6 ms·

All-White Town’s Divisive Experiment With Cryptocurrency

35 points by thesauri 7y ago

lordgrenville 7y ago
As a South African expat, I've long thought that South Africa's poor service provision provides a natural laboratory for libertarian ideas. This piece highlights their strengths and weaknesses: high levels of cryptocurrency speculation (and a currency that's pegged to the rand and hosted on AWS!), but also small-scale local provision of electricity, water, sewage treatment, and security; and financial services based on face-to-face transactions and community trust.
atomical 7y ago
> Commerce would continue, with state-backed currencies swapped for crypto alternatives that float freely on an open market. I'm assuming this means a stable coin? Has anyone figured out how to verify the backing on a blockchain? If that was possible Tether's fraud would have been exposed sooner. Also, why is Facebook's new currency rumored to be backed by multiple currencies? That seems like it would add volatility instead of lessening it.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  > Has anyone figured out how to verify the backing on a blockchain? If that was possible Tether's fraud would have been exposed sooner. And this is always the problem with block chain. You can't cryptographically verify real life things that people care about like how much money is in someone's bank account.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >And this is always the problem with block chain. You can't cryptographically verify real life things that people care about like how much money is in someone's bank account. There are a lot of problems with applying blockchain to solve real problems. This one is not one of the problems. What this is is people using the blockchain for things it was not designed to do.
    - bb88 7y ago
      I'm not necessarily pro-crypto, but a regulated and audited blockchain would be fine in the banking context. That's mostly because the bank itself is regulated and audited. The "trustchain" goes all the way back to the government. With Tether, the trustchain ends at Tether. And even if you could audit Tether somehow, there's nothing stopping them from creating another stable coin and use the same currency they have in both coins.
  - panarky 7y ago
    > real life things that people care about like how much money is in someone's bank account How is a ledger entry in a bank's computer more "real" than a ledger entry in a public blockchain. Funny how blockchain discussions proceed in endless circles when people believe without evidence that familiar money is in any way "real" instead of an imaginary social construct, while blockchain money is somehow fake, fraudulent or unreal. Let's guess the next argument in the endless circle: (a) money is backed by the military, (b) money is backed by tax payments, (c) money is backed by debt, or (d) tulips.
    - JamesBarney 7y ago
      I'm not arguing it's more real, I'm arguing you can't cryptographically guarantee how many dollars some entity owns. In this context real life mean off block chain information. Basically the block chain can only verify whats on the blockchain. It can't make any guarantees about off block chain things except that someone with a possession of a certain private key said something at some time.
      - panarky 7y ago
        Sure, a blockchain provides cryptographic consensus about assets on the blockchain, but it can't control things that are not on the blockchain. Things like legal contracts in a filing cabinet, bank databases, gold bars in a vault, or how many coins I say are in my pocket. For all those things, the blockchain can act as a database, but you need to trust someone that the entries in the database correspond to these other things that the database is supposedly tracking.
        JamesBarney 7y ago
        Which is the entire issue the op asked about, can you verify a party has enough dollars to back a stablecoin on the blockchain.
- repolfx 7y ago
  Stablecoins aren't supposed to float freely, they're pegged. So I assume it doesn't mean that.
ralusek 7y ago
Racial discrimination aside, it gives me hope to see liberal/libertarian ideals holding against the ever expanding state in almost every country on Earth. Liberty and self determination are dying virtues, and people don't know what it is they're giving up so willingly.
- empath75 7y ago
  Racial discrimination is a pretty big thing set aside. They’re libertarian exactly to the extent they need to be to justify their racism.
  - krapp 7y ago
    They're libertarian because they oppose dependence on a state and its authority. Nothing else is needed, certainly not a particular moral alignment.
    - erobbins 7y ago
      They oppose dependence on a black majority state. They were a-ok with whites running everything under apartheid.
      - jquery 7y ago
        I wouldn't trust a state that's threatening taking to take land without compensation. A state that's electing leaders who sing "Kill the [insert your racial identity]". Would you? Whether or not they were a-ok with a different state doesn't matter, should they be punished for that? What about their children?
        erobbins 7y ago
        No I certainly would not. They didn't mind when the tables were turned though, is my point.
      - krapp 7y ago
whatshisface 7y ago
Since the article keeps bringing up that everyone involved is "all white," i.e. a 10% minority in SA, that probably means that they won't be able to keep a good relationship with the SA government if it collapses and they'll probably end up with the military stealing all of their stuff. Too bad they can't immigrate to America, they are clearly smart and entrepreneurial. Unfortunately collapsing states tend to turn on minorities. Really, they should forget about surviving the collapse and focus on preventing it...
- empath75 7y ago
  They’d have been sued out of existence in America because of housing discrimination laws.
  - dopamean 7y ago
    As is appropriate.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  Is SA collapsing? News to me.
- drivingmenuts 7y ago
  We have too many racists already. They can stay there.
- elp 7y ago
  Its worth mentioning that this is Oranje. Pretty much the equivalent of racist extremely far right preppers in the USA. The current SA government has so many many issues but it's still better than anything these fools could do.
KorematsuFred 7y ago
"all white" in South Africa is a minority struggling against majority. They can't be "far right". Far Right means nativists which in South Africa continues to be black people and not white.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > "all white" in South Africa is a minority struggling against majority. They can't be "far right". Far Right means nativists which in South Africa continues to be black people and not white. I don't think that most people understand 'far right' in that way. For example, are you saying that someone whose political philosophy hasn't changed, but who moves from one place to another, might go from being far-right to not, or vice versa?
  - KorematsuFred 7y ago
    Obviously. Radical Christians in India are far left. Hindus are far right. In USA hindus are far left and not on right. White folks are on right. Omar Ilhan is far left in USA she would be far right in Pakistan. It is just boggles me how stupid western media is about rest of the world.
- dopamean 7y ago
  Their quarrel is with the government not the black majority. There are plenty of black South Africans struggling in that system as well.
- orwin 7y ago
  Historically, you're right. But the meaning of right/left changed post WW2 (some would say WW1), at least in most european countries.
  - KorematsuFred 7y ago
    South Africa is not in Europe. It would be stupid to use European connotations for non-European countries. At this rate western media might call Hindu temples in India "churches".
JadeNB 7y ago
Although it's easy to figure out, the apostrophe in the title migrated ("An all-white's town" should be "An all-white town's", as in the article itself).
- dang 7y ago
  Right you are. Belatedly fixed.

