7 ms·

You could say that humanity has repeatedly and organically come to a solution broadly known as government and regulation.

acct1771 9y ago
Worked great in 2008.
- celticninja 9y ago
  It's like people assume the current financial system is perfect and bitcoin is not. Bitcoin never pretended to be, it's still an experiment 10 years in, but its a fun expierment.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    It’s fun while it’s worth a bucketload. When people start losing their shirts and dumpster loads of ASICS are being burned for cooking fires... less fun. (Some hyperbole engaged above)
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      There's a massive difference in crypto over fiat. In the US, if you have a debt they can take back your home, you can get harassed and taken to court. The stakes are not that high for crypto wealth. Its unenforceability makes the stakes a lot lower for tragedy.
- luckydata 9y ago
  You know what? It did. You still have running water. Government employees like cops and firefighters and teachers are getting paid (sometimes not enough). So yeah, it worked great.
  - acct1771 9y ago
    "People in Africa are starving, so you're having a great day!" Bullshit argument, I'm sorry.
- monktastic1 9y ago
  I didn't say it was perfect. I doubt that whatever "organic" solution we're hoping the crypto community will self-enforce will be either.
  - acct1771 9y ago
    If something bad happens, it will be the will of the 51%, not the .01%.
- jzymbaluk 9y ago
  It actually did. The market was on it's way to crashing harder than the great depression, but it didn't, probably thanks in some part to government being able to intervene and control monetary policy
  - sixQuarks 9y ago
    Have you ever heard of the phrase "kicking the can down the road"?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - stouset 9y ago
      You can play this argument ad infinitum without actually adding anything of value to this conversation. Central banking is not perfect, but it has a better track record of stability and growth than any other system that’s been tried at a large scale. Try and remember that the alternatives aren’t optimal economic systems that are immune to bubbles, recessions, depressions, hyperinflation, corruption and manipulation. If anything the Bitcoin experiment is reinforcing why we have existing regulations in place.
      - tooltalk 9y ago
        How do you know that it has a better track record of "stability" and "growth" than any other system at a large scale? Much of America's growth in the late 19th happened without any central banks in 1913. Most of "depressions" happened prior to that -- and there were 4 such major ones in the 19th century and many of them were directly caused by the govt policy changes -- were nowhere as severe as the Great Depression occurred after the creation of the central banking in the US.
  - tooltalk 9y ago
    You mean the gov't regulation prevented the GD that it created?
  - jebeng 9y ago
- api 9y ago
  It did and it didn't. On one hand, we stopped a panic that would have led to a true depression. On the other hand we did so by actually increasing the power and wealth of many of the people and organizations responsible for creating the conditions that led to the panic. Do that long enough and you get a civilization run by overconfident incompetents and shielded fraudsters. That build up of delusional bozos at the top is one of the things that eventually leads to collapse. Bitcoin was in some ways a protest in code form. Why can't we create a software defined monetary system that is transparent and where corrupt and incompetent human orgs can be replaced by algorithms? I like that idea, but Bitcoin itself was really just a proof of concept. We're not there yet. In the meantime we've gotten a silly bubble that's starting to look like a parody of the project's original goals.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  >> You could say that humanity has repeatedly and organically come to a solution broadly known as government and regulation. > Worked great in 2008. Wasn't 2008 at least partially the result of having banking regulations withdrawn/weakened over the prior decades? If so, isn't it pretty bogus and misleading judge the effectiveness of financial regulation from that event? It's like saying airbags don't help in a crashes, because yours was removed and you smacked your face against the steering wheel in a crash.
