4 ms·

> horrifying externalities like energy consumption and criminality Opinion varies. For many people, being able to access drugs outside of government control (c

by 1996 6y ago

> horrifying externalities like energy consumption and criminality Opinion varies. For many people, being able to access drugs outside of government control (cancer patient victims of the opioid crisis), or receiving donations (wikileaks) is worth a lot more that the small drawbacks. Same as due process and the "fruit of a poisonous tree" legal doctrine - it lets bad people walk out of jail, but overall I think it does more good than harm to society. > Once it has the same constraints as traditional finance it offers nothing of value, and will wilt away on its own Actually, at the bare minimum, it removes political control of the monetary supply, leaving only fiscal policy, which may enable better long term control of public deficit by implementing a Milton Friedman like rule (whether it's constant inflation, deflation, or nothing, all is good as long as it remains constant and predictable) Given the long term inefficiency of the Phillips curve, and a lot of economic similar concepts, most economists would think it's for the better. See also the founder charter of the ECB, which enshrined similar policies until politicians made it dance to their tune. This shows the problem isn't our lack of understanding, but our lack of self control and long term motivation- just like kids with a cookie jar: we can't help it! > if you trust your government you don’t need crypto Hackers often fall prey to black-and-white thinking. Trust isn't binary, because you can't fully trust an organization made of people, regardless of how "good" they are, or which legal constraints they have. If anything, look at HIPAA laws: even without them, you should be able to trust your healthcare provider, but if there're things you don't want out ever, you better not share them with your health provider regardless of the laws protecting the confidentiality. Because leaks happen, even for whole countries sometimes (look at Finland mental health leaks) This doesn't mean you have "0 trust", just 0.7 or something non binary. We both know the ideal medical file would be encrypted with the patient private key, or would have some other mechanism of plausible deniability - just like how DKIM was denounced recently. It wasn't possible or even imaginable before we had the technology. Now that we do, it may take a while to get there, and the world will be a slightly better place. Crypto is a similar small step for finance, and it may also enable most countries to use the same coin (because once monetary policy is out, there's little reason to use your own thing) > we all know how 1984 ended yeah It didn't end: we're right inside. > Whatever. Makes no difference to me, once the harms are mitigated. JMHO. You are so close to understanding, yet so far. I hope eventually you'll admit more complexity in your reasoning.

arcticbull 6y ago
To be clear I think all narcotics should be legal. It is the narcos who create the harm. I'm 100% pro dugs and 100% against allowing narcos to thrive. > Actually, at the bare minimum, it removes political control of the monetary supply, leaving only fiscal policy, which may enable better long term control of public deficit by implementing a Milton Friedman like rule (whether it's constant inflation, deflation, or nothing, all is good as long as it remains constant and predictable) I don't agree with any of that. I don't want any of that. > Hackers often fall prey to black-and-white thinking. Trust isn't binary, because you can't fully trust an organization made of people, regardless of how "good" they are, or which legal constraints they have. Which is why we have legal recourse. It sucks to have to re-explain this from first principals, but trust is infinitely more efficient, so long as you accept some small fraction of the time you'll get screwed. So, you create legal recourse. However it's clear you're far more likely to get screwed over in a crypto economy with zero recourse than you are to get screwed over in a fiat economy -- separate from the fact you have recourse in a fiat economy.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I would argue it is you who are falling for black-and-white thinking that all trust is bad and that currency should be trustless.
  - 1996 6y ago
    > I would argue it is you who are falling for black-and-white thinking that all trust is bad and that currency should be trustless. I think our differences boil down to one thing: I don't share the belief than trust is better than trustless. Actually, I believe the opposite is true in most situations, because trustless allows abstractions in a simple manner. For handling exceptions (ex: ETH DAO), we can revert to trust mechanism, but most of the time, we're better off without. > > Actually, at the bare minimum, it removes political control of the monetary supply, leaving only fiscal policy, which may enable better long term control of public deficit by implementing a Milton Friedman like rule (whether it's constant inflation, deflation, or nothing, all is good as long as it remains constant and predictable) > I don't agree with any of that. I don't want any of that. Yet I don't think you are an economist, so I'm afraid your wants are biased. Most people don't want to wait - they want to break open the cookie jar. They want to eat the seed corn. It's a human bias, with an economic name: the time discount factor, which has been researched in how it leads to substandard outcomes (ex: not saving for your own retirement) At the society level, 401k and the like is a way of removing trust in your saving ability: the decision is taken for you in advance. Of course, there are exceptions (ex: you're out of work or sick and need the money now), but that's when the "exception" of trust comes in handy. > > To be clear I think all narcotics should be legal. It is the narcos who create the harm. I'm 100% pro dugs and 100% against allowing narcos to thrive. I 100% agree, but yet I think it's better for me not to have vodka and cocaine at home - because if I'm extremely tired but can't sleep, I could be tempted to take the former, then if I have to fly somewhere and it's important I'd be tempted to take the latter the morning after. So I don't buy any - another way of favoring a trustless system. If I want booze, I go to a bar as needed. Crypto can offers many features like that, and I believe a smart contract that would automatically save to your retirement account (while exactly equivalent to a 401k on paper) would be better, by sheer virtue of removing the needed trust in the government: I could see a government plundering retirement accounts in a grand announcement of a more redistributive retirement made available to everybody past some given age.

