2 ms·

It's funny how you try to separate monetary/fiscal/economic policy in relation to the current scenario when it comes to the status quo, but you do not apply the

It's funny how you try to separate monetary/fiscal/economic policy in relation to the current scenario when it comes to the status quo, but you do not apply the same logic when it comes to crypto. For you, what the Fed does is completely separate from the interests of the financial elites, but what one disgraceful actor in the crypto system is enough to make everyone stupid? > Only you voting will change that. First, I don't vote in the US. Second, are you seriously this naive or did you mean this as a joke? > And the ones that aren't don't solve anything better than a classical solution because trust is a huge optimization. Ah! And here I see the issue you are having. No serious person working in crypto ignores the fact that trust helps. The point is that trust should be granular, not a binary property. Every project working on layer-2 networks is basically dealing with the issue of trust vs performance. Also, another issue is that too much of an optimization makes a system fragile to systemic shocks. It doesn't matter if it is the US, Canada, the EU or a Banana Republic: the response from every government in every crisis has always been to concentrate more power and to ask more of people. Ever bigger houses of cards are built and when they inevitably get blown over, the solution is to get more "optimizations" and to have more bureaucrats with no skin in the game responsible in defining "policies" for people they have nothing in common with, know nothing of their actual problems and have zero incentive to actually care - in fact, if they cared they might end up losing their election or dead by going against the interests of the bigger fish. When you say that "10M going to Pakistan would also happen in Bitcoin" is missing the point. Money laundering/fraud/tax evasion/mismanagement of public funds will always exist, no matter what. The problem is that a Big central Government is not only be terrible at fighting it, the bigger it gets the more they create it themselves. You keep telling me to "take a econ course", as you think that my issue is not understanding the logic defended by economists. Far from it. Simply put, I want Homo Economicus logic to go extinct. Too many basic failed moral and ethical principles are built on "logic" backed by economists. Too many "optimizations" proposed by economists made our societies worse. Too much power was taken away from the people and put in the hands of "experts" - which seem a good thing "on average" but in reality made us more unequal, more polarized and less connected. When people get inevitably screwed over by Tether, there will be a bubble burst and lots of fools (not for lack of warning) will lose their money. Crypto will go on. It's their money they lost, the system as a whole survives and actually becomes stronger. Can you say the same about Government? Do people trust the government more or less after each crisis? I said in our last exchange as well: I am not the only one that works on crypto without caring about price. Making money is just a nice side-effect. The main motivation (to me at least[0]) is to build the tools that can let people be in charge of their actions including who/when to trust and delegate things . [1] [0]: https://hub20.io/architecture/#economies-of-scale-vs-robustness-of-decentralization [1]: https://trustlines.network

