5 ms·

That makes sense. I guess that seems to somewhat conflict with the concept of the exchange as a service, at least for how laypeople understand currency exchange

That makes sense. I guess that seems to somewhat conflict with the concept of the exchange as a service, at least for how laypeople understand currency exchanges in general. It wouldn’t surprise me if most people with exchange accounts don’t understand that coins not in their own wallet aren’t actually theirs. The exchanges don’t really make that clear to their users either, at least the ones I’ve used.

barkingcat 6y ago
It turns out people want centralization :) I'm sure users mostly understand it but they give the keys away anyway. Core tenant of cryptocurrencies is purely anti-human
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Can crypto be simultaneously anti-human [nature] and yet pro-user [intent]? Can the pain points of crypto be smoothed to make them pro-human [nature] without losing the qualities that make them pro-user [intent], supposing that they are pro-user [intent]?
  - verdverm 6y ago
    What about the situation, "I paid them, but they never delivered?". How would wage garnishment, as ordered by the courts, work? (This is the main one that needs answering because it is a simple example of the hardest anti-human problem that goes against core blockchain philosophy... reversing or forcing transactions)
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      To me that seems both too high a bar and making the perfect the enemy of the good. It’s asking too much of crypto specifically because the same complaint can be leveled against undeclared cash as you are leveling against crypto in your wage garnishment scenario. A hypothetical worker paid cash wages by a cash only business could in theory fail to divulge their full wages and thus fail to comply with a wage garnishment order. However, that is the status quo. To solve it is to solve it for all kinds of undeclared income, crypto included. For that reason I think that the current wage garnishment system is to blame for its own failings; it is also the moral failing or civil disobedience of the scofflaw which allows this situation as much as the existence of crypto. You may as well blame cash for the problems of crypto, and for the problems of wage garnishment evaders. As to how you are making the perfect the enemy of the good: your complaint fails to specifically apply to cryptocurrencies in general or to any specific crypto for the same reasons it fails to apply to cash specifically. That cryptocurrencies cannot mitigate the market failings of cash is not a failure of crypto or of cash. It is no failure at all because cryptocurrency never sought to solve that which you perceive as a fault. The problems you raise may be very real problems in society, but they are not a problem that is in-scope for crypto developers to solve or mitigate. That’s more of a problem for crypto custodians and their customers.
      - verdverm 6y ago
        This is very confusing and I don't follow
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        How is cryptocurrency worse than cash for complying with court orders? If cash is no better or worse than cryptocurrency in regards to complying with court orders, then why single out cryptocurrency?
        arcticbull 6y ago
        Nobody gets paid their salary with cash for a reason...
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        Small businesses, strip clubs, public houses and bars, restaurants and their staff, handymen, private cleaning and janitorial staff, groundskeepers and lawnmowers, etc in every country in the world are innumerable counter-examples to that assumption.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        Many of those are fringe cases, and many more are moving (or have already moved) to digital payments. Square took food trucks, restaurants, handymen, lawnmowers, etc, on to credit card payments. Janitorial staff probably get paid through payroll the majority of the time. Sweden even got to the point nobody was accepting physical cash in the first place.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        These fringe cases exist and are people too, not “nobody.” Cash still exists too. So do cryptocurrencies. Arguments against cryptocurrency that also apply to cash are obvious and uninteresting. That was my point.
    - erdii 6y ago
      escrow services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
      - verdverm 6y ago
        That doesn't solve the general problem of complying with legal orders. For example, how would escrow help with wage garnishment, suing a company and winning, or generally forced transactions by court order?
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        Not who you are replying to, but I answered and addressed those claims in a sister comment, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23199291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23199291
        verdverm 6y ago
        You keep saying you answered but you have not. That is very unclear and just throwing around words. You haven't understood the idea and instead hang on to narrow focus around cash, which had nothing to do with the argument, because most people have digital money that goes through institutions. Using fringe cases to justify the common is the wrong way around.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        If your argument against cryptocurrency could also apply to cash, why don’t you also say so? My point is that cryptocurrency has aspects of digital assets and cash assets simultaneously. So if your argument equally would apply to cash, which is commonly used, then I think it’s worth pointing that out. Also, I don’t agree that my writing is unclear. I find your dismissal unjustified by your arguments. I simply bring up a counter-example to your argument with cash. You saying it is fringe and beside the point is not an argument. To then criticize my writing is to miss the point I was making. I don’t find that you are debating in good faith when you make personal attacks on quality of writing when your own argument hasn’t been made or won.
  - barkingcat 6y ago
    I think you misunderstand, by thinking in terms of nature vs intent you are already anti-human. Remember, Users are Humans. Unless you want to let your cat buy cat food using cryptocurrencies? What I mean by anti-human, I am referring to the concept that to cryptocurrencies, people don't matter, their wishes, emotions, lives don't matter, the only thing that matters to cryptocurrencies is the algorithm and the principles.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      I would say that is more ahuman than anti-human, in the same way one can be an atheist rather than a theist. Cryptocurrencies don’t have any regard or deference to humanity, because they lack agency. How then could they rise to become anti-human rather than simply ahuman?

