline perform a mutual authentication, which generates an NFT proving existence of the ticket and attaches it to your identity. From your perspective, this would be unlocking your phone and clicking “approve.”

              Now you approach the airport kiosk and there’s a problem.
              Airline has no record of purchase - well, the blockchain does, so it’s their fuck up and they have no reasonable argument. You win.
              Airline can’t match your ticket to their database - You show them your NFTicket, which their system verifies is a valid, unspoofable, immutable ticket for what you say it is. Again, it’s their fuck up and they have no reasonable argument. You win.
              Conversely, you say you have a ticket for today, they say it’s for tomorrow. You inspect the ticket, it is in fact for tomorrow. You fucked up, no further argument.

              The only way any of this goes wrong is one of the following:
              Multiple forms of your identification are stolen - phone, password, biometrics. Obviously a lot harder than nabbing a CC number.
              Multiple parties lose their records at the same time. Possible but unlikely.
              State-level villains sabotage the entire system. Possible, sure, but this is an apocalypse-level event and probably an act of war.

              It’s effectively impossible for someone to steal or fake a ticket or transaction in this system, and because of that, anybody who has receipts is automatically proven right and you don’t need to jump through any more hoops or threaten to sue anybody. It’s complex behind the scenes but it makes life for businesses and consumers braindead simple. There are so many layers of trust in action that no individual party can reasonably claim something did or did not happen just because THEY messed up.

              • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re talking like this happens all the time though, or specifically the airline loses your ticket record. I can’t even think of a bank error that would somehow be involved in a way that this helps you really - banks have every incentive to be as close as humanly possible to perfect in their record keeping, because when they aren’t, they get sued, they get slapped with fines from the government, and they lose customers. The entire sales pitch of a bank is trust.

                But what really seems to be happening here is you’re suggesting that someone has both lost their ticket, and the airline at the same time lost their record of the ticket. This is exactly the same as

                Multiple parties lose their records at the same time. Possible but unlikely.

                You can stand there with your NFT all you want, the airline can still say - we don’t recognize it as valid due to a screwup in their system, same as they do with a CC receipt or a printed ticket I guess. They can and do bump people from flights they agree have valid tickets all the time. And now you’re back to what? Complaining to customer service or suing them (cause you can’t force a bank to get back your crypto from the airline like you can dispute a CC charge).

                Maybe you’re right and it’s ticket forgery that this would prevent, but I really question if that’s a big driver here of any issues for anyone.

    • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago
      • P2P is the new hotness
      • LAMP is the new hotness
      • Ruby on Rails is the new hotness
      • Big data is the new hotness
      • Machine Learning is the new hotness
      • Crypto is the new hotness
      • AI is the net hotness

      None of these died, none of them were the new hotness for very long. Oh by the by, our company is looking for anyone with fifteen years experience in ChatGPT (/s). But in all serious, there’s always a very vocal group that’s chasing the hype. No idea how big they truly are, but they sure do bang the gong the entire time.