11 ms·
I'm conflicted about electronic, non-regulated payment systems. On one hand (not to be an anarchist or anything) I like the idea of government having less cont
by _Understated_ 7y ago
I'm conflicted about electronic, non-regulated payment systems.
On one hand (not to be an anarchist or anything) I like the idea of government having less control of things (up to a point) and that we could potentially have lots of choice of currencies although that could be a problem in itself if you have to "hold" lots of currencies.
On the other hand, the reality will be one or two mega-currencies, FB, Amazon, Google etc. will be eventually used for everything. And the last thing I want is Google telling me one day that I have violated their TOS and all my currency belongs to them. Especially if I pay for a ton of stuff in it and there is no recourse due to using AI.
If I had to pick a side, I think I'd stick with centralised gov. in this case!
Edit: Changed a word or two
- nobodyshere 7y agoDon’t hold all eggs in one bin.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tim333 7y agoFB, Amazon, Google etc currencies don't seem to be happening. I think it will be government currencies or something like Bitcoin.
- Aozi 7y agoWell Facebook is pushing out Libra. Amazon has its own Managed Blockchain for currencies https://aws.amazon.com/managed-blockchain/ https://aws.amazon.com/managed-blockchain/ as well as a ledger https://aws.amazon.com/qldb/ https://aws.amazon.com/qldb/ along with a POW https://cointelegraph.com/news/amazon-patent-casts-light-on-plans-to-create-proof-of-work-blockchain-analog https://cointelegraph.com/news/amazon-patent-casts-light-on-... so I wouldn't exactly be surprised if they push out their own coin. I don't think Google has made any big moves in crypto. Though if Amazon/FB really start pushing for their own coins I doubt Google wouldn't try something to compete on that market.
- tim333 7y agoAh yeah I didn't put that well. I was more thinking that they will not be big compared to fiat or bitcoin. They are a bit neither one thing or another. Bitcoin is fully unregulated so you can use it in ways that governments would ban if they could, fiat is pretty much regulated (apart from cash in hand), but Libra etc combine the inconvenience of crypto with being subject to regulation.
- helpPeople 7y agoTechnology is not the same as adoption. Bitcoin is big because it's adopted and decentralized. The same fears about Facebook is why their currency will not be trusted. I don't trust Amazon, but I do trust Bitcoin.
- deif 7y agoI think electronic non-regulated centralized payment systems are worrying. However if they are de-centralized there are less things to worry about. As long as the community is verifiably in control of the validators/nodes then a central authority cannot impose and block your account.
- pavlov 7y agoUnfortunately any such community tends to start out with starry-eyed tech idealists but converges towards a teeming hive of the least scrupulous market manipulators, pump'n'dump bot army generals, ICO fraudsters, etc. And of course at the fringes of the community with no power are the retail investors who bought the thing during a bubble peak 10x higher and now spend their days harassing critics on Twitter because all the promises of the technology are coming true Real Soon Now.
- Barrin92 7y agocommunities only stay in control through active intervention by some strong enough authority. This is the problem with the 'law of the jungle' logic of crypto currency, not having any authority doesn't imply that the system doesn't move towards centralisation, it simply builds out informal hierarchies, and those are usually a lot worse than formal and legitimised ones because they are based on resource concentration and have nothing to reign them in. Well functioning markets are constructed and reconstructed through social interaction and institutions, they don't predate them. That they simply exist in harmony and tend towards some magical happy state is essentially religious thinking. The Tyranny of Structurelessness (https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) is a great and pretty timeless piece on why decentralisation does not lead to some sort of greater freedom or community control.
- jkepler 7y agoCould that one not have rules without rulers, if the protocol and incentives are properly structured?
- 7y ago
- sschueller 7y agoI am glad there is crypto because cash is dying and complete government control over all your assets is becoming a real possibility. Cashless is convenient but also very dangerous for a free society. Fiat is great, if cash exists.
- mavhc 7y agoGovernment can just declare your cash worthless, or devalue it though. The trick is that government is actually people, so make sure it's the right people
- logicchains 7y ago>so make sure it's the right people I'm sure Putin would like to see you try. Sometimes a political solution is not possible (e.g. Russia, China), so a technological solution is the only option.
- foshbosh7779 7y ago> Government can just declare your cash worthless, or devalue it though. That's the entire point of crypto, the government has nothing to do with it. Bitcoin was being used for years before any laws came out.
- criley2 7y agoMostly by criminals in money laundering and attempting to use the internet as a black market. Oh and investors buying to hold and watch it drop lol. I can't help but wonder whether or not people realize that everything from fascist dictators to literal jihadist terrorists desperately want government-less crypto currency to finally unlock their finances from western sanction, so they can super-charge their activity (be it oppressing their people, committing terror attacks, invading their neighbors, etc). There's a very real political cost to uncontrollable finance systems, and that cost is bourne in violence and suffering. That's before we begin to discuss unregulated black markets that thrive on unregulated currencies. How many kids are being hospitalized or dying because of black market vaping products they bought online?
- kache_ 7y agoTheir use case is primarily obfuscating movement of money. Crypto isn't exactly useful day to day, and it'll take some time and ingenuity to be able to achieve the convenience of modern payment systems in a decentralized, distributed manner. Right now, that's the only use case which warrants crypto over fiat currency is if you ever want to send large sums of money and not leave a trail.
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoNot only. Remittances to less developed countries, chaotic national currency, undeveloped banking, etc. Half of Africa uses e-money, and crypto is a good replacement.