  - hndamien 9y ago
    You still had a system that decided removing airbags was a good idea. Then, when getting smacked in the face, doing nothing to the people involved in removing the airbags or causing the face smacking.
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      That doesn't really reflect on the suitability or effectiveness of regulation to address the problem. Greedy, ignorant people who failed to study and learn from the past can be the decision-makers, too.
      - hndamien 9y ago
        Then you have a systemic problem allowing greedy ignorant people to be decision makers. Not sure how to fix this, but I believe there is a solution.
conanbatt 9y ago
I disagree vehemently to this proposition. I have never agreed or voted to get those regulations in place. They are not voluntary. But anyone falling for tether today is making an individual decision.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Just because you personally weren't consulted on those regulations doesn't mean that they weren't come to by people who were democratically elected. And you agreed to abide by the laws of a jurisdiction by living there. Otherwise, what's to stop you from saying, "I never agreed not to kill people"?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > And you agreed to abide by the laws of a jurisdiction by living there. Otherwise, what's to stop you from saying, "I never agreed not to kill people"? Nobody agreed to not kill people either. Thats why killing is also legal in many circumstances. Also arguing that we all agreed to the rules there in would mean that if slavery were legal it would be ok, becase we all agreed to it. But thats another topic. The point is that if I believe in an institution without regulation the option between me and that institution is severed by an unrelated third party. I dont want to ask the SEC any permission to buy tethers.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      "Also arguing that we all agreed to the rules there in would mean that if slavery were legal it would be ok, becase we all agreed to it" No. That's a poor argument that, in this case, falsely equivocates slavery with financial regulation. "I dont want to ask the SEC any permission to buy tethers." That's not what's happening in the least. But if Tether is a scam, then it will be shut down, as it should be. And no amount of "freedom" will justify running a scam on other people.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        > No. That's a poor argument that, in this case, falsely equivocates slavery with financial regulation. You say its a poor argument, but you dont say why. > That's not what's happening in the least. But if Tether is a scam, then it will be shut down, as it should be. And no amount of "freedom" will justify running a scam on other people. Tether will crash itself if it doesnt have the money its supposed to have, we don't need the sec for that ,the same way the SEC didnt start the 2008 meltdown or Enron's demise. Its even more egregious if you consider tether is not in the US and affects non-US citizens the most. So why has the SEC the power to intervene in other countries with people that haven't elected them? Its purely an act on a position of power, not on agreed rules, and thats some of the spirit that sorrounds crypto. Crypo will be more mature if it deals with this problems without government intervention.

