3 ms·
Again, the question is who you trust, and that remains a moral choice, not an objective, empirical choice. Some people don't trust a government elected by only
by return0 9y ago
Again, the question is who you trust, and that remains a moral choice, not an objective, empirical choice. Some people don't trust a government elected by only half the population, for example. Some others may prefer to trust an elite of "enlightened hackers" than hordes of plebs.
You might be right that governments are more evolved and have more history but that doesn't make them universally better.
- harryh 9y agoAgain, the question is who you trust, and that remains a moral choice, not an objective, empirical choice. Oh come on. It absolutely is an empirical choice. Crypto-currencies have a very short history and that history is CHOCK FULL of people losing their money due to various forms of incompetence and graft. Storing your money in a bank in a western democracy has centuries of history with extremely rare losses. Please.
- meepmorp 9y ago>Storing your money in a bank in a western democracy has centuries of history with extremely rare losses. While I agree with your overall point, I think you're glossing over the historical instabilities in the banking system. Bank runs, failures, and physical robberies were pretty common until comparatively recently (in the US, at least - the 19th century was chock full of them).
- harryh 9y agoEven in the dark days before the FDIC losses in US banks were rarer than what we see in cryptocurrencies today.
- return0 9y agoCryptocurrencies offer the opportinity to test the waters with new models. If we go by the thinking "keep what works", society would have never changed. I agree that they have big failures to show, but i think it's still early to tell.