4 ms·

I do understand. It's not an outcome of specifically cryptocurrency but distributed nature of it. The losses that we see are because of the uncertainty surround

I do understand. It's not an outcome of specifically cryptocurrency but distributed nature of it. The losses that we see are because of the uncertainty surrounding it. It's a form of currency and should be used as one. In the current market it's being used as more like trading stocks than currency. Currently it's not completely distributed, from the people hoarding it to the ICOs to the whales and to centralized exchanges, it all needs to be taken into account, those would be bugs. I would like the idea of limiting amount of money one can hold and spend in a limited period to avoid such disasters. This would limit the freedom too. But we will have to talk about how much freedom does one person/entity need, (yours ends where mine begins). It's not perfect yet, but it's a nice idea. If perfected it would a lot harder to artificially manipulate than the current system. At the very least, a lot many people would be responsible for any disaster instead of a few.

adwn 8y ago
> I would like the idea of limiting amount of money one can hold and spend in a limited period to avoid such disasters. This would limit the freedom too. But we will have to talk about how much freedom does one person/entity need, (yours ends where mine begins). And yet, two posts up you complained about control of people's freedom: >>> Reason is that control of money grants banks and governments great control over citizenry. Do you no see the irony in that contradiction? > If perfected [...] Hah! What a huge "if" you're smuggling into your hypothesis right there.
- ghostinmachine 8y ago
  > And yet, two posts up you complained about control of people's freedom I'm a supporter of reasonable freedoms not unlimited freedoms. I would like checks and balances on power and it's accumulation whether it's a person or group of persons. Just like voting rights, we at least try to achieve equal voting share for each person. Money is power it needs reasonable checks and balances so that wishes of few do not affect many. No one needs $100 million to survive or live a reasonably good life. If you need more for an endeavor you're free to appeal to others to invest into your effort. Point is, large changes needs to be made by proportionate amount of wills. > Do you no see the irony in that contradiction? There's no contradiction. It's just a suggestion to avoid a few of such problems, but if you have a better suggestions, I welcome it. >Hah! What a huge "if" Yes that's a big 'if', just like for any other idea. Only fools are certain of things, those without power have only hope.
  - adwn 8y ago
    Cryptocurrencies cannot prevent accumulation of extreme wealth in the hands of a few. The reason is simple, yet important: Money is not wealth. Money represents wealth. If you restrict the amount of money per person, wealth will be represented by a different metric – camels, for example. > Yes that's a big 'if', just like for any other idea. No. Any idea that requires such an "if" (i.e., the implementation has to be perfect for the idea to succeed) is doomed to fail.

adwn 8y ago

> I would like the idea of limiting amount of money one can hold and spend in a limited period to avoid such disasters. This would limit the freedom too. But we will have to talk about how much freedom does one person/entity need, (yours ends where mine begins). And yet, two posts up you complained about control of people's freedom: >>> Reason is that control of money grants banks and governments great control over citizenry. Do you no see the irony in that contradiction? > If perfected [...] Hah! What a huge "if" you're smuggling into your hypothesis right there.

ghostinmachine 8y ago
> And yet, two posts up you complained about control of people's freedom I'm a supporter of reasonable freedoms not unlimited freedoms. I would like checks and balances on power and it's accumulation whether it's a person or group of persons. Just like voting rights, we at least try to achieve equal voting share for each person. Money is power it needs reasonable checks and balances so that wishes of few do not affect many. No one needs $100 million to survive or live a reasonably good life. If you need more for an endeavor you're free to appeal to others to invest into your effort. Point is, large changes needs to be made by proportionate amount of wills. > Do you no see the irony in that contradiction? There's no contradiction. It's just a suggestion to avoid a few of such problems, but if you have a better suggestions, I welcome it. >Hah! What a huge "if" Yes that's a big 'if', just like for any other idea. Only fools are certain of things, those without power have only hope.
- adwn 8y ago
  Cryptocurrencies cannot prevent accumulation of extreme wealth in the hands of a few. The reason is simple, yet important: Money is not wealth. Money represents wealth. If you restrict the amount of money per person, wealth will be represented by a different metric – camels, for example. > Yes that's a big 'if', just like for any other idea. No. Any idea that requires such an "if" (i.e., the implementation has to be perfect for the idea to succeed) is doomed to fail.