barkingcat 6y ago

It turns out people want centralization :) I'm sure users mostly understand it but they give the keys away anyway. Core tenant of cryptocurrencies is purely anti-human

aspenmayer 6y ago
Can crypto be simultaneously anti-human [nature] and yet pro-user [intent]? Can the pain points of crypto be smoothed to make them pro-human [nature] without losing the qualities that make them pro-user [intent], supposing that they are pro-user [intent]?
- verdverm 6y ago
  What about the situation, "I paid them, but they never delivered?". How would wage garnishment, as ordered by the courts, work? (This is the main one that needs answering because it is a simple example of the hardest anti-human problem that goes against core blockchain philosophy... reversing or forcing transactions)
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    To me that seems both too high a bar and making the perfect the enemy of the good. It’s asking too much of crypto specifically because the same complaint can be leveled against undeclared cash as you are leveling against crypto in your wage garnishment scenario. A hypothetical worker paid cash wages by a cash only business could in theory fail to divulge their full wages and thus fail to comply with a wage garnishment order. However, that is the status quo. To solve it is to solve it for all kinds of undeclared income, crypto included. For that reason I think that the current wage garnishment system is to blame for its own failings; it is also the moral failing or civil disobedience of the scofflaw which allows this situation as much as the existence of crypto. You may as well blame cash for the problems of crypto, and for the problems of wage garnishment evaders. As to how you are making the perfect the enemy of the good: your complaint fails to specifically apply to cryptocurrencies in general or to any specific crypto for the same reasons it fails to apply to cash specifically. That cryptocurrencies cannot mitigate the market failings of cash is not a failure of crypto or of cash. It is no failure at all because cryptocurrency never sought to solve that which you perceive as a fault. The problems you raise may be very real problems in society, but they are not a problem that is in-scope for crypto developers to solve or mitigate. That’s more of a problem for crypto custodians and their customers.
    - verdverm 6y ago
      This is very confusing and I don't follow
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        How is cryptocurrency worse than cash for complying with court orders? If cash is no better or worse than cryptocurrency in regards to complying with court orders, then why single out cryptocurrency?
        arcticbull 6y ago
        Nobody gets paid their salary with cash for a reason...
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        Small businesses, strip clubs, public houses and bars, restaurants and their staff, handymen, private cleaning and janitorial staff, groundskeepers and lawnmowers, etc in every country in the world are innumerable counter-examples to that assumption.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        Many of those are fringe cases, and many more are moving (or have already moved) to digital payments. Square took food trucks, restaurants, handymen, lawnmowers, etc, on to credit card payments. Janitorial staff probably get paid through payroll the majority of the time. Sweden even got to the point nobody was accepting physical cash in the first place.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        These fringe cases exist and are people too, not “nobody.” Cash still exists too. So do cryptocurrencies. Arguments against cryptocurrency that also apply to cash are obvious and uninteresting. That was my point.
  - erdii 6y ago
    escrow services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
    - verdverm 6y ago
      That doesn't solve the general problem of complying with legal orders. For example, how would escrow help with wage garnishment, suing a company and winning, or generally forced transactions by court order?
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        Not who you are replying to, but I answered and addressed those claims in a sister comment, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23199291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23199291
        verdverm 6y ago
        You keep saying you answered but you have not. That is very unclear and just throwing around words. You haven't understood the idea and instead hang on to narrow focus around cash, which had nothing to do with the argument, because most people have digital money that goes through institutions. Using fringe cases to justify the common is the wrong way around.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        If your argument against cryptocurrency could also apply to cash, why don’t you also say so? My point is that cryptocurrency has aspects of digital assets and cash assets simultaneously. So if your argument equally would apply to cash, which is commonly used, then I think it’s worth pointing that out. Also, I don’t agree that my writing is unclear. I find your dismissal unjustified by your arguments. I simply bring up a counter-example to your argument with cash. You saying it is fringe and beside the point is not an argument. To then criticize my writing is to miss the point I was making. I don’t find that you are debating in good faith when you make personal attacks on quality of writing when your own argument hasn’t been made or won.
- barkingcat 6y ago
  I think you misunderstand, by thinking in terms of nature vs intent you are already anti-human. Remember, Users are Humans. Unless you want to let your cat buy cat food using cryptocurrencies? What I mean by anti-human, I am referring to the concept that to cryptocurrencies, people don't matter, their wishes, emotions, lives don't matter, the only thing that matters to cryptocurrencies is the algorithm and the principles.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    I would say that is more ahuman than anti-human, in the same way one can be an atheist rather than a theist. Cryptocurrencies don’t have any regard or deference to humanity, because they lack agency. How then could they rise to become anti-human rather than simply ahuman?