4 ms·

The most relevant take away from this article (for me) is how the coyotes (crypto and currency experts) invented Bitcoins, raccoons over leveraged it out of dum

The most relevant take away from this article (for me) is how the coyotes (crypto and currency experts) invented Bitcoins, raccoons over leveraged it out of dumb greed (investors) and the state took notice and acted out of sheer desperation to not lose control and once again rendered the invention useless by gaining more control than before (the part that is currently in its early stages right now). Update: I think the article insinuates an interesting take on the invention of cryptocurrencies (by coyotes), their bubble (by raccoons) and their suppression (by the state). But IMO in this case, the state suppressed the invention not just because they fear what the coyotes have produced but also what raccoons have done with it (with the whole ICO bubble, etc.).

0xBA5ED 8y ago
Of course, bitcoin's own limitations would've prevented it's widespread use, with or without the over-speculation (lack of throughput and excessive energy consumption).
- r_singh 8y ago
  That's true. The idea holds up better if looked at from an all cryptocurrencies perspective rather than only Bitcoin. Also because states aren't just trying to control / suppress Bitcoin alone but all cryptocurrencies. For example, here in India the central bank has banned all cryptocurrencies.
etherael 8y ago
They don't have control though. At best, they sabotaged just the bitcoin core blockchain, and those who were in it to destroy the state and central banks forked off into bitcoin cash. They also provoked a tidal wave of "financial innovation" in the sector with now dozens of independent blockchains, some utterly anonymous, over which they have zero control. If their campaign was the bring this under their power, it cannot be viewed reasonably as anything other than a miserable failure. Also the analogy to the metagame does not acknowledge the reality that actually those in power in the metagame are a predatory parasitic coercive force in themselves, and their brand of coyote cunning is just traditional machiavellian politics rather than financial innovation backed up with cryptographic peer to peer networks. It's not a war between animal control and coyotes. It's a war between many coyotes executing different strategies. While both the sheep and the raccoons just try to get by as best they can.
- r_singh 8y ago
  I agree with the essence of your comment that the efforts of the state to suppress cryptocurrencies (to prevent themselves from losing control) are a miserable failure. However, the same is not true in the developing world where a number of countries have outright banned all independent cryptocurrencies and will be launching state controlled cryptocurrencies soon. Seems like they don't care much about anyone (coyotes, sheep or raccoons).
  - etherael 8y ago
    Yeah, Zimbabwe banned it and it immediately spiked by 5k. Banning hard currency is an old government play and it never works, not even when it's something big heavy and hard like gold, much less something you can memorize as twelve words and transact in invisibly and at will.

0xBA5ED 8y ago

Of course, bitcoin's own limitations would've prevented it's widespread use, with or without the over-speculation (lack of throughput and excessive energy consumption).

r_singh 8y ago
That's true. The idea holds up better if looked at from an all cryptocurrencies perspective rather than only Bitcoin. Also because states aren't just trying to control / suppress Bitcoin alone but all cryptocurrencies. For example, here in India the central bank has banned all cryptocurrencies.

etherael 8y ago

They don't have control though. At best, they sabotaged just the bitcoin core blockchain, and those who were in it to destroy the state and central banks forked off into bitcoin cash. They also provoked a tidal wave of "financial innovation" in the sector with now dozens of independent blockchains, some utterly anonymous, over which they have zero control. If their campaign was the bring this under their power, it cannot be viewed reasonably as anything other than a miserable failure. Also the analogy to the metagame does not acknowledge the reality that actually those in power in the metagame are a predatory parasitic coercive force in themselves, and their brand of coyote cunning is just traditional machiavellian politics rather than financial innovation backed up with cryptographic peer to peer networks. It's not a war between animal control and coyotes. It's a war between many coyotes executing different strategies. While both the sheep and the raccoons just try to get by as best they can.

r_singh 8y ago
I agree with the essence of your comment that the efforts of the state to suppress cryptocurrencies (to prevent themselves from losing control) are a miserable failure. However, the same is not true in the developing world where a number of countries have outright banned all independent cryptocurrencies and will be launching state controlled cryptocurrencies soon. Seems like they don't care much about anyone (coyotes, sheep or raccoons).
- etherael 8y ago
  Yeah, Zimbabwe banned it and it immediately spiked by 5k. Banning hard currency is an old government play and it never works, not even when it's something big heavy and hard like gold, much less something you can memorize as twelve words and transact in invisibly and at will.