Computer Scientists say Crypto Industry is Misleading???

[tadamichi]

According to few popular computer scientists the crypto industry is misleading the public about blockchain technology.
The list were has 26 computer, Harvard lecturer Bruce Schneier, Microsoft engineer Miguel de Icaza and Google Cloud’s principal engineer Kelsey Hightower were few among them. This team of Computer Scientists have given a letter to the US Officials.

These Computer Scientists have given few statements on cryptocurrency and Blockchain technology.

• "The claims that the blockchain advocates make are not true. It’s not secure, it’s not decentralized. Any system where you forget your password and you lose your life savings is not a safe system.”
• “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"
• "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.”
• The computational power behind blockchain is the equivalent of what one could do in a centralized way with a $100 computer.
• “We’re essentially wasting millions of dollars worth of equipment because we’ve decided that we don’t trust the banking system.”

Computer Scientists Say Crypto Industry Is Misleading the Public About Blockchain Technology

What about your view on these statements?

K, so lets first check about which issues our „experts“ didnt write letters to officials about in the last years.
Some examples:

„Google is not cooperating with user data requests from Hong Kong authorities“

One year later

„Google disclosed times it provided user data to Hong Kong authorities, even though it said last year it was going to stop“

„December 2018: Google+ Bug Exposes 52.5 Million Users’ Data“
„March 2018: Google+ Bug Exposes 500,000 Users’ Data“
„November 2016: Gooligan Malware Compromises 1 Million Android Devices“
„September 2015: BrainTest Malware Infects Up to 1 Million Android Devices“
„September 2014: Nearly 5 Million Gmail Passwords Leaked Online“
„June – December 2009: Chinese Hackers Breach Google Servers“
„July 2020: Google Accused of Misleading Millions of Users About Privacy“
„April 2020: Google Faces $5 Billion Lawsuit for Tracking “Private” Browsing“
„September 2019: Google Received $170 Million Fine for Child Data Privacy Breaches“
„August 2018: Google Tracking Location Data on 2 Billion Users, Sometimes Without Permission“

„March 2022: Lapsus$ Group Breaches Microsoft“
„August 2021: Organizations Expose 38 Million Records Due to Power Apps Misconfiguration“
„August 2021: Thousands of Microsoft Azure Customer Accounts and Databases Exposed“
„April 2021: 500 Million LinkedIn Users’ Data Scraped and Sold“
„January 2021: Microsoft Exchange Server Vulnerability Leads to 60,000+ Hacks“
„December 2020: Microsoft and 18,000 Other SolarWinds Customers Targeted with Malicious Update“
„December 2019: Over 250 Million Microsoft Customer Records Exposed“
„April 2019: Compromised Support Agent Credentials Give Hackers Access Webmail Accounts“
„November 2016: Hundreds of Skype Accounts Hacked to Send Spam Messages“
„May 2016: 33 Million Stolen Hotmail Credentials Discovered for Sale Online“
„October 2013: Internal Microsoft Bug Tracking Database Compromised“
„March 2013: 3,000 Xbox Live Users Credentials Exposed“
„June 2012: Malware Disguised as Legitimate Microsoft Update Sent to Hundreds of Computers“
„2011 through 2013: Xbox Underground Repeatedly Hacks Microsoft“
„December 2010: Microsoft BPOS Data Leak Exposes Customer Information to Other BPOS Customers“
„January 2010: Microsoft Internet Explorer Zero-Day Flaw Allows Hackers to Breach Major U.S. Companies“

So i think after this it becomes obvious that we should rely on centralized services for everything, and run bitcoin on one 100$ computer, with a password that can be changed easily, for our own safety.

But seriously i agree that altcoins are scams, but i think they will use this as an attack vector on Bitcoin too, since it doesnt seem like they spend much time on understanding the architecture.

[Pmalek]

They are talking about crypto in general and unfortunately that also includes Bitcoin. But their conclusions don't apply to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is secure, it is decentralized, and the system that gives access rights to anyone who has the signing keys is as secure as the person storing those keys. The majority of the cryptocurrencies are indeed flawed and unproven or just scams. Again, take Bitcoin out of the equation. If someone doesn't understand what they are investing in, they shouldn't invest in it. The same rules apply to all other financial markets and assets.

Why trust bankers and speculators, really? Maybe because they are responsible for all the biggest financial crises we know of.

I also find it funny how a high positioned employee of Google Cloud doesn't like alternative platforms. Life would be so much easier for them if everyone just stored all their data in their Google Clouds for easy monitoring, leaking, and privacy infringement all in the name of national security, fighting terrorism, and money laundering.   

[Gyfts]

• “We’re essentially wasting millions of dollars worth of equipment because we’ve decided that we don’t trust the banking system.”

And whose fault is that? Is it the consumer's fault for choosing alternative assets/currencies, or is it the government's fault for mismanaging fiscal policy so badly that they drive consumers away from the state sponsored currency under the jurisdiction they live in?

