As you yourself out it, the issue with monero is that it is designed to protect attackers.
Comment on Monero Project admits thieves stole 6-figure sum from a wallet in mystery breach
Saki@monero.town 10 months ago
The linked article (and so AutoTL;DR) is not very accurate. If you’re interested in this incident, read the original post, which is short and compact. General media articles are only quoting or re-quoting this thread, typically with some misunderstanding.
Specifically (about this post): Among other things, multisig is only suggested; nothing has been decided yet.
Generally (in many similar articles): Probably a specific local machine was hacked, though no one really knows yet what happened. It’s unlikely that the Monero network itself was hacked.
Since I’m a Monero supporter, obviously I tend to say good things about it, but frankly, the ironical fact here is, Monero is so privacy-focused that when something like this happens, it’s difficult to identify the attacker—i.e. by design Monero also protects the identity of the attacker. Some Monero users are having this weird, paradoxical feeling: it would be nice if we could catch this evil attacker, but being able to catch the attacker would be in a way very bad news for Monero (if you know what I mean) 😕
brambledog@lemmy.today 10 months ago
Saki@monero.town 10 months ago
I think I know what you’re trying to say, and that’s actually a difficult point. Privacy is double-edged.
By that logic, you’d have to support chat control, e2e backdoor, eIDAS 45, etc. and ban Tor, Tails, VPN, BitTorrent, or encrypted communication in general because sometimes criminals can (and do) abuse such technology too. While such logic is understandable, I’m a privacy advocate and can’t agree with that. Most libre people, EFF, FSF, etc. have been fighting against that very logic for more than 20 years. I’m one of them.
zergtoshi@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It’s designed to protect anyone using it - even attackers.
That’s the price to pay for having privacy.
The alternative is an Orwellian dystopia.brambledog@lemmy.today 10 months ago
Really?
Please show me in which of Orwell’s writings he suggested that economies should be based off allowing financial criminals to commi their crimes against citizens, unimpeded.
The thesis of 1984 is that when totalitarianism takes hold, we will turn on those we love to protect ourselves. Which specific portion of that novel do you believe told you that true freedom is getting your money stolen with no recourse?
This is primarily the issue with libertarians. You guys are constantly applying a book you haven’t read to every situation you don’t like. It’s weird and I think people see through it.
zergtoshi@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Please show me in which of Orwell’s writings he suggested that economies should be based off allowing financial criminals to commi their crimes against citizens, unimpeded.
I don’t need to and I won’t, because I never said so.
Please don’t put thibgs in my mouth.The thesis of 1984 is that when totalitarianism takes hold, we will turn on those we love to protect ourselves.
I was thinking of 1984, too; obviously.
I see it in a more abstract way though.
The consequences of mass surveillance, which are the basis of repressive regimentation of people are what makes lack of privacy dangerous and in my book not desirable - even if it has certain drawbacks, because abandoning privacy just has way more and more severe drawbacks.This is primarily the issue with libertarians. You guys are constantly applying a book you haven’t read to every situation you don’t like. It’s weird and I think people see through it.
This is primarily the issue with people who think they know others because they’ve read one comment.
It’ weird and I think people see through it.
kartonrealista@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You have to be quite stupid to support crypto in 2023, after Luna, Ftx, NFTs, all the rugpulls and explicit pump and dumps, you morons just keep coming back for more. That last paragraph is pure comedy gold - you’re so close to self-awareness it hilarious.
virtualbriefcase@lemm.ee 10 months ago
If you’re going to use Luna, FTX, and NFTs as arguments about something like Monero, and I don’t want this to sound to mean (hard to convey tone through text), but you probably don’t really understand any of them.
I have been both a long time supporter of crypto and the ideas behind it, and I was quick to make fun of the NFTs and have always warned against both keeping large sums money in exchanges and warning against trusting stable coins. I certainly can’t garuntee crypto’s future, but your argument sounds a lot like somebody saying “a trading card site and two unlicensed online banks went broke so you’re stupid for buying Cisco stock” right after the dot com crash.
I reccomend looking into it just a bit more. Even if it’s just to be a better anti-crypto advocate.
kartonrealista@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Ah yes, Monero, from the WannaCry incident, the premier currency for criminals. Also I’ve made a detailed list of points and most of them (except 1, which is about stablecoins and 5, which only half-applies) apply to Monero. It’s still proof of work, so it wastes energy, it still destroys consumer protections, is perfect for scams and makes it even harder for authorities to pursue criminals. And it is still a bigger fool scam, despite being useful for criminals.
Ftx was one of the largest exchanges for the whole of the crypto market. This is like Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank all going bankrupt and their execs sentenced to prison at the same time.
deafboy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Proof of work does not waste energy. It burns exactly how much it needs to.
520@kbin.social 10 months ago
Tell me you don't understand what you're talking about without saying you don't understand what you're talking about.
To go through each of your points:
There are plenty of stable coins that are stable, such as USDC. Many of them exist for a multitude of different purposes.
Non stable coins also can have different uses. Reddit, for example, had its own coin for a while.
While it is true that laws around crypto are nowhere near as mature, as they are very new, crypto offers its own consumer protection advantages over fiat. For example, as an attacker it's a metric fuck ton harder to get into a crypto wallet than it is to get into a bank account.