acct1771 9y ago

Worked great in 2008.

celticninja 9y ago
It's like people assume the current financial system is perfect and bitcoin is not. Bitcoin never pretended to be, it's still an experiment 10 years in, but its a fun expierment.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  It’s fun while it’s worth a bucketload. When people start losing their shirts and dumpster loads of ASICS are being burned for cooking fires... less fun. (Some hyperbole engaged above)
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    There's a massive difference in crypto over fiat. In the US, if you have a debt they can take back your home, you can get harassed and taken to court. The stakes are not that high for crypto wealth. Its unenforceability makes the stakes a lot lower for tragedy.
luckydata 9y ago
You know what? It did. You still have running water. Government employees like cops and firefighters and teachers are getting paid (sometimes not enough). So yeah, it worked great.
- acct1771 9y ago
  "People in Africa are starving, so you're having a great day!" Bullshit argument, I'm sorry.
monktastic1 9y ago
I didn't say it was perfect. I doubt that whatever "organic" solution we're hoping the crypto community will self-enforce will be either.
- acct1771 9y ago
  If something bad happens, it will be the will of the 51%, not the .01%.
jzymbaluk 9y ago
It actually did. The market was on it's way to crashing harder than the great depression, but it didn't, probably thanks in some part to government being able to intervene and control monetary policy
- sixQuarks 9y ago
  Have you ever heard of the phrase "kicking the can down the road"?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - stouset 9y ago
    You can play this argument ad infinitum without actually adding anything of value to this conversation. Central banking is not perfect, but it has a better track record of stability and growth than any other system that’s been tried at a large scale. Try and remember that the alternatives aren’t optimal economic systems that are immune to bubbles, recessions, depressions, hyperinflation, corruption and manipulation. If anything the Bitcoin experiment is reinforcing why we have existing regulations in place.
    - tooltalk 9y ago
      How do you know that it has a better track record of "stability" and "growth" than any other system at a large scale? Much of America's growth in the late 19th happened without any central banks in 1913. Most of "depressions" happened prior to that -- and there were 4 such major ones in the 19th century and many of them were directly caused by the govt policy changes -- were nowhere as severe as the Great Depression occurred after the creation of the central banking in the US.
- tooltalk 9y ago
  You mean the gov't regulation prevented the GD that it created?
- jebeng 9y ago
api 9y ago
It did and it didn't. On one hand, we stopped a panic that would have led to a true depression. On the other hand we did so by actually increasing the power and wealth of many of the people and organizations responsible for creating the conditions that led to the panic. Do that long enough and you get a civilization run by overconfident incompetents and shielded fraudsters. That build up of delusional bozos at the top is one of the things that eventually leads to collapse. Bitcoin was in some ways a protest in code form. Why can't we create a software defined monetary system that is transparent and where corrupt and incompetent human orgs can be replaced by algorithms? I like that idea, but Bitcoin itself was really just a proof of concept. We're not there yet. In the meantime we've gotten a silly bubble that's starting to look like a parody of the project's original goals.
Slansitartop 9y ago
>> You could say that humanity has repeatedly and organically come to a solution broadly known as government and regulation. > Worked great in 2008. Wasn't 2008 at least partially the result of having banking regulations withdrawn/weakened over the prior decades? If so, isn't it pretty bogus and misleading judge the effectiveness of financial regulation from that event? It's like saying airbags don't help in a crashes, because yours was removed and you smacked your face against the steering wheel in a crash.
- hndamien 9y ago
  You still had a system that decided removing airbags was a good idea. Then, when getting smacked in the face, doing nothing to the people involved in removing the airbags or causing the face smacking.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    That doesn't really reflect on the suitability or effectiveness of regulation to address the problem. Greedy, ignorant people who failed to study and learn from the past can be the decision-makers, too.
    - hndamien 9y ago
      Then you have a systemic problem allowing greedy ignorant people to be decision makers. Not sure how to fix this, but I believe there is a solution.

conanbatt 9y ago

I disagree vehemently to this proposition. I have never agreed or voted to get those regulations in place. They are not voluntary. But anyone falling for tether today is making an individual decision.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Just because you personally weren't consulted on those regulations doesn't mean that they weren't come to by people who were democratically elected. And you agreed to abide by the laws of a jurisdiction by living there. Otherwise, what's to stop you from saying, "I never agreed not to kill people"?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > And you agreed to abide by the laws of a jurisdiction by living there. Otherwise, what's to stop you from saying, "I never agreed not to kill people"? Nobody agreed to not kill people either. Thats why killing is also legal in many circumstances. Also arguing that we all agreed to the rules there in would mean that if slavery were legal it would be ok, becase we all agreed to it. But thats another topic. The point is that if I believe in an institution without regulation the option between me and that institution is severed by an unrelated third party. I dont want to ask the SEC any permission to buy tethers.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    "Also arguing that we all agreed to the rules there in would mean that if slavery were legal it would be ok, becase we all agreed to it" No. That's a poor argument that, in this case, falsely equivocates slavery with financial regulation. "I dont want to ask the SEC any permission to buy tethers." That's not what's happening in the least. But if Tether is a scam, then it will be shut down, as it should be. And no amount of "freedom" will justify running a scam on other people.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > No. That's a poor argument that, in this case, falsely equivocates slavery with financial regulation. You say its a poor argument, but you dont say why. > That's not what's happening in the least. But if Tether is a scam, then it will be shut down, as it should be. And no amount of "freedom" will justify running a scam on other people. Tether will crash itself if it doesnt have the money its supposed to have, we don't need the sec for that ,the same way the SEC didnt start the 2008 meltdown or Enron's demise. Its even more egregious if you consider tether is not in the US and affects non-US citizens the most. So why has the SEC the power to intervene in other countries with people that haven't elected them? Its purely an act on a position of power, not on agreed rules, and thats some of the spirit that sorrounds crypto. Crypo will be more mature if it deals with this problems without government intervention.