4 ms·

You have the cause and effect reversed. One of the reasons I want to move from USD to crypto is because I don't want to invade countries for their oil. I'd rath

You have the cause and effect reversed. One of the reasons I want to move from USD to crypto is because I don't want to invade countries for their oil. I'd rather my currency not be tied to imperialistic warmongering.

ashtonkem 6y ago
I’m asserting that a country that used Bitcoin would still warmonger for oil.
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  I'm asserting that you can't have a currency independent of a country without crypto. It's a prerequisite to defunding warmongering countries.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    One of the more confusing things about crypto is how many magical wishes get attached to it. It’s never actually explained why crypto will magically solve the problems listed, merely asserted that it would be so. There’s no reason that Bitcoin would magically eliminate the need for armies and oil consumption, at best it might change who has the armies, but not their presence. The funny thing is that we know that neither fiat currency nor oil is necessary for empire building or warmongering, because both fiat currencies and large scale oil consumption came out after the greatest period of imperialism and colony building that humanity has ever seen. The idea that replacing something that’s been around for ~50 years will solve a Millenia long problem of humanity’s is just funny.
    - solosoyokaze 6y ago
      > The idea that replacing something that’s been around for ~50 years will solve a Millenia long problem of humanity’s is just funny. Is it? Communicating over distance was a problem we've had for millenia (or much longer) and it's now solved. Technology is amazing and we hit an inflection point last century. We're essentially already living in a post-humanity world, and crypto is the currency to match.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        > Is it? Communicating over distance was a problem we've had for millenia (or much longer) and it's now solved. There's a reason why I say that bitcoin fans participate in magical thinking, and this is a prime example. So the argument goes that because we've solved communication, bitcoin is supposed to solve war ... how again? There's not even a fig leaf of an argument here, only a blunt assertion that because we've solved other problems, therefore your preferred technology will solve other issues. Maybe one day we'll solve war. But the burden of proof is on you to argue that your specific thing will solve that issue. And you're not even really trying. > We're essentially already living in a post-humanity world, and crypto is the currency to match. Lol, what? This is the intro to a cyberpunk novel, not an actual argument with testable claims. What the heck does "post-humanity" even freaking mean? As an actual human being living in this society, I'd argue that any claims that I'm "post" are objectively wrong. This is always the issue with any sort of enthusiast; your enthusiasm does not scale. Just because you're really excited about a thing doesn't mean that anyone else will be; you have to actually find things that other people want and connect your interest to them persuasively (blunt assertions don't really work). "We're already living in a post-humanity world, and crypto is the currency to match" is the kind of thing that'll get you plaudits on crypto sub-forums, and worried looks from everyone else who has no <explicative deleted> idea what you're going on about.
  - simiones 6y ago
    Warmongering has next to nothing to do with currency. If anything, limited supplies of anything, including bitcoin, are a likely to spark wars, not end them. If you truly wish to help stop wars, join a peace-loving organization, attend marches, lobby politicians. You'll find all of the real work on this are in leftist organizations, which fight against the real foundations of war, such as inequality, ideas of exceptionalism, corporate greed and others. Fiat currency is well down on the list of the world's problems.
    - solosoyokaze 6y ago
      > Warmongering has next to nothing to do with currency. Quite the contrary. You'll find that many currencies were created specifically to support an army or war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_American_currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_American_currency
      - simiones 6y ago
        Oh yes, ~400 years ago many things worked differently. In particular, currencies were less tied with states than they are today, leading to many kinds of financial manipulations that no longer happen, at least outside open conflict zones. If the US government wanted to go to war, was lacking money for this, and for some reason didn't want to seize the entire bitcoin network (which it could pretty easily do, make no mistake), it could simply issue its own cryptocoin, just like in 1652. And people will buy it, because they know the US is good for it, for the same reason that dollars don't particularly devalue even if you print another hundred billion of them today. It's important to understand that you can't fight social problems with technical solutions. The disgusting amounts of power that big states have make it impossible to oppose them with fun projects like bitcoin. If you are truly serious about combatting US imperialism, try reading some Noam Chomsky - that is a man that has spent his life fighting against these things, but also understanding the levers of power. Financial games are in the end games; they may seem important because it is where the rich spend their time, but if push comes to shove and the system is threatened, the game is quickly stopped and any necessary controls is asserted. Just look at what happened with the GME stock (and we haven't even seen the end of that). Make no mistake, if BTC ever becomes a real threat to any monetary system, you will see much worse than that. This can only be combatted in the arena of politics and democratic control, by changing the rules, not playing the game.

