Our team is doing some research on Libra and it seems like they have removed the bank deposit currencies of USD, EUR, GBP, JPY from their whitepaper. I remember reading it last week when it launched but they are now nowhere to be found in the whitepaper. https://t.co/loocAVhgHA
.@Facebook has unveiled the Libra Cryptocurrency Whitepaper. Their mission: "enable a simple global currency and financial infrastructure that empowers billions of people."
The Libra Stablecoin will operate on a permissioned #blockchain. #Libra #Crypto
Wow, Libra whitepaper reveals more partners like Booking Holdings, which would allow millions of users to use the "cryptocurrency" for a wide range of services. (whitepaper: https://t.co/6HyZClXdVM)
I'm impressed https://t.co/WhtLR8oGFp
I like @lopp/thoughts-on-libra-blockchain-49b8f6c26372">Jameson Lopp's write-up, and thought this section was funny:
Once again we see that “The Libra Blockchain” is not actually a blockchain. It’s really weird that this protocol seems to be very well designed and yet they keep calling it a blockchain when the data structure of the ledger history is a set of signed ledger states. Validators are making commitments for each ledger state, and all of the historical ledger states are also committed to in Merkle trees, but I have yet to actually see any backlinked lists of data that form a chain, much less a chain of blocks.
From the first paragraph:
The Libra protocol allows a set of replicas — referred to as validators — from different authorities to jointly maintain a database of programmable resources.
Alright, there’s no mincing of words here — the system will be controlled by a set of authorities in a top-down fashion.
I don't see how this is like Dash in any way. Why do you say that?
Validator nodes that hold collateral of libra are very similar to masternodes. Im pretty sure we would have the patent on masternodes and you only have to incorporate part of that technology to infringe.
Why is there so many talks about this. Its a stable coin, whats so interesting about that? We cant really make money from it other than the "dividend" side? Is it a threat? I dont see it
HanspanzerPlatinum | QC: BTC 183, CC 424 months ago
1) It's attacking the 'muh fees' camp. FaceCoin will be low fees and instant 'because better tech' (roflmao) but no threat to Bitcoin.
2) It's a scetchy but huge step for Bitcoin adoption. People will be introduced to crypto and one click away from buying BTC. quite a banger.
This will fail hard. Normies won't use this and neither will die hard crypto hobbyist. This is just another feeble attempt at becoming relevant again by Facebook. They should go back to buying up-and-coming social platforms, they'll have far better profits that way.
_Frog__King_4 - 5 years account age. 250 - 500 comment karma.4 months ago
This is not the institutional money you were looking for.
Am I the only one who always thought that a blockchain stablecoin that’s used by everyone would be the breakthrough that cryptocurrencies needs? (Assuming that it can be traded into other coins)
I think it’s great news. Doesn’t replace Bitcoin or Ethereum as investments or in use case, solves a problem of mass adoption. As long as you know it’s controlled by centralized companies and don’t buy more than your grocery and beer money I don’t see the problem.
Consortium-based consensus on an Ethereum-style network protocol, with a few tweaks. I wonder which part of this takes away the intermediaries, in the way Bitcoin and Ethereum do this. Also the jurisdiction is unclear to me. Will the U.S. government be the one to regulate this? In that case, it seems like PayPal 2.0 to me.
CaptEntropy5 - 6 years account age. 300 - 600 comment karma.4 months ago
"the Libra Blockchain is a single data structure that records the history of transactions and states over time. " So no blocks, and no chains! It's a database.
markjenkinswpg8 - 9 years account age. 450 - 900 comment karma.4 months ago
It's a bank.
A bank that permits its customers to use cryptographic signatures to move money instead of passwords.
A bank with its own basket currency, which will bank with other banks and lend money to governments.
A bank that will refuse service to anyone unbanked who is not positioned to present ID.
A bank that will not function as a fully universal on-ramp to cryptocurrencies that are commodity money and unrestricted, as only customers who play by and extend outward the bank's rules will be able to keep their accounts with the bank open. The ledger will be monitored for broker-dealers at the fringes.
It won't matter if this bank someday moves its ledger updates from permissioned to unpermissioned, as the bank will always retain the power to choose who can deal with it on issuance and return, and that bank will always maintain impose its rules recursively. This is true even if the consensus rules at some point permit customer control just with keys alone. The bank can always dishonour its debts and force customers to a new ledger and consensus rules where it better calls the shots.
This bank will be incapable of operating any other way. All of the fiat currencies and bonds on the asset side of this bank's balance sheet are issued by governments and government authorized central banks. Maintaining a stable basket means using the fiat currencies of the very countries who've made the global financial system what it is today with their sanctions, blockades, know your financial thought crime terrorist rules, and so on. That means they call the shots.
It doesn't matter that this bank is Swiss. She will never cross mother Liberty, father Europa, and Uncle Yen.
markjenkinswpg8 - 9 years account age. 450 - 900 comment karma.4 months ago
The other thing I learned today is that Facebook's "wallet" Calibra is going to be a custodial relationship. Not your keys, not your Libra. So Calibra is just a bank that banks with Libra. On /r/facebook [I ask](https://np.reddit.com/r/facebook/comments/bzlrr8/weekly_questions_thread_june_12_2019_utc/erhmyn8/) if there will be a firewall between Calibra and the control your own keys version of Libra. Anyone here know?
What we really need to watch out for is Facebook switching all transactions to be "Libra-backed" which would artificially inflate adoption and use every time some schmuck buys power-ups in Candy Crush. Not to mention, the power of paid advertising and their history of fake news...
