3 ms·

The simple fact that you ask this question tells me you don't live in india, where a few years ago the government straight up deleted quite a lot of personal we

The simple fact that you ask this question tells me you don't live in india, where a few years ago the government straight up deleted quite a lot of personal wealth by declaring the two largest notes worthless with mere hours of warning: http://time.com/4567605/india-currency-change-queues-delhi/ http://time.com/4567605/india-currency-change-queues-delhi/ The original statement was: > I think there's value in reducing the politically privileged's means to dominate their power over the general populaced We can argue whether there's value in that. But if you're asking /how/ bitcoin et al can do that, the answer is that it removes direct control over the currency from nations and parliaments. They may still be able to wield indirect control through a variety of other means, but that /is/ less control than simply being able to declare 500 and 1000 rupee notes valueless.

semi-extrinsic 8y ago
As long as you can't buy food or pay your electricity bill with any cryptocurrency, you haven't achieved any of these things. So the question becomes, why should the supermarket or the utility company accept crypto payments instead of dollars, when they know the former can lose 20%-99% of its value overnight, while the value of the latter is guaranteed to be kept stable by the government?
- Sir_Substance 8y ago
  The key word in this discussion is potential.
  - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
    Ah, but you don't need crypto to have that potential. Anyone could issue their own currency, and try to convince people to use it for actually buying and selling stuff. But that convincing part is really the key, and crypto very explicitly doesn't solve the problem that businesses will need to trust the issuing entity before they switch to using a new currency. People and companies want to have a central, stable issuing authority they can trust.
    - Sir_Substance 8y ago
      >Anyone could issue their own currency, and try to convince people to use it for actually buying and selling stuff. But that convincing part is really the key Absolutely true, see EcoCash. It's a fascinating case study. >and crypto very explicitly doesn't solve the problem that businesses will need to trust the issuing entity before they switch to using a new currency. Trust is a relative thing. EcoCash is issued by a mobile phone provider. That should be crazy (who would trust verizon to issue currency?) except that _literally no one_ trusts the Zimbabwean government to issue currency any more, so the phone provider won by dint of a) being in the right place at the right time and b) being relatively more trustworthy. Actively building trust is something you need to do if you've got a pile of venture capital burning down that you need to pay back before you go broke. However, cryptocurrencies are usually not VC-backed products, and therefore don't have time-bombs strapped to them. Bitcoin is doing extremely well in Venezuela right now as faith in the bolivar drops through the floor. Cryptocurrencies are at this point extremely well position to be conveniently accessible any time people's faith in their national currency drops enough for them to start looking elsewhere. This is a slow burn situation. >People and companies want to have a central, stable issuing authority they can trust. I'd love to see a citation on that. People trust a wide array of deities and insist that the deities other people trust don't exist. This is a Homo economicus argument, it seems unlikely that we can quantify what people want and how they trust so easily. My anecdotal observation is that people want to have something that sounds plausible enough that they feel comfortable not researching the details. If people wanted a central stable issuing authority they wouldn't accept fractional reserve banking.
      - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
        > > People and companies want to have a central, stable issuing authority they can trust. > I'd love to see a citation on that. Didn't you just provide two examples yourself (Zimbabwe and Venezuela) that alternative currencies are being adopted precisely due to the lack of a stable central issuing authority?
        dnautics 8y ago
root_axis 8y ago
Where I live is irrelevant to my reasoning so I'm not sure why you brought that up. Cryptocurrency doesn't diminish a government's ability to enact financial policies within their sovereign borders.

semi-extrinsic 8y ago

As long as you can't buy food or pay your electricity bill with any cryptocurrency, you haven't achieved any of these things. So the question becomes, why should the supermarket or the utility company accept crypto payments instead of dollars, when they know the former can lose 20%-99% of its value overnight, while the value of the latter is guaranteed to be kept stable by the government?

Sir_Substance 8y ago
The key word in this discussion is potential.
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  Ah, but you don't need crypto to have that potential. Anyone could issue their own currency, and try to convince people to use it for actually buying and selling stuff. But that convincing part is really the key, and crypto very explicitly doesn't solve the problem that businesses will need to trust the issuing entity before they switch to using a new currency. People and companies want to have a central, stable issuing authority they can trust.
  - Sir_Substance 8y ago
    >Anyone could issue their own currency, and try to convince people to use it for actually buying and selling stuff. But that convincing part is really the key Absolutely true, see EcoCash. It's a fascinating case study. >and crypto very explicitly doesn't solve the problem that businesses will need to trust the issuing entity before they switch to using a new currency. Trust is a relative thing. EcoCash is issued by a mobile phone provider. That should be crazy (who would trust verizon to issue currency?) except that _literally no one_ trusts the Zimbabwean government to issue currency any more, so the phone provider won by dint of a) being in the right place at the right time and b) being relatively more trustworthy. Actively building trust is something you need to do if you've got a pile of venture capital burning down that you need to pay back before you go broke. However, cryptocurrencies are usually not VC-backed products, and therefore don't have time-bombs strapped to them. Bitcoin is doing extremely well in Venezuela right now as faith in the bolivar drops through the floor. Cryptocurrencies are at this point extremely well position to be conveniently accessible any time people's faith in their national currency drops enough for them to start looking elsewhere. This is a slow burn situation. >People and companies want to have a central, stable issuing authority they can trust. I'd love to see a citation on that. People trust a wide array of deities and insist that the deities other people trust don't exist. This is a Homo economicus argument, it seems unlikely that we can quantify what people want and how they trust so easily. My anecdotal observation is that people want to have something that sounds plausible enough that they feel comfortable not researching the details. If people wanted a central stable issuing authority they wouldn't accept fractional reserve banking.
    - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
      > > People and companies want to have a central, stable issuing authority they can trust. > I'd love to see a citation on that. Didn't you just provide two examples yourself (Zimbabwe and Venezuela) that alternative currencies are being adopted precisely due to the lack of a stable central issuing authority?
      - dnautics 8y ago

root_axis 8y ago

Where I live is irrelevant to my reasoning so I'm not sure why you brought that up. Cryptocurrency doesn't diminish a government's ability to enact financial policies within their sovereign borders.