3 ms·

> I'm curious why so many people are so vehemently opposed to cryptocurrencies, and in particular ETH. I wouldn't say I'm vehemently opposed, but I do kind of

> I'm curious why so many people are so vehemently opposed to cryptocurrencies, and in particular ETH. I wouldn't say I'm vehemently opposed, but I do kind of regard the whole thing as a bit of a joke. If you're curious for my two cents: * There are no regulatory bodies or any kind of oversight; little legal recourse or way to insure your investment * There is no predictability of any kind in relation to the value; it goes up and down as it likes, often by large amounts, for literally no reason * Mining the various coins consumes a massive amount of energy, essentially computer busywork and in most cases (not BTC or ETH) the result is utterly worthless Honestly these things feel more like a tech-bro exclusive version of the lottery than anything; sure your 10,000 redcoin is worthless today, but someday it might be worth millions! Granted you probably have much better odds with Redcoin than Powerball but it still feels like the same sort of thing.

coldpie 9y ago
> There are no regulatory bodies or any kind of oversight; little legal recourse or way to insure your investment It is kind of fun watching a bunch of libertarians suddenly figure out why laws and regulatory bodies exist when every crash or major theft happens.
- smokeyj 9y ago
  Ah yes, the narrative where libertarians finally see the value in politicians and crawl to them for help. Unfortunately for your fantasy, that's the opposite of what's happening. We're leaving the politicians at home and building technical solutions. What a world huh?
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  Indeed. I lean towards Libertarianism for most things, i.e. deregulation, but many regulations were put in place for a very good reason. A lot of Libertarians that I talk to though usually argue for the ability to opt-out of whatever system, which IMHO is perfectly fine. If you don't pay for the firefighters though, you don't get to be angry when they don't put your house out type of thing.
  - coldpie 9y ago
    If your decisions affected nobody but yourself, sure. But you suddenly being bankrupt puts a much larger cost on society than the strain of you having to pay for firefighters. Further, if everyone thought like that and we had too little money to pay for firefighters at all... Edit: In other words, don't think of it as protecting you from your own bankruptcy; think of it as society protecting itself from your bankruptcy.
  - hello_marmalade 9y ago
    Here's why that's stupid: a nation is not build so simply. There are places where having firefighters would not be economically viable. Does that mean that the people in those areas don't deserve firefighters? Libertarianism is a nice idea, but it needs to be balanced out with some compassion. You pay into something that you might never use, because someone else might need it, and they do the same for you elsewhere. Libertarian socialism is where it's at.
    - FussyZeus 9y ago
      > Here's why that's stupid: a nation is not build so simply. There are places where having firefighters would not be economically viable. Does that mean that the people in those areas don't deserve firefighters? When on Earth did I say anything like that? First of all I was implying opting out of the taxes for whatever community, not paying for fire fighters directly. Also, it's worth pointing out that in many rural communities (and more prominently, the area between them) paying for fire fighting service is not uncommon precisely because it's not viable for the communities in the nearby area to cover them as well without being compensated. But besides all of that: > Libertarianism is a nice idea, but it needs to be balanced out with some compassion. You pay into something that you might never use, because someone else might need it, and they do the same for you elsewhere. I completely agree, this is what I was attempting to get at.
- ahallock 9y ago
  That's odd because what about all the massive fraud and theft happening with regular fiat, despite regulations?

coldpie 9y ago

> There are no regulatory bodies or any kind of oversight; little legal recourse or way to insure your investment It is kind of fun watching a bunch of libertarians suddenly figure out why laws and regulatory bodies exist when every crash or major theft happens.

smokeyj 9y ago
Ah yes, the narrative where libertarians finally see the value in politicians and crawl to them for help. Unfortunately for your fantasy, that's the opposite of what's happening. We're leaving the politicians at home and building technical solutions. What a world huh?
FussyZeus 9y ago
Indeed. I lean towards Libertarianism for most things, i.e. deregulation, but many regulations were put in place for a very good reason. A lot of Libertarians that I talk to though usually argue for the ability to opt-out of whatever system, which IMHO is perfectly fine. If you don't pay for the firefighters though, you don't get to be angry when they don't put your house out type of thing.
- coldpie 9y ago
  If your decisions affected nobody but yourself, sure. But you suddenly being bankrupt puts a much larger cost on society than the strain of you having to pay for firefighters. Further, if everyone thought like that and we had too little money to pay for firefighters at all... Edit: In other words, don't think of it as protecting you from your own bankruptcy; think of it as society protecting itself from your bankruptcy.
- hello_marmalade 9y ago
  Here's why that's stupid: a nation is not build so simply. There are places where having firefighters would not be economically viable. Does that mean that the people in those areas don't deserve firefighters? Libertarianism is a nice idea, but it needs to be balanced out with some compassion. You pay into something that you might never use, because someone else might need it, and they do the same for you elsewhere. Libertarian socialism is where it's at.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    > Here's why that's stupid: a nation is not build so simply. There are places where having firefighters would not be economically viable. Does that mean that the people in those areas don't deserve firefighters? When on Earth did I say anything like that? First of all I was implying opting out of the taxes for whatever community, not paying for fire fighters directly. Also, it's worth pointing out that in many rural communities (and more prominently, the area between them) paying for fire fighting service is not uncommon precisely because it's not viable for the communities in the nearby area to cover them as well without being compensated. But besides all of that: > Libertarianism is a nice idea, but it needs to be balanced out with some compassion. You pay into something that you might never use, because someone else might need it, and they do the same for you elsewhere. I completely agree, this is what I was attempting to get at.
ahallock 9y ago
That's odd because what about all the massive fraud and theft happening with regular fiat, despite regulations?