4 ms·
In the second case, the money didn't move, and the government didn't get it. Meanwhile, the Technological Singularity people are working on the other half of t
by sowbug 8y ago
In the second case, the money didn't move, and the government didn't get it.
Meanwhile, the Technological Singularity people are working on the other half of the problem you describe.
- semi-extrinsic 8y agoOk, so how is it any different than having your money in a numbered account in Panama or Switzerland, which the government can't seize? And what's this Singularity nonsense of which you speak?
- sowbug 8y agoNo need for the hostility. And if you want to have a discussion whether there are alternative ways to achieve specific valuable outcomes, count me out. This thread is about whether cryptocurrencies have any potential valuable outcomes besides the potential of lottery-style winnings for early adopters.
- semi-extrinsic 8y agoSorry if I seemed hostile, but I couldn't find any better word than nonsense to describe what I presume you meant to invoke by "Technological Singularity". It's about as realistic and scientific as religious extremists telling us to repent and prepare for the Rapture. Ah, but this unwillingness to consider "why couldn't we do this without crypto", leading to rejection of study of centuries of useful economic and monetary theory development, is precisely what predicates the failure of cryptocurrencies to achieve potentially valuable outcomes. That's precisely why I bring it up. If a thing is a) valuable/useful and b) possible without cryptocurrencies, why has it not been done before? The fact that it has not, suggests that either a) or b) is false.