- bogle 7y agoDon't be shy of identifying as an anarchist. You'd be in good company: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchists https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchists
- WilliamEdward 7y agoThe fourth result is the Unabomber. Otherwise, good list.
- bogle 7y agoGood grief, Kaczynski is on there. Bjork, however, is fourth in the list and I'm fairly certain she wasn't involved!
- wavefunction 7y agoHis bombing campaign of terror was inexcusable and absolutely counterproductive to promoting his views but having read his collected writings he was surely ahead of his time as far as sussing out prevalent and significant ecological and social issues arising from our relationship to technology and the rest of the planet.
- paulddraper 7y agoThere is a different between libertarianism and anarchism though.
- nybble41 7y agoRight. Libertarians (or at least the consistent ones) are all anarchists, but not all anarchists are libertarians. "Anarchist" is a very broad term spanning the complete range from pacifist voluntaryism to violent agents of chaos. Libertarians tend to be completely non-violent so long as they and their property are unmolested, in stark contrast to certain other notable anarchists.
- me_me_me 7y agoI am in the same camp, but I also changed my mindabout decentralized crypto - bitcoin et al. When you look at it close enough you will recognize that they are controlled and influanced exclusively by Whales (individual with enormous amounts of given crypto). Of course that is not a direct control more akin to grey eminence, but it almost 100% opaque. Also there are a lot of different options for FIAT money and as everything on the internet there can be only one/few winners. As you said we would be at mercy of FB, Amazon, Google, or whoever has their hands on BT.
- blobs 7y agoYou are right about the Whales. I think regulation should prevent massive mining factories, which would also greatly reduce the risk for a 50% attack. Mining should only be allowed for individuals with a certain maximum hash rate so more people have equal chances. But I'm afraid our politicians are not going to help us with that.
- criley2 7y agoIf you don't get to vote for the people who control the money supply, it's not a democracy or a republic or anything of the sort. "He who controls the money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the money supply" Rothschild Never let a for-profit entity control the money supply. Last time we tried it, serious suffering was the result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
- lmkg 7y agoIn speaking with an old friend of mine who is a hard-core libertarian, he told me that he generally prefers the free market over anything else, he does prefer the government run things when a monopoly is inevitable. The reason being, a democratic government is at least in theory still somewhat accountable to the general public while a privately-held monopoly is not. I think that's similar to the feelings you're expressing: centralization isn't great, but if we have centralization anyways, let's use the government. The big question in this case being how centralized do we think things might end up in practice.
- UserIsUnused 7y agoat least Goverment is tied to a democracy. Multinational corporation not so much.
- zarro 7y agoThats fine, the way it will come to pass is some people wont trust crypto and stick with traditional currency. The crypto that will win, will be the one that people adopt to a higher frequency over traditional currency because it will bring them more value over time. Then the ones who will be upset at this will be the ones who benefited from the inefficiencies of the prior monetary system, which by its very nature was prejudiced.
- brnt 7y agoThe sooner we (in particular Americans) realize less government control equals more corporate control, the sooner we realize that government control is the only way the people can exercise control, which should be its right. Us Europeans have hundreds of years of history showing that small government in not ever to the advantage of the little guy.
- loceng 7y agoThese systems are all ultimately based on a foundation of trust. If you don' trust your government, its people and processes, then you have a problem regardless of how transactions are happening. This trust of course starts with how secure and safeguarded the democratic process is - and there is a constant war between democracy and bad actors trying to takeover the systems of the richest nations in the world, whether nation states or smaller bad actors indirectly working toward negatively influencing a society through regulatory capture, etc..
- JackRabbitSlim 7y agoYour concern about "voilating the TOS" and losing your money is just as likely with government controlled currency. Asset forfeiture over small infractions is well documented.[0] I have never seen an argument against crypto currency that doesn't already apply to the current systems, we just pretend its not the same. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/10/18/the-forfeiture-racket-rolls-on/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/10/18/...
- koolba 7y agoBeing excluded from the digital banking system does not preclude me from walking around with a wad of cash. Even the insane concept of asset forfeiture in the USA is on its way out.
- calebclark 7y agoWhat makes you think asset forfeiture in the USA is on the way out?
- koolba 7y agoSome recent court rulings: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-f...
- charwalker 7y agoAlthough similar they are not the same. The government must still, in most states, have charges on the books or more to seize anything and there is generally recourse if not suing for your assets back then voting or running for office to change laws. Google is far less likely to ever let you tell them what they can or can't do, even as a regulator. The government is you, fundamentally, while Google is not.
- nine_k 7y agoMarket forces work where there is a market. When the nature of the problem is such that rational customer behavior leads to one player taking all, the market deteriorates, and customers lose the benefits of competition. This is a problem that the anti-monopoly laws exist to solve. Another body of law prevents the federal government from seizing all the power, and to keep different branches on power competing without mergers and acquisitions of each other. An anarchist / libertarian approach would work if minting your own interoperable coin was possible and reasonable. With gold coins, it is (was) technically trivial. Digital currency has still to solve this.
- blobs 7y ago> On the other hand, the reality will be one or two mega-currencies, FB, Amazon, Google etc. When you stick with the government this statement indeed could become a reality. And that's why non-regulated payment systems are preferred. In the hands of banks, corporations, etc.. cryptocurrencies lose their ideal because these parties will always build their regulating mechanisms in the algorithm, without it they are not interested.