10 ms·

Let's call this for what it really is, they want to replace democracy with Corporatism. At least with a government backed currency we get a choice on who runs

• conanbatt 7y ago
  As a non-Us national, I prefer FB corporatism to US democracy. Puts more people on even ground.
  • r32a_ 7y ago
    Or choose Bitcoin and have neither :)
    • brighter2morrow 7y ago
      Choose a third position? Go ahead, throw your vote away!
      • dane-pgp 7y ago
        "Don't blame me — I voted for Kodos."
    • spookthesunset 7y ago
      Great until you bump up against that 7 transactions per second limit, the entire planet adopts it and and you get to wait multiple decades between transactions. And before you say “lightning network” do realize that LN doesn’t exist and even if it did your solution is to avoid using bitcoin. Setting aside you still have to make transactions on the bitcoin blockchain before you can even play ball with LN. Bitcoin/cryptocurrency is a giant scam marketed toward libertarians and certain STEM types. Why Facebook decided to hitch its horse to a giant scam is beyond me.
      • goristerHAN 7y ago
        You think the LN doesn't exist? What? There are dozens of LN visual explores out there. Who told you this lie? The whole point of using LN is to use Bitcoin as a settlement layer. You make one initial transaction to open a channel and that's it. In the future users will onboard directly into LN channels anyway. On chain scaling is still important. Ethereum 2.0 will likely do over 10,000 tx/sec. Don't know about Bitcoin.
      • jcsycombinator 7y ago
        I use lightning every day. I use bitrefill to buy pretty much anything I want. Recently bought a game on steam and some late night uber eats. Also loads of websites where you can use it.
  • ajdlinux 7y ago
    As another non-US national, I still have far, far more faith in US democracy than FB corporatism. In any case, the US isn't the only country in the world with a monetary policy that could get trampled over.
• gowld 7y ago
  What does Libra do to people who don't opt to use it?
  • whateveracct 7y ago
    Assuming adoption - It exists in the world and has all the influence an adopted currency has. Influence controlled by Facebook.
    • BurningFrog 7y ago
      As someone who exists in the world - existing in the world is not a crime!
    • dahfizz 7y ago
      This seems like nothing but fearmongering. We don't any reason to expect that libra is going to displace "real" currencies. Why the hell would the governments of the world give up their power over currency? It is a huge power they hold that they do not want to lose. Have you ever heard the term "legal tender"? You are legally required to accept USD as payment in America, and every country has a similar law. The government can literally force you (with guns if need be!!) to use their currency. Is that better than what FB is doing? Sometimes I think people get so wrapped up in dystopian fear mongering they don't analyze the current situation.
      • Camro 7y ago
        > You are legally required to accept USD as payment in America Accepting a currency doesn't force a customer to use it.
        • dahfizz 7y ago
          > Accepting a currency doesn't force a customer to use it. Only accepting a certain currency does force a customer to use it, which is the case 99.99% of the time.
      • deleted 7y ago
• skybrian 7y ago
  Could you explain why you think democracy is important and has much to do with how U.S. currency is managed? It seems to me that voters have very little influence on decisions made by the Federal Reserve, and that's intentional. We wouldn't want a central bank to be much influenced by the latest election. The Federal Reserve is a consortium of banks and tends to make decisions that are good for banks, so if you're worried about corporatism, it's already here.
  • ma2rten 7y ago
    The chair and board of the federal reserve are appointed by the president.
    • awt 7y ago
      Also it has a government enforced monopoly.
      • kennywinker 7y ago
        That’s a ridiculous statement if you consider the fed a part of the government. I.e. the fire department and police both have “government enforced monopolies”. The government itself is a “government enforced monopoly”
        • provolone 7y ago
          Hardly. The alternative would be a repeal of legal tender laws. This would allow consumers & businesses to transact in the currency of their choice.
          • kennywinker 7y ago
            “The alternative would be a repeal of laws establishing police, allowing consumers & businesses to choose between law enforcement providers.” Look I’m not saying you can’t criticize the existence of the fed, but calling them a “government enforced monopoly” is inane. They are a _part_ of the government.
• threeseed 7y ago
  I think you fundamentally misunderstand how currencies work. They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day. And corporates basically own and run the internet and it seems to be doing pretty well.
  • mbesto 7y ago
    > They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day. Heh, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how central banks work. 1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.[0] 2. It's literally governed by presidentially appointed officials. 3. The Fed manages the banking system, which is a trusted system that utilizes fiat currency as a medium of exchange. Their focus is much more aligned to economic prosperity and policy formulation then it is about how the "currency is managed" (the two are obviously interrelated). > And corporates basically own and run the internet and it seems to be doing pretty well. There's a big difference between "it basically does" and "it is". EDIT: [0] - My bad, the BEP creates currency which is overseen by the Treasury, which is in fact a government entity.
    • nathanaldensr 7y ago
      > 1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government. Congress long-since assigned that responsibility--with the exception of coinage--to the Federal Reserve. Note that our currency no longer says "United States Dollar" on it, only "Federal Reserve Note."
    • threeseed 7y ago
      US Supreme Court is appointed by Congress/President. You wouldn't say that is it "literally governed". Just like the Supreme Court the Federal Reserve has appointed positions but has in the modern era been independent. It isn't like it is a department such as Homeland Security. And the central bank model applies in most countries not just the US.
      • 7y ago
• carlosdp 7y ago
  Bitcoin is not more decentralized than Libra today[1]. Libra has 28 members, going to 100. The top 11 bitcoin mining pools control 99% of the hashrate. [1] https://www.blockchain.com/pools https://www.blockchain.com/pools
  • whatshisface 7y ago
    If 100 miners meet at the same country club and follow the same government's laws/nudges that's as decentralized as one.
  • clarkmoody 7y ago
    Pools are groups of miners. If the pool operator starts behaving badly, the constituent miners will point their hashpower elsewhere.
    • b_tterc_p 7y ago
      You forgot a “might” in there.
  • javert 7y ago
    Bitcoin is more decentralized than Facebook's coin no matter what because mining is controlled by an algorithm, rather than being an invite-only club.
    • carlosdp 7y ago
      In theory, sure. In practice, the miner implementations are the ones controlling the chain. The only difference is, I can name the CEOs and leaders of many of the Libra companies, I don't know who the leaders of the mining pools are.
      • javert 7y ago
        Miners don't really have much control in the bitcoin ecosystem. Also, the composition of large miners changes over time and can adjust organically, unlike membership in the Facebook coin cabal.
• malandrew 7y ago
  If what you say is true, why not support the project and buy shares in the 28 controlling entities?
• provolone 7y ago
  From my reading corporatism is defined as the government dictating economic policy via various syndicates. I.e. the business owner retains nominal control over the means of production, but the actual production decisions are made by an industry-wide government bureau.