3 ms·

You may reject the idea, but I don't see how it can be anything _other_ than what you describe as "financial anarchy". You either trust national governments an

You may reject the idea, but I don't see how it can be anything _other_ than what you describe as "financial anarchy". You either trust national governments and their KYC and AML laws, or you trust the crypto network and _its_ governance. That is the whole point, as stated by Satoshi. If your crypto complies with some least- or greatest-common-denominator of government laws (as they apply to their national currencies), then what is the point?

yholio 8y ago
The point was not that cryptocurrencies should be state run, rather that the social values embedded in their algorithmic regulation should respect a wider set of social values and accommodate applications that can comply with typical national legislation resulting from those values. See your brother comment for an alternate perspective, cryptocurrency already embed regulatory frameworks that reflect social values, for example, the need to control inflation or the need for financial privacy. If the decentralized governance rejects on principle that money laundry is a social problem, then society through it's various forms of governance might reject the currency, just as it would reject say, a hyperinflationary currency. This is what I mean to say by "going full-crypto-Monty": there is a strong tendency in the community to reject some important social values without debate and to try to enforce a political perspective on how society should work by circumventing the legitimate venue where these political debates are fought. The more the problem is asserted, the more crypto people double-down on their utopian narrative and invent new technical measures to circumvent any social control, such as this here.
- creeble 8y ago
  I respect your position that "going full-crypto-Monty" may cause a crypto currency to be rejected by a society that values some rules, like anti-money-laundering. But crypto currencies were borne out of a distrust for banks and government money policy, like inflation. In my view, the fallacy was/is that by putting trust "in the network", these policies could be avoided, not duplicated. But that's impossible: crypto currencies merely shift trust to the network operators (who, for financial gain, become increasingly consolidated), and to the maintainers of the code, who ultimately determine the rules. Maybe the point is that with a diversity of currencies, there is a diversity of policy choice. But that only increases the exchange problem, which defeats the purpose of a currency (that is, being widely accepted).
  - epicwg 8y ago
    Aside from playing with consensus algorithms to get the hash from GPUs rather than FPGA/ASIC, can you point me to innovative thinking in this area? Which projects (or, rather, their communities) are doing the most interesting stuff around achieving widespread distribution? I agree with you that this is essential for any crypto to truly become viable as money. If Bitcoin has won the store of value battle at least for now, then that leaves the medium of exchange game wide open and it won't be ABC/SV.
- epicwg 8y ago
  I like what I'm seeing in terms of governance experimentation with DCR's Politeia, Dash (failure but they had some good ideas) and XTZ. The BTS/EOS world (especially EOSForce in Asia) has some interesting stuff too. I'm naturally "full crypto-Monty" and find it hard to connect with people who identify more with today's political model. Can you point me to some thinking you respect about how to blend various governance venues (crypto and physical/political)? Thanks ahead

yholio 8y ago

The point was not that cryptocurrencies should be state run, rather that the social values embedded in their algorithmic regulation should respect a wider set of social values and accommodate applications that can comply with typical national legislation resulting from those values. See your brother comment for an alternate perspective, cryptocurrency already embed regulatory frameworks that reflect social values, for example, the need to control inflation or the need for financial privacy. If the decentralized governance rejects on principle that money laundry is a social problem, then society through it's various forms of governance might reject the currency, just as it would reject say, a hyperinflationary currency. This is what I mean to say by "going full-crypto-Monty": there is a strong tendency in the community to reject some important social values without debate and to try to enforce a political perspective on how society should work by circumventing the legitimate venue where these political debates are fought. The more the problem is asserted, the more crypto people double-down on their utopian narrative and invent new technical measures to circumvent any social control, such as this here.

creeble 8y ago
I respect your position that "going full-crypto-Monty" may cause a crypto currency to be rejected by a society that values some rules, like anti-money-laundering. But crypto currencies were borne out of a distrust for banks and government money policy, like inflation. In my view, the fallacy was/is that by putting trust "in the network", these policies could be avoided, not duplicated. But that's impossible: crypto currencies merely shift trust to the network operators (who, for financial gain, become increasingly consolidated), and to the maintainers of the code, who ultimately determine the rules. Maybe the point is that with a diversity of currencies, there is a diversity of policy choice. But that only increases the exchange problem, which defeats the purpose of a currency (that is, being widely accepted).
- epicwg 8y ago
  Aside from playing with consensus algorithms to get the hash from GPUs rather than FPGA/ASIC, can you point me to innovative thinking in this area? Which projects (or, rather, their communities) are doing the most interesting stuff around achieving widespread distribution? I agree with you that this is essential for any crypto to truly become viable as money. If Bitcoin has won the store of value battle at least for now, then that leaves the medium of exchange game wide open and it won't be ABC/SV.
epicwg 8y ago
I like what I'm seeing in terms of governance experimentation with DCR's Politeia, Dash (failure but they had some good ideas) and XTZ. The BTS/EOS world (especially EOSForce in Asia) has some interesting stuff too. I'm naturally "full crypto-Monty" and find it hard to connect with people who identify more with today's political model. Can you point me to some thinking you respect about how to blend various governance venues (crypto and physical/political)? Thanks ahead