4 ms·

I will probably get downvoted for this, but: I think there is a recurring pattern here. Like discovering that absolute anonymity on the internet enabled bad be

I will probably get downvoted for this, but: I think there is a recurring pattern here. Like discovering that absolute anonymity on the internet enabled bad behavior, and pseudonymity allowed foreign governments (or just trolls) to engage in duplicitous or offensive behavior more easily, it turns out that many of the traditional "limitations" of government-regulated currencies, are features and not bugs. I'm not saying there's no place for cryptocurrencies, but they are clearly not for the average, non-technical, mom-and-pop operation to use. They do not protect you from being abused by powerful institutions; they make you more vulnerable to being abused by powerful institutions (although perhaps different ones). If you are a technically savvy user or a large organization, there could be valid reasons for using them, but in general they are not a replacement for ordinary non-crypto currencies, and that's not in spite of their freedom from government control, but rather precisely because of it.

askmike 8y ago
I agree with the points you make, but not the overall sentiment of your comment: Bitcoin does provide a level of privacy and self sovereignty that hasn't really existed since cash. So i agree with your: > (although perhaps different ones) Powerful players can only play games with each other around the price. And if you are a retail trader you might get caught up in this. But that's about the only thing they can do, limiting the attack surface drastically. I'm saying see cryptocurrencies more as an expression of freedom and less as a place to dump all your savings into. Unfortunately too many people got that backwards.
avmich 8y ago
I think the idea here is to get a competition for the government. In other words, an ideal government does serve those purposes and and provides features not bugs; however in reality government is far from perfect and does its job rather poorly, from the point of view of many. So they propose to create a virtual one for the area of financial transactions with the hope that the new "limitations" of new "government control" will work better than what we have right now.
kadendogthing 8y ago
>I'm not saying there's no place for cryptocurrencies, but they are clearly not for the average, non-technical, mom-and-pop operation to use. They do not protect you from being abused by powerful institutions; they make you more vulnerable to being abused by powerful institutions (although perhaps different ones). This is why the state exists. It's better to have defined powers than create a power vacuum that gets filled by other entities with their own interests. Techno-libertarian babble be damned.

askmike 8y ago

I agree with the points you make, but not the overall sentiment of your comment: Bitcoin does provide a level of privacy and self sovereignty that hasn't really existed since cash. So i agree with your: > (although perhaps different ones) Powerful players can only play games with each other around the price. And if you are a retail trader you might get caught up in this. But that's about the only thing they can do, limiting the attack surface drastically. I'm saying see cryptocurrencies more as an expression of freedom and less as a place to dump all your savings into. Unfortunately too many people got that backwards.

avmich 8y ago

I think the idea here is to get a competition for the government. In other words, an ideal government does serve those purposes and and provides features not bugs; however in reality government is far from perfect and does its job rather poorly, from the point of view of many. So they propose to create a virtual one for the area of financial transactions with the hope that the new "limitations" of new "government control" will work better than what we have right now.

kadendogthing 8y ago

>I'm not saying there's no place for cryptocurrencies, but they are clearly not for the average, non-technical, mom-and-pop operation to use. They do not protect you from being abused by powerful institutions; they make you more vulnerable to being abused by powerful institutions (although perhaps different ones). This is why the state exists. It's better to have defined powers than create a power vacuum that gets filled by other entities with their own interests. Techno-libertarian babble be damned.