ashtonkem 6y ago

I’m asserting that a country that used Bitcoin would still warmonger for oil.

solosoyokaze 6y ago
I'm asserting that you can't have a currency independent of a country without crypto. It's a prerequisite to defunding warmongering countries.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  One of the more confusing things about crypto is how many magical wishes get attached to it. It’s never actually explained why crypto will magically solve the problems listed, merely asserted that it would be so. There’s no reason that Bitcoin would magically eliminate the need for armies and oil consumption, at best it might change who has the armies, but not their presence. The funny thing is that we know that neither fiat currency nor oil is necessary for empire building or warmongering, because both fiat currencies and large scale oil consumption came out after the greatest period of imperialism and colony building that humanity has ever seen. The idea that replacing something that’s been around for ~50 years will solve a Millenia long problem of humanity’s is just funny.
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    > The idea that replacing something that’s been around for ~50 years will solve a Millenia long problem of humanity’s is just funny. Is it? Communicating over distance was a problem we've had for millenia (or much longer) and it's now solved. Technology is amazing and we hit an inflection point last century. We're essentially already living in a post-humanity world, and crypto is the currency to match.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      > Is it? Communicating over distance was a problem we've had for millenia (or much longer) and it's now solved. There's a reason why I say that bitcoin fans participate in magical thinking, and this is a prime example. So the argument goes that because we've solved communication, bitcoin is supposed to solve war ... how again? There's not even a fig leaf of an argument here, only a blunt assertion that because we've solved other problems, therefore your preferred technology will solve other issues. Maybe one day we'll solve war. But the burden of proof is on you to argue that your specific thing will solve that issue. And you're not even really trying. > We're essentially already living in a post-humanity world, and crypto is the currency to match. Lol, what? This is the intro to a cyberpunk novel, not an actual argument with testable claims. What the heck does "post-humanity" even freaking mean? As an actual human being living in this society, I'd argue that any claims that I'm "post" are objectively wrong. This is always the issue with any sort of enthusiast; your enthusiasm does not scale. Just because you're really excited about a thing doesn't mean that anyone else will be; you have to actually find things that other people want and connect your interest to them persuasively (blunt assertions don't really work). "We're already living in a post-humanity world, and crypto is the currency to match" is the kind of thing that'll get you plaudits on crypto sub-forums, and worried looks from everyone else who has no <explicative deleted> idea what you're going on about.
- simiones 6y ago
  Warmongering has next to nothing to do with currency. If anything, limited supplies of anything, including bitcoin, are a likely to spark wars, not end them. If you truly wish to help stop wars, join a peace-loving organization, attend marches, lobby politicians. You'll find all of the real work on this are in leftist organizations, which fight against the real foundations of war, such as inequality, ideas of exceptionalism, corporate greed and others. Fiat currency is well down on the list of the world's problems.
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    > Warmongering has next to nothing to do with currency. Quite the contrary. You'll find that many currencies were created specifically to support an army or war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_American_currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_American_currency
    - simiones 6y ago
      Oh yes, ~400 years ago many things worked differently. In particular, currencies were less tied with states than they are today, leading to many kinds of financial manipulations that no longer happen, at least outside open conflict zones. If the US government wanted to go to war, was lacking money for this, and for some reason didn't want to seize the entire bitcoin network (which it could pretty easily do, make no mistake), it could simply issue its own cryptocoin, just like in 1652. And people will buy it, because they know the US is good for it, for the same reason that dollars don't particularly devalue even if you print another hundred billion of them today. It's important to understand that you can't fight social problems with technical solutions. The disgusting amounts of power that big states have make it impossible to oppose them with fun projects like bitcoin. If you are truly serious about combatting US imperialism, try reading some Noam Chomsky - that is a man that has spent his life fighting against these things, but also understanding the levers of power. Financial games are in the end games; they may seem important because it is where the rich spend their time, but if push comes to shove and the system is threatened, the game is quickly stopped and any necessary controls is asserted. Just look at what happened with the GME stock (and we haven't even seen the end of that). Make no mistake, if BTC ever becomes a real threat to any monetary system, you will see much worse than that. This can only be combatted in the arena of politics and democratic control, by changing the rules, not playing the game.