arcticbull 6y ago
So you’re building a non custodial wallet? What on earth does that have to do with a single thing you’ve been talking about? Isn’t that illegal in America now? The reason I suggest an Econ course is you have an awful lot of misconceptions and deep seated misunderstandings of the current system. Much more than I can rectify here pro bono. For what it’s worth I generally don’t think figuring out who to trust granularly is a real problem. Trust them? Do business with them. Don’t trust them? Maybe don’t. Or involve an intermediary who does like visa that allows clawbacks. We’ve been doing trustful business for tens of thousands of years. I see you’re fairly early along in your speed run of finance.
- rglullis 6y ago
  And you are yet to start your run of Localism. ;) "Custodial/Non-custodial" is not the point of Hub20. It's not supposed to be used by a company that wants to operate an exchange or to compete with Coinbase. It's supposed to be used by me and my family, or a small co-op of artisans that want to sell things online. Trust is not enforced by the technology, it is built and supported by the group that is using it. A rule of thumb for Hub20 should be do not join an instance if you can not knock on the door of its operator. > Trust them? Do business with them. Don’t trust them? Maybe don’t. Try this: - I trust Joe with the cash register from our shop, but I wouldn't trust him to manage my life savings. For the former, we can use our Hub20 server and enjoy quick, low-cost transactions. For the latter, I will keep a very secure and private wallet. - Rachel trusts me to manage the funds collected by the members of her church, but she doesn't trust me to manage the funds of a multi-million investment club which she happens to have some shares on. She can trust the blockchain contract that lets me and her pool our resources and invest in real estate development, though. - I trust Bandcamp to pay me my fair share of whatever I sell through their platform. I don't trust them to be my bank. But Bob, my Starving Artist friend is kind of crazy and he is okay with using Bandcamp as his "checking account". If Bandcamp wants to use Hub20 as a payout option (and if they implement a KYC system that satisfies Uncle Sam), they can operate their own instance of Hub20. The idea with Hub20 is to get a different kind of decentralization. I can be a part of many different hubs, just like most people have different circles of relationships and different types of relationships and different levels of trust among them. The payment network as whole gets more robust, more people can get access to crypto. It's still "permissionless" (if you don't trust anyone, you can just run your own node just for yourself) but it also enables non-technical people to use it. It brings the benefits of economies of scale without forcing people to trust and depend on some faceless company. Trust is not binary. It depends on context and the nature of the relationship. Should I be involving Visa on everything, costing me and everyone else 3%+ of our capital and rob us the opportunity to exercise this mutual trust? Also, wouldn't the act of involving a third-party signal that this mutual trust does not exist?

arcticbull 6y ago

So you’re building a non custodial wallet? What on earth does that have to do with a single thing you’ve been talking about? Isn’t that illegal in America now? The reason I suggest an Econ course is you have an awful lot of misconceptions and deep seated misunderstandings of the current system. Much more than I can rectify here pro bono. For what it’s worth I generally don’t think figuring out who to trust granularly is a real problem. Trust them? Do business with them. Don’t trust them? Maybe don’t. Or involve an intermediary who does like visa that allows clawbacks. We’ve been doing trustful business for tens of thousands of years. I see you’re fairly early along in your speed run of finance.

rglullis 6y ago
And you are yet to start your run of Localism. ;) "Custodial/Non-custodial" is not the point of Hub20. It's not supposed to be used by a company that wants to operate an exchange or to compete with Coinbase. It's supposed to be used by me and my family, or a small co-op of artisans that want to sell things online. Trust is not enforced by the technology, it is built and supported by the group that is using it. A rule of thumb for Hub20 should be do not join an instance if you can not knock on the door of its operator. > Trust them? Do business with them. Don’t trust them? Maybe don’t. Try this: - I trust Joe with the cash register from our shop, but I wouldn't trust him to manage my life savings. For the former, we can use our Hub20 server and enjoy quick, low-cost transactions. For the latter, I will keep a very secure and private wallet. - Rachel trusts me to manage the funds collected by the members of her church, but she doesn't trust me to manage the funds of a multi-million investment club which she happens to have some shares on. She can trust the blockchain contract that lets me and her pool our resources and invest in real estate development, though. - I trust Bandcamp to pay me my fair share of whatever I sell through their platform. I don't trust them to be my bank. But Bob, my Starving Artist friend is kind of crazy and he is okay with using Bandcamp as his "checking account". If Bandcamp wants to use Hub20 as a payout option (and if they implement a KYC system that satisfies Uncle Sam), they can operate their own instance of Hub20. The idea with Hub20 is to get a different kind of decentralization. I can be a part of many different hubs, just like most people have different circles of relationships and different types of relationships and different levels of trust among them. The payment network as whole gets more robust, more people can get access to crypto. It's still "permissionless" (if you don't trust anyone, you can just run your own node just for yourself) but it also enables non-technical people to use it. It brings the benefits of economies of scale without forcing people to trust and depend on some faceless company. Trust is not binary. It depends on context and the nature of the relationship. Should I be involving Visa on everything, costing me and everyone else 3%+ of our capital and rob us the opportunity to exercise this mutual trust? Also, wouldn't the act of involving a third-party signal that this mutual trust does not exist?