The banking systems and their incestuous relationship with the government have shown themselves to be flawed and inherently corrupt. The palpable irony of computer scientists referring to crypto as as the unproven financial instruments as if people are so ignorant to the realities of the current centralized system is beyond the pale.

I don't take these clowns seriously. Neither should you.[/list]

[Oshosondy]

That is true, crypto is not decentralized and the blockchain is not secure as the computer scientists said about it, there are over 19700 cryptocurrencies  that are existing now, there are more that should be existing now but become failed, some are existing but if people invested into it, it will become loss for the people. Some coins are just doomed to fail. Some coins are centralized and their price can easily be manipulated. This is true but exception is bitcoin because bitcoin blockchain is secure, it is the strongest, bitcoin is harder to manipulate if compared to many altcoins. Terra Luna is an example of what the computer scientists is talking about which many people even took their lives as they lost their life investment on this coin.

[coolcoinz]

• “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"
• "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.”

Sounds like at least a few of these people lost money investing in shitcoins and pozni schemes and they now want to put the blame on blockchain and bitcoin.

• The computational power behind blockchain is the equivalent of what one could do in a centralized way with a $100 computer.

This is the problem. We don't want to do it in a centralized way. Also, they contradict their previous statement that blockchain is not decentralized. Why do we need to do something in a centralzied way to be different from blockchain then?

• “We’re essentially wasting millions of dollars worth of equipment because we’ve decided that we don’t trust the banking system.”

Yes, that's the point. The banking system is a scam and the amount of centralized fiat money spent to change it doesn't matter since they can print more and more to fill the gap.

[hatshepsut93]

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.

[TheNineClub]

According to few popular computer scientists the crypto industry is misleading the public about blockchain technology.
The list were has 26 computer, Harvard lecturer Bruce Schneier, Microsoft engineer Miguel de Icaza and Google Cloud’s principal engineer Kelsey Hightower were few among them. This team of Computer Scientists have given a letter to the US Officials.

These Computer Scientists have given few statements on cryptocurrency and Blockchain technology.

• "The claims that the blockchain advocates make are not true. It’s not secure, it’s not decentralized. Any system where you forget your password and you lose your life savings is not a safe system.”
• “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"
• "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.”
• The computational power behind blockchain is the equivalent of what one could do in a centralized way with a $100 computer.
• “We’re essentially wasting millions of dollars worth of equipment because we’ve decided that we don’t trust the banking system.”

Computer Scientists Say Crypto Industry Is Misleading the Public About Blockchain Technology

What about your view on these statements?

He does have some fair points, but yeah, we didn't decide that we don't trust the banking system, it has proven to be unraliable time and time again.  And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 2008 crisis happen because of speculation from banks? So let's not try anything nee and just trust the unreliable system? He's not making much sense.

[Questat]

Actually, they are just few who think that was misleading, let them judge the market way as we do our own judgment as well. Because whatever it happens in the future, we neither blame them, it is just ourselves.

They have some points regarding shitcoins and many fake projects make people suffer losses but the problem is they generalize the market. And as I believe and trust Bitcoin, whatever they say hasn't affected my desire to hold and invest in them.

[AmoreJaz]

Actually, they are just few who think that was misleading, let them judge the market way as we do our own judgment as well. Because whatever it happens in the future, we neither blame them, it is just ourselves.

They have some points regarding shitcoins and many fake projects make people suffer losses but the problem is they generalize the market. And as I believe and trust Bitcoin, whatever they say hasn't affected my desire to hold and invest in them.

it is indeed your own choice when it comes to this industry. experts, computer scientists or whatever they call themselves, they are free to give their opinion on this market. but at the end of the day, it is your own decision what to do with your funds. you can listen, read or follow their thoughts, but that is on you now. we have our own opinion on basically everything. it is up to you where you want to go after gauging your options.

[Jawhead999]

it is indeed your own choice when it comes to this industry. experts, computer scientists or whatever they call themselves, they are free to give their opinion on this market. but at the end of the day, it is your own decision what to do with your funds. you can listen, read or follow their thoughts, but that is on you now. we have our own opinion on basically everything. it is up to you where you want to go after gauging your options.

The thing is there are many articles who mislead their readers, including this one. If this article can easily appeared on the first page or even first row, newbies could easily thought all cryptocurrency aren't decentralized and secure because it can easily to brute force or using quantum computing etc. I guess only less people are really know this forum, but it have a good source and discussion about cryptocurrency especially Bitcoin.

[NotATether]

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).

[BitcoinPanther]

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.

[Findingnemo]

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?

[Betwrong]

~

• 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?

[Ucy]

Sounds like statements from politicians instead of scientists.

[kryptqnick]

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).

[dezoel]

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.

[Doan9269]

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.

[buwaytress]

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.

[justdimin]

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.