>Libra’s mission is to enable a simple global currency and financial infrastructure [...] This document outlines our plans for a new decentralized blockchain,
The "decentralized" can be parsed different ways. Facebook Libra is decentralizing the transactions but it does not decentralize the currency creation. (This partial decentralization happens because Facebook wants to peg Libra to stable asset reserves.) This is different from Bitcoin's idea of decentralizing both the currency creation _and_ the financial transactions.
We can see this distinction in its list of partners...
> Members of the Libra Association will consist of [...]
The bulleted list includes:
- transaction processors such as Mastercard/Visa, PayPal, Stripe, etc
- ecommerce marketplaces such as ebay, Uber, etc
- telecomm such as Vodafone
We see the industry that's noticeably missing: no banks mentioned such as JP Morgan Chase, Citi, HSBC, etc
That's because Facebook wants to be the "bank" in this new Libra economy. It wants to be the "Federal Reserve" that creates bank notes.
If I misunderstand Facebook's intentions and how it wants to position Libra in the financial world, please correct me.
I think this coin is a really bad idea. Its just centralizing a crypto coin and then removing the laws around money because now a dollar has a libra coin wrapper on it so it's obviously totally different than a dollar.
It feels like a federal reserve moment where a bunch of rich folk get together and again dictate the future of currency. Crypto was supposed to change that trend. Unfortunately the want of convenience will probably win out over any sort moralistic/idealistic standing and unless government steps in, it will probably be widely adopted.
This is seriously scary. The buy-in it's already received from some of the big financial players worries me that this might actually catch-on.
Facebook is the last person I'd trust with any of my data, let alone a complete history of all my transactions.
I hope privacy is more important to the average Western Joe than it was to the Chinese. WeChat sounds like a dystopian nightmare.
Facebook can't keep people's phone numbers, pictures and sex life private and we trust them to invent a currency?
I'm not a crypto backer - in fact I'm skeptical of the long term usefulness, but this isn't crypto, it's shitty PayPal. It's not decentralized, not removed from fiat, not anonymous and not trustworthy.
It's like one to one copy of the traditional monetary system with speed of transactions improved. Low volatile assets they rely on are not real and therefore not guaranteed to stay low volatile. It may be decentralized technically but not socially or ethically.
> Interest on the reserve assets will be used to cover the costs of the system, ensure low transaction fees, pay dividends to investors who provided capital to jumpstart the ecosystem (read “The Libra Association” here), and support further growth and adoption. The rules for allocating interest on the reserve will be set in advance and will be overseen by the Libra Association. Users of Libra do not receive a return from the reserve.
Forget about the cryptography and "blockchain" this system will use. The real innovation here is financial in nature. Only it's not really an innovation.
I doubt today's race to negative interest rates will be kind to Libra validators, who will be demanding a fat payout sooner or later for the loss of business on highly lucrative credit cards.
There's only one way to fund this beast: fractional reserve and ever more risky investments. The temptation will be enormous. The justifications true and well-intentioned. The outcome predictable to anyone who has paid attention.
>The reserve allows users of the system to enjoy a relatively stable medium of exchange from the start. At the same time, it also represents a centralized function. For the network to be fully permissionless, the association will have to explore ways to further distribute and decentralize the reserve, including automating the verification of the assets in the basket and the process of minting and burning of coins. Increasing market competition in the custody and management of the reserve will also be explored to improve the efficiency of this service, and the costs it imposes on users and custodians over time.
So this coin will be backed by a centralized reserve, and you would have to trust Facebook that the coins you own are backed by real money, with no way of verifying this. Tether works the same way, and they are just creating money out of thin air without actual dollars backing them up. I'm curious how Facebook will decentralize this reserve, or if they will even do this in the first place.
I just watched the official launch video for Libra and it's just disgusting how silicon valley is abusing the image of "poor" people or people from developing countries to sell a philanthropist idea while their true intentions are just more money and more power.
As someone somewhat out of the crypto-loop, would someone be able to explain/posit/cite why Facebook are entering this market, and why traditional payment providers are also getting involved? On the face of it, this suggests it aims to essentially reduce transaction costs (which would be to the detriment of the status-quo)?
I’m super curious how the initial governance framework evolves over time.
From the looks of it, it’s not anything completely new and relies on standard human voting and management structures.
>A Founding Member that does not comply with the Founding Member eligibility criteria can be removed by a supermajority vote of the council. The recording of this vote on the Libra Blockchain will remove the member's node from the consensus algorithm.
So given this, the things working in Libra’s favor are an immediate, global social network for distribution.
Against it would be lack of innovation on the governing front (i.e. prone to internal politics) but this is probably more of a long term problem.
The problem with the financial industry is not currency. Hyping cryptocurrency's benefits to actual humans is like criticizing Facebook for releasing personal data to Cambridge Analytica using tab delimited files instead of JSON. It's completely missing the point.
I remember someone saying something along the lines of “Facebook will try and copy and crush us, but not this time- by the time they work out what’s happening, it’ll be too late”.
Facebook seem to have noticed what’s happening and are moving like the wind to try and crush us.
Are they too late or are we too late? Or neither?
So the only thing this has going for it over cash is that it may ease exchange online (to be seen). And this depends on how easy it will be to join this as a merchant or user, how nice APIs will be, and how well fraud will be handled, etc., etc.
And the value will fluctuate based on the trust in the ability to convert it reliably to cash/other currencies. So there's no real peg to anything, as described previously.
It is sad that Zuckerberg chose to squander all that capital on frivolous endeavors at Facebook. He could have done so much.
This is what gets me the most: "We believe that a global currency and financial infrastructure should be designed and governed as a public good." It's very rich coming from Facebook who could have made itself a public good a decade ago.
The suggestion that this is a way to help the "global unbanned" is also disingenuous. If people don't have enough money to put any in a bank, making up a new centralized currency isn't going to change that.