by 1996 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago

To be clear I think all narcotics should be legal. It is the narcos who create the harm. I'm 100% pro dugs and 100% against allowing narcos to thrive. > Actually, at the bare minimum, it removes political control of the monetary supply, leaving only fiscal policy, which may enable better long term control of public deficit by implementing a Milton Friedman like rule (whether it's constant inflation, deflation, or nothing, all is good as long as it remains constant and predictable) I don't agree with any of that. I don't want any of that. > Hackers often fall prey to black-and-white thinking. Trust isn't binary, because you can't fully trust an organization made of people, regardless of how "good" they are, or which legal constraints they have. Which is why we have legal recourse. It sucks to have to re-explain this from first principals, but trust is infinitely more efficient, so long as you accept some small fraction of the time you'll get screwed. So, you create legal recourse. However it's clear you're far more likely to get screwed over in a crypto economy with zero recourse than you are to get screwed over in a fiat economy -- separate from the fact you have recourse in a fiat economy.

arcticbull 6y ago
I would argue it is you who are falling for black-and-white thinking that all trust is bad and that currency should be trustless.
- 1996 6y ago
  > I would argue it is you who are falling for black-and-white thinking that all trust is bad and that currency should be trustless. I think our differences boil down to one thing: I don't share the belief than trust is better than trustless. Actually, I believe the opposite is true in most situations, because trustless allows abstractions in a simple manner. For handling exceptions (ex: ETH DAO), we can revert to trust mechanism, but most of the time, we're better off without. > > Actually, at the bare minimum, it removes political control of the monetary supply, leaving only fiscal policy, which may enable better long term control of public deficit by implementing a Milton Friedman like rule (whether it's constant inflation, deflation, or nothing, all is good as long as it remains constant and predictable) > I don't agree with any of that. I don't want any of that. Yet I don't think you are an economist, so I'm afraid your wants are biased. Most people don't want to wait - they want to break open the cookie jar. They want to eat the seed corn. It's a human bias, with an economic name: the time discount factor, which has been researched in how it leads to substandard outcomes (ex: not saving for your own retirement) At the society level, 401k and the like is a way of removing trust in your saving ability: the decision is taken for you in advance. Of course, there are exceptions (ex: you're out of work or sick and need the money now), but that's when the "exception" of trust comes in handy. > > To be clear I think all narcotics should be legal. It is the narcos who create the harm. I'm 100% pro dugs and 100% against allowing narcos to thrive. I 100% agree, but yet I think it's better for me not to have vodka and cocaine at home - because if I'm extremely tired but can't sleep, I could be tempted to take the former, then if I have to fly somewhere and it's important I'd be tempted to take the latter the morning after. So I don't buy any - another way of favoring a trustless system. If I want booze, I go to a bar as needed. Crypto can offers many features like that, and I believe a smart contract that would automatically save to your retirement account (while exactly equivalent to a 401k on paper) would be better, by sheer virtue of removing the needed trust in the government: I could see a government plundering retirement accounts in a grand announcement of a more redistributive retirement made available to everybody past some given age.