4 ms·

> There is a gigantic difference between not trusting and not having to trust. This is the point, though. Everyone expecting financial security has to trust. T

> There is a gigantic difference between not trusting and not having to trust. This is the point, though. Everyone expecting financial security has to trust. There is no alternative.

keymone 8y ago
the alternative is math. when you sign a transaction and it gets included in the blockchain - i don't need to trust anyone that i got the money, i don't need to fear the transaction will be reversed due to some banking policies, i don't need to fear my account will be closed, etc. so you're right, i have to trust math and i am ok with that.
- empthought 8y ago
  You still have to trust your counterparties, though, and they will always be less trustworthy in aggregate than the functioning of a financial system. You're worried about the wrong player in this game.
  - keymone 8y ago
    no, that's not how it works. counterparty risk exists irrelevant of which financial system you operate in. you may be paying insurance to reduce the damages, you may sue them in court of law for breaking contract - all of that is irrelevant to financial system. cryptocurrencies is simply different financial system where you don't need to trust middlemen. it's really astonishing how complacent people have become towards trusting middlemen in financial systems. if you ignore the banking services that you're paying for either directly or indirectly via taxes - what is the bank doing for you? why should you pay for having a record in the database? why should bank be involved in facilitating or even censoring your transactions? i'm worried about exactly the right player in this game.
    - empthought 8y ago
      “...[Bitcoin] also has some ideology built in – the assumption that giving national governments the ability to monitor flows of money in the financial system and use it as a form of law enforcement is wrong.” Seems like the author I cited has it exactly right, then.
      - keymone 8y ago
        he has some things right, but not nearly enough. is this the way you concede your opinion expressed above was wrong? because you just jumped from "financial system is not a risk, counterparty is a risk" to "but what about transparency and law enforcement"..
        empthought 8y ago
        They are the same problem, and not a jump at all. You even used the phrase “court of law” yourself. Financial security depends on the ability to show who bad actors are and undo their transactions. I don't see how this is possible without some sort of middleman involving civil government. Yes, the current banking system has flaws, but they are not technological flaws and cannot be solved by technological means.
        keymone 8y ago
        > You even used the phrase “court of law” yourself yes, in context of resolving dispute with counterparty > Financial security depends on the ability to show who bad actors are and undo their transactions no, that's in my opinion the opposite of financial security. i feel financially secure when i know no government, bank or corporation fuck up can affect the state of my account. > Yes, the current banking system has flaws, but they are not technological flaws and cannot be solved by technological means. the flaw of current banking system is humans. humans are often corrupt, incompetent, unreliable and with malicious intent. basing financial security on assumption that only honest, competent, reliable and well intentioned humans end up in positions of power is obviously wrong. i don't hold that assumption and think that taking humans out of the loop is the best way to address flaws of existing system. the fact that flaws are not technological in no way means technology can't solve them.

> There is a gigantic difference between not trusting and not having to trust. This is the point, though. Everyone expecting financial security has to trust. There is no alternative.

keymone 8y ago

the alternative is math. when you sign a transaction and it gets included in the blockchain - i don't need to trust anyone that i got the money, i don't need to fear the transaction will be reversed due to some banking policies, i don't need to fear my account will be closed, etc. so you're right, i have to trust math and i am ok with that.

empthought 8y ago
You still have to trust your counterparties, though, and they will always be less trustworthy in aggregate than the functioning of a financial system. You're worried about the wrong player in this game.
- keymone 8y ago
  no, that's not how it works. counterparty risk exists irrelevant of which financial system you operate in. you may be paying insurance to reduce the damages, you may sue them in court of law for breaking contract - all of that is irrelevant to financial system. cryptocurrencies is simply different financial system where you don't need to trust middlemen. it's really astonishing how complacent people have become towards trusting middlemen in financial systems. if you ignore the banking services that you're paying for either directly or indirectly via taxes - what is the bank doing for you? why should you pay for having a record in the database? why should bank be involved in facilitating or even censoring your transactions? i'm worried about exactly the right player in this game.
  - empthought 8y ago
    “...[Bitcoin] also has some ideology built in – the assumption that giving national governments the ability to monitor flows of money in the financial system and use it as a form of law enforcement is wrong.” Seems like the author I cited has it exactly right, then.
    - keymone 8y ago
      he has some things right, but not nearly enough. is this the way you concede your opinion expressed above was wrong? because you just jumped from "financial system is not a risk, counterparty is a risk" to "but what about transparency and law enforcement"..
      - empthought 8y ago
        They are the same problem, and not a jump at all. You even used the phrase “court of law” yourself. Financial security depends on the ability to show who bad actors are and undo their transactions. I don't see how this is possible without some sort of middleman involving civil government. Yes, the current banking system has flaws, but they are not technological flaws and cannot be solved by technological means.
        keymone 8y ago
        > You even used the phrase “court of law” yourself yes, in context of resolving dispute with counterparty > Financial security depends on the ability to show who bad actors are and undo their transactions no, that's in my opinion the opposite of financial security. i feel financially secure when i know no government, bank or corporation fuck up can affect the state of my account. > Yes, the current banking system has flaws, but they are not technological flaws and cannot be solved by technological means. the flaw of current banking system is humans. humans are often corrupt, incompetent, unreliable and with malicious intent. basing financial security on assumption that only honest, competent, reliable and well intentioned humans end up in positions of power is obviously wrong. i don't hold that assumption and think that taking humans out of the loop is the best way to address flaws of existing system. the fact that flaws are not technological in no way means technology can't solve them.