3 ms·

To me it seems mired in contradiction. The use case for cryptocurrencies is motivated by (though perhaps doesn't require) the assumption that accountable gover

To me it seems mired in contradiction. The use case for cryptocurrencies is motivated by (though perhaps doesn't require) the assumption that accountable government is a lost cause; yet it also assumes that society provides enough stability for the protocol to operate, instead of devolving toward anarchy or totalitarianism.

bdcravens 7y ago
I think that's the public ideology, but the reality is the largest percentage of those who own cryptocurrency are using as nothing more than a speculative investment, and therefore, a proxy for fiat.
- bb88 7y ago
  The original arguments for BTC are long abandoned. Store of value, cheap transactions, etc. Once those were proven to be invalid, they couldn't talk out of both sides of their mouth anymore. But it seems like the primary use cases are speculation, criminal and terrorist funding schemes, tax evasion, and money laundering.
  - jraedisch 7y ago
    What's bad about speculation? Or do you mean short term speculation? There are many bitcoins that did not move for many years. I do not get why speculation in ETFs, land/housing and other assets is accepted as normal, and with Bitcoin it is somehow bad.
    - bdcravens 7y ago
      Nothing is wrong at all with speculation. What feels wrong is the disingenuousness of claiming the anti-government, anti-bank ideology when that's not its primary pragmatic use case.
      - bb88 7y ago
        Actually I disagree speculation for the pure sake of speculation is bad. Otherwise it's no different than gambling that some random number will be worth more or less in the future. It's like roulette, only for the nerdy-set. If I buy Apple stock, technically that's tied to a corporation named Apple that has assets and revenue (more or less, maybe less these days than you might assume). But bitcoins are just numbers, some more valuable than others. But more to the point, hoarders were encouraging the use of bitcoin as a store of value, lying about their true use cases (speculation), hoping the big fish would start investing so the early people would cash out. It turned out to be one massive pump and dump scheme, but with cryptography, so that makes it okay.
shawnz 7y ago
I don't think it's a contradiction. You can rely on an accountable government to protect your bitcoins, and if you decide at some point they have become unaccountable then you can move your bitcoins to a different location without restrictions. It's just separation of concerns.
- doublement 7y ago
  You can't move your bitcoins if your electricity is off or if a totalitarian system physically has you and your possessions. You can only vote with your feet so many times, and if the choice is always to flee instead of demanding accountable government, eventually there will be no place to go. By providing a workaround for government non-accountability, Bitcoin encourages people to avoid the issue instead of engaging with it.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    > By providing a workaround for X, Y encourages people to avoid the issue instead of engaging with it. You could say that about every defense-in-depth based approach to a problem. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're a net negative.
  - tuesdayrain 7y ago
    > You can't move your bitcoins if your electricity is off or if a totalitarian system physically has you and your possessions. It's not perfect, but you have higher odds of moving 10k+ in Bitcoin out of an oppressive system than you do any other asset.

bdcravens 7y ago

I think that's the public ideology, but the reality is the largest percentage of those who own cryptocurrency are using as nothing more than a speculative investment, and therefore, a proxy for fiat.

bb88 7y ago
The original arguments for BTC are long abandoned. Store of value, cheap transactions, etc. Once those were proven to be invalid, they couldn't talk out of both sides of their mouth anymore. But it seems like the primary use cases are speculation, criminal and terrorist funding schemes, tax evasion, and money laundering.
- jraedisch 7y ago
  What's bad about speculation? Or do you mean short term speculation? There are many bitcoins that did not move for many years. I do not get why speculation in ETFs, land/housing and other assets is accepted as normal, and with Bitcoin it is somehow bad.
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    Nothing is wrong at all with speculation. What feels wrong is the disingenuousness of claiming the anti-government, anti-bank ideology when that's not its primary pragmatic use case.
    - bb88 7y ago
      Actually I disagree speculation for the pure sake of speculation is bad. Otherwise it's no different than gambling that some random number will be worth more or less in the future. It's like roulette, only for the nerdy-set. If I buy Apple stock, technically that's tied to a corporation named Apple that has assets and revenue (more or less, maybe less these days than you might assume). But bitcoins are just numbers, some more valuable than others. But more to the point, hoarders were encouraging the use of bitcoin as a store of value, lying about their true use cases (speculation), hoping the big fish would start investing so the early people would cash out. It turned out to be one massive pump and dump scheme, but with cryptography, so that makes it okay.

shawnz 7y ago

I don't think it's a contradiction. You can rely on an accountable government to protect your bitcoins, and if you decide at some point they have become unaccountable then you can move your bitcoins to a different location without restrictions. It's just separation of concerns.

doublement 7y ago
You can't move your bitcoins if your electricity is off or if a totalitarian system physically has you and your possessions. You can only vote with your feet so many times, and if the choice is always to flee instead of demanding accountable government, eventually there will be no place to go. By providing a workaround for government non-accountability, Bitcoin encourages people to avoid the issue instead of engaging with it.
- shawnz 7y ago
  > By providing a workaround for X, Y encourages people to avoid the issue instead of engaging with it. You could say that about every defense-in-depth based approach to a problem. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're a net negative.
- tuesdayrain 7y ago
  > You can't move your bitcoins if your electricity is off or if a totalitarian system physically has you and your possessions. It's not perfect, but you have higher odds of moving 10k+ in Bitcoin out of an oppressive system than you do any other asset.