3 ms·

>Centralized institutions do provide a safety net, but is there anything necessarily wrong with a group of people saying they don't want or need that? Unfortun

>Centralized institutions do provide a safety net, but is there anything necessarily wrong with a group of people saying they don't want or need that? Unfortunately, there is. Until pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes came under strict regulation, enormous social harm was caused when people lost their life savings to such schemes. You might think, as a technically sophisticated HN reader, that you don't need the nanny state to protect you in this way. But well-educated people tend to be one of the biggest victims of these schemes, because 1) they have newly-acquired wealth; 2) they are too arrogant to realize that their expertise in their own field does not translate to expertise in investing; 3) they probably know people in their social circle who have gotten rich (temporarily) on one of these "investments", and then let greed and envy override common sense. Even Isaac Newton is reputed to have lost a large fortune in the South Sea Bubble (though sources are unclear) [1] So no, you are not allowed to waive the safety net. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/isaac-newton-lost-a-fortune-on-englands-hottest-stock-2016-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/isaac-newton-lost-a-fortune-o...

jackstraw14 9y ago
> as a technically sophisticated HN reader, that you don't need the nanny state to protect you in this way. Thanks for your compliments, but I think of myself more as a fairly well-informed American who graduated college in 2010, the same year I found myself in a lecture hall for a career planning class and 5 out of 300 students raised their hands when asked "Who here has a job lined up after graduation?" So no, I don't accept that we must submit to a nanny state controlled by centralized banks, and I will continue fighting for these projects to exist and thrive. And not just for a quick buck like you seem to think this is. You can see it as "investments" and miracle money or whatever, but it's more than that. It's a way for people like me to finally say "fuck you" to the banks that have ruined so many lives (and for what, exactly?) and finally in a way that makes them listen.
- my_first_acct 9y ago
  I understand the sentiment; there is a lot wrong with the current system. But any new world that you create should have at least the same level of protection against fraud, theft, and speculative bubbles as the current (imperfect) world; otherwise even more people will be hurt. The world of crypto-currencies has not been very reassuring in this regard, unfortunately.
  - jackstraw14 9y ago
    I agree. Most of the issues you describe are related to the terrible experience of what to do with your currencies after you've bought them. None of them are very useful at the moment, so there needs to be a safe way to store them, and the easiest thing to do is just leave them sitting in your exchange accounts. There are ways store them properly (hardware wallets, which aren't perfect either), but there's no way any non-tech/non-determined folks will consider a free solution like a paper wallet. I'm looking forward to seeing what Omise comes up with on their multi-currency wallet and supposedly instant conversion via a decentralized exchange. However, I think the real hope for this (and yes, a community-driven approach rather than government-controlled) is what's already changed the world in my lifetime through open source communities. The most successful distributed ledgers have so far been open source. This is another sentiment, but I started using Linux in 1996 because I hit too many brick walls in Windows as a kid. Just simply learning how it works always resulted in at least one headache (I recall trying to learn C++ in windows at that time, and then seeing a friend's Debian environment, and that was that) Since then I've seen those philosophies (more social than technical I think) creep into so many previously off-limits proprietary areas. It blows my mind what we've achieved, not just creating a system where we have more control but forcing the "evil" companies many of us hated at the time, like Apple and Microsoft, to adapt. I never thought Microsoft would open source anything, yet here we are with dotnet core and more. I don't see any reason why we can't carry that over into banking and fintech, and this does feel a lot like the clunky early days of Linux. But a well-organized decentralized movement can topple major centralized institutions, and while a complete takeover by the people probably won't happen, already every major bank is adapting to this new world. And they have much less control in this one, too.

jackstraw14 9y ago

> as a technically sophisticated HN reader, that you don't need the nanny state to protect you in this way. Thanks for your compliments, but I think of myself more as a fairly well-informed American who graduated college in 2010, the same year I found myself in a lecture hall for a career planning class and 5 out of 300 students raised their hands when asked "Who here has a job lined up after graduation?" So no, I don't accept that we must submit to a nanny state controlled by centralized banks, and I will continue fighting for these projects to exist and thrive. And not just for a quick buck like you seem to think this is. You can see it as "investments" and miracle money or whatever, but it's more than that. It's a way for people like me to finally say "fuck you" to the banks that have ruined so many lives (and for what, exactly?) and finally in a way that makes them listen.

my_first_acct 9y ago
I understand the sentiment; there is a lot wrong with the current system. But any new world that you create should have at least the same level of protection against fraud, theft, and speculative bubbles as the current (imperfect) world; otherwise even more people will be hurt. The world of crypto-currencies has not been very reassuring in this regard, unfortunately.
- jackstraw14 9y ago
  I agree. Most of the issues you describe are related to the terrible experience of what to do with your currencies after you've bought them. None of them are very useful at the moment, so there needs to be a safe way to store them, and the easiest thing to do is just leave them sitting in your exchange accounts. There are ways store them properly (hardware wallets, which aren't perfect either), but there's no way any non-tech/non-determined folks will consider a free solution like a paper wallet. I'm looking forward to seeing what Omise comes up with on their multi-currency wallet and supposedly instant conversion via a decentralized exchange. However, I think the real hope for this (and yes, a community-driven approach rather than government-controlled) is what's already changed the world in my lifetime through open source communities. The most successful distributed ledgers have so far been open source. This is another sentiment, but I started using Linux in 1996 because I hit too many brick walls in Windows as a kid. Just simply learning how it works always resulted in at least one headache (I recall trying to learn C++ in windows at that time, and then seeing a friend's Debian environment, and that was that) Since then I've seen those philosophies (more social than technical I think) creep into so many previously off-limits proprietary areas. It blows my mind what we've achieved, not just creating a system where we have more control but forcing the "evil" companies many of us hated at the time, like Apple and Microsoft, to adapt. I never thought Microsoft would open source anything, yet here we are with dotnet core and more. I don't see any reason why we can't carry that over into banking and fintech, and this does feel a lot like the clunky early days of Linux. But a well-organized decentralized movement can topple major centralized institutions, and while a complete takeover by the people probably won't happen, already every major bank is adapting to this new world. And they have much less control in this one, too.