What makes you think first currencies aren't controlled in the same way?
Pick one. Both cannot be true at the same time. While it is true most crypto uses a publicly available ledger, you can only start tracing purchases when you know the identities of the ones holding the accounts. This is muuuuch easier said than done, especially given how easy it is to simply make new accounts with zero identifying info attached to them.
If you're the kind to fall for these scams, you're fucked regardless if you used fiat or crypto. Banks will not refund you over payments you yourself sent.
virtualbriefcase@lemm.ee 10 months ago
My point on the comparison wasn’t that that they’re 1:1, but more so when a market does crazy stuff in a speculative frenzy there’s things that potentially have legitimate value and things that don’t. Comparing one to the other isn’t really a a good way to debate the value or lack of.
As for unlicensed banks, yeah probably an imperfect comparison, but not entirely irrelevant IMO. Something like Coinbase (that does have licenses BTW) is probably a lot less likely to go bust than some shady exchange based in the Bahamas. Now, as a counter point they probably had the appropriate licenses for their US based front, but then just funneled that elsewhere right.
And sure, they were one of the biggest, but back to my original point: in a crazy speculative bubble the scams and legitimate projects all have to be evaluated individually.
Speaking of banks though, its kinda hilarious you brought up Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank. Last I checked two of the three were kinda involved in a pretty thing known as the 2008 financial crises and would have collapsed had they not been bailed out. Their executives aren’t in prison, but many people believed they should be.
Finally criminal useage is valid criticism, but Monero is not the first thing to be used to transfer illicit funds. Cartels, hitmen, and people who kidnap children for ransom all seem to like cash (well, that and the banks, some of which have a horrendously bad record of transferring illicit funds). If you were to convince me that Monero is making the world a way worse off place then maybe you’d change myind, but right now as it stands it appears a small percentage of criminals find Monero slightly easier than cash and are using it because it’s the path of least resistance. Last I checked, the drug trade, computer hacking, and any other active criminal enterprise existed before the use of Monero.
HardenedSteel@monero.town 10 months ago
You don’t have to repeat hundred times Monero is used by criminals, and many of us glad for Monero used by criminals.
Before explaining to me “why criminals are bad!!!”: Criminality ≠ morality
EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 10 months ago
The very same things that allow these things can allow the people in power to spy on all your digital transactions, as well as deny service to people they don’t like (which they would more eagerly do to opposition rather than real scammers).
Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social 10 months ago
In the first sentence reiterated insults, in the second just saying it's a scam, and in the third repeating that it's a scam and (absurdly) denying there's a use case.
I'm not even going to read anymore, I'm interested in the arguments against crypto, but to see an asshole ranting bullshit.
kartonrealista@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Nope. Just pointing out how the feature Monero boasts about (transaction obfuscation) made it a great pick for the conversion target for the ransom bitcoins obtained from the WannaCry cyber attack.
Saki@monero.town 10 months ago
I do agree most cryptocurrencies are scammy, or traded speculatively. It’s a free country, so one can do whatever they want to with their own money, but I personally think they’re like greedy gamblers.
I’m a Monero user, not a trader, not an investor. I have Monero because I use it. I support it because I’m a privacy advocate. I’ve never even once used a CEX, totally unrelated to investment. Your points may be valid for those investor people, though.
n00b001@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You’re partially correct with some of these points.
Theatge amount of energy you mention is really only relevant to proof of work. You’ve mentioned proof of stake etc - so you should know that. The energy requirements for “proof” techniques such as PoS is negligible
Reversing transactions are ‘hard’/infesable - and so in a way they do help scammers - but I think it’s a false equivalence. It helps everyone. In my mind it’s like says “encryption helps terrorists”, that may be true, but it helps us all.
Regarding on chain transaction transparency, there are some chains that are like this (bitcoin), and there are some chains that are not (monero). There’s also ways to anonymise transactions through mixers etc if you do care about that. Although, I don’t know of anyone that gets their salary into their crypto wallet.
Overall, regulation is slow! But it’s getting there. I don’t think crpyto will solve all of.humans problems, but I might just help with some. It’s going to be interesting seeing how it all plays out - people thought it was going to be here and gone in a year, but it’s been over a decade now.
kartonrealista@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It can’t compete with payment processors. Proof of stake is also basically just oligarchy, while proof of storage is a waste of hardware. All of them center their validation process on big money investors, who either have a lot of hardware or a lot of money to stake.
So it would be useless for things normal money is useful for? Where’s the revolution in banking that I heard about? Banking the unbanked?
Here you provided users privacy at the cost of making criminals completely untraceable. Bravo.
How about a bank account, where people who know you won’t know your transaction history but police can catch people participating in organized crime?
Which ones? I have not heard of one use case, only excuses from you guys.
n00b001@lemmy.world 10 months ago
TradFi has a few wealthy individuals that control banking
You say PoS is an oligarchy, but it still offers anyone to participate in markets they previously were unable to. For example, providing liquidity and getting a cut of transaction fees - this is something TradFi has a monopoly on, but now everyday people can get a cut. You’re right that people with more money will have a bigger cut - but it’s still more equal than TradFi