35 points by thesauri 7y ago

As a South African expat, I've long thought that South Africa's poor service provision provides a natural laboratory for libertarian ideas. This piece highlights their strengths and weaknesses: high levels of cryptocurrency speculation (and a currency that's pegged to the rand and hosted on AWS!), but also small-scale local provision of electricity, water, sewage treatment, and security; and financial services based on face-to-face transactions and community trust.

atomical 7y ago

> Commerce would continue, with state-backed currencies swapped for crypto alternatives that float freely on an open market. I'm assuming this means a stable coin? Has anyone figured out how to verify the backing on a blockchain? If that was possible Tether's fraud would have been exposed sooner. Also, why is Facebook's new currency rumored to be backed by multiple currencies? That seems like it would add volatility instead of lessening it.

JamesBarney 7y ago
> Has anyone figured out how to verify the backing on a blockchain? If that was possible Tether's fraud would have been exposed sooner. And this is always the problem with block chain. You can't cryptographically verify real life things that people care about like how much money is in someone's bank account.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >And this is always the problem with block chain. You can't cryptographically verify real life things that people care about like how much money is in someone's bank account. There are a lot of problems with applying blockchain to solve real problems. This one is not one of the problems. What this is is people using the blockchain for things it was not designed to do.
  - bb88 7y ago
    I'm not necessarily pro-crypto, but a regulated and audited blockchain would be fine in the banking context. That's mostly because the bank itself is regulated and audited. The "trustchain" goes all the way back to the government. With Tether, the trustchain ends at Tether. And even if you could audit Tether somehow, there's nothing stopping them from creating another stable coin and use the same currency they have in both coins.
- panarky 7y ago
  > real life things that people care about like how much money is in someone's bank account How is a ledger entry in a bank's computer more "real" than a ledger entry in a public blockchain. Funny how blockchain discussions proceed in endless circles when people believe without evidence that familiar money is in any way "real" instead of an imaginary social construct, while blockchain money is somehow fake, fraudulent or unreal. Let's guess the next argument in the endless circle: (a) money is backed by the military, (b) money is backed by tax payments, (c) money is backed by debt, or (d) tulips.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    I'm not arguing it's more real, I'm arguing you can't cryptographically guarantee how many dollars some entity owns. In this context real life mean off block chain information. Basically the block chain can only verify whats on the blockchain. It can't make any guarantees about off block chain things except that someone with a possession of a certain private key said something at some time.
    - panarky 7y ago
      Sure, a blockchain provides cryptographic consensus about assets on the blockchain, but it can't control things that are not on the blockchain. Things like legal contracts in a filing cabinet, bank databases, gold bars in a vault, or how many coins I say are in my pocket. For all those things, the blockchain can act as a database, but you need to trust someone that the entries in the database correspond to these other things that the database is supposedly tracking.
      - JamesBarney 7y ago
        Which is the entire issue the op asked about, can you verify a party has enough dollars to back a stablecoin on the blockchain.
repolfx 7y ago
Stablecoins aren't supposed to float freely, they're pegged. So I assume it doesn't mean that.

ralusek 7y ago

Racial discrimination aside, it gives me hope to see liberal/libertarian ideals holding against the ever expanding state in almost every country on Earth. Liberty and self determination are dying virtues, and people don't know what it is they're giving up so willingly.

empath75 7y ago
Racial discrimination is a pretty big thing set aside. They’re libertarian exactly to the extent they need to be to justify their racism.
- krapp 7y ago
  They're libertarian because they oppose dependence on a state and its authority. Nothing else is needed, certainly not a particular moral alignment.
  - erobbins 7y ago
    They oppose dependence on a black majority state. They were a-ok with whites running everything under apartheid.
    - jquery 7y ago
      I wouldn't trust a state that's threatening taking to take land without compensation. A state that's electing leaders who sing "Kill the [insert your racial identity]". Would you? Whether or not they were a-ok with a different state doesn't matter, should they be punished for that? What about their children?
      - erobbins 7y ago
        No I certainly would not. They didn't mind when the tables were turned though, is my point.
    - krapp 7y ago

whatshisface 7y ago

Since the article keeps bringing up that everyone involved is "all white," i.e. a 10% minority in SA, that probably means that they won't be able to keep a good relationship with the SA government if it collapses and they'll probably end up with the military stealing all of their stuff. Too bad they can't immigrate to America, they are clearly smart and entrepreneurial. Unfortunately collapsing states tend to turn on minorities. Really, they should forget about surviving the collapse and focus on preventing it...

empath75 7y ago
They’d have been sued out of existence in America because of housing discrimination laws.
- dopamean 7y ago
  As is appropriate.
macspoofing 7y ago
Is SA collapsing? News to me.
drivingmenuts 7y ago
We have too many racists already. They can stay there.
elp 7y ago
Its worth mentioning that this is Oranje. Pretty much the equivalent of racist extremely far right preppers in the USA. The current SA government has so many many issues but it's still better than anything these fools could do.

KorematsuFred 7y ago

"all white" in South Africa is a minority struggling against majority. They can't be "far right". Far Right means nativists which in South Africa continues to be black people and not white.

JadeNB 7y ago
> "all white" in South Africa is a minority struggling against majority. They can't be "far right". Far Right means nativists which in South Africa continues to be black people and not white. I don't think that most people understand 'far right' in that way. For example, are you saying that someone whose political philosophy hasn't changed, but who moves from one place to another, might go from being far-right to not, or vice versa?
- KorematsuFred 7y ago
  Obviously. Radical Christians in India are far left. Hindus are far right. In USA hindus are far left and not on right. White folks are on right. Omar Ilhan is far left in USA she would be far right in Pakistan. It is just boggles me how stupid western media is about rest of the world.
dopamean 7y ago
Their quarrel is with the government not the black majority. There are plenty of black South Africans struggling in that system as well.
orwin 7y ago
Historically, you're right. But the meaning of right/left changed post WW2 (some would say WW1), at least in most european countries.
- KorematsuFred 7y ago
  South Africa is not in Europe. It would be stupid to use European connotations for non-European countries. At this rate western media might call Hindu temples in India "churches".

JadeNB 7y ago

Although it's easy to figure out, the apostrophe in the title migrated ("An all-white's town" should be "An all-white town's", as in the article itself).

dang 7y ago
Right you are. Belatedly fixed.