3 ms·

The greatest irony here is that protection against socialist ideologues like the author of this article is one of the main motivations for using cryptocurrencie

The greatest irony here is that protection against socialist ideologues like the author of this article is one of the main motivations for using cryptocurrencies. Maybe if they would fix their ideology, people wouldn't have to resort to decentralized solutions. As for the actual content, I plainly don't trust the calculations of the anti-crypto crowd. And while I also had lost faith in Proof of Stakes ever making it into Ethereum (unfortunately also selling all my Ethereum when I gave up on them), they have now activated the PoS chain and run it in parallel to PoW, with the goal to switch completely. The stuff about "social justice" is also nonsense, at least with respect to mining in PoS: it is not that much Eth you need to participate, and if you don't want to invest as much, you can join a mining pool. Everybody can participate, if they want to. It is also not "unjust" if people who invest (or stake) more receive higher rewards. The opposite would be unjust.

gitrog 6y ago
How is it the fault of an ideology that decentralised solutions are required? Is there something inherent in Socialist ideology that you can point me to?
- blockyhead 6y ago
  Socialists want to create a government that controls every detail of the citizens lives, and ensures they can not accumulate any wealth. That is a centralized threat to people's wealth.
  - gitrog 6y ago
    That is definitely not what "Socialists" want. I apologise on behalf of any Socialist that gave you that impression.
    - blockyhead 6y ago
      Of course it is. Name any socialist policy that does not work towards that goal. Any policy that is not a constraint on freedom. The motivating force behind socialism is envy. Nobody is allowed to have something that somebody else doesn't have. Good intentions (like free healthcare or basic income or rent controls) don't prevent the inevitable outcome. Ultimately Socialism wants to do with individual property and have everybody work for the common good, not for their personal gain. It is extremely anti-freedom, and of course anti-wealth.
      - mtrower 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism You seem to be speaking of communism, not socialism. > The motivating force behind socialism is envy. Nobody is allowed to have something that somebody else doesn't have. You also appear to be grossly misunderstanding motivations. The general motivation is not that existing imbalance is some sort of sin, but rather that the imbalance, by nature, slides further and further out of control. > not for their personal gain. Arguments about working for personal gain and accumulation of wealth mean little to working class individuals that work mostly for survival and to accumulate their employer's wealth. Individuals (especially those supporting families) living paycheck to paycheck, with no financial mobility or leverage, are surely not seeing freedom in the system or even a path to get there.
        blockyhead 6y ago
        Socialism and Communism amount to nearly the same thing. It is at most a gradual distinction, and neither have such hard cut definitions. The entry on socialism starts with "social ownership". That means they want private property to go away. That means nobody will be allowed to own anything that somebody else can't have (except the political elite, of course). That leads us back to the original discussion: since socialists want to take away people's property, people try to flee into Bitcoin. "but rather that the imbalance, by nature, slides further and further out of control" Even if it were so, why would it bother you, as long as the people are doing well? If you do better than 20 years ago, but somebody else does even better, it bothers the socialists. That is envy. Rich people getting richer may be an issue, but it isn't automatically true that they will swallow everything. That is more of a borderline breakdown case (one of many possible ones). It is just as unlikely as "interest" eating up the world. "Arguments about working for personal gain and accumulation of wealth mean little to working class individuals that work mostly for survival and to accumulate their employer's wealth." If they don't like accumulating their employer's wealth, maybe they shouldn't work for them? Your sentence is classic, pure socialist hate speech and propaganda. Instead of hating on employers, you should celebrate that somebody provides jobs for other people. And if you think it can be done better, just do it. If you belief that "the government" can create better jobs, why can't people? Your belief in the government is just wishful thinking, you imagine smart people planning everything beautifully so that there is a super duper economy with everybody getting everything they want. But no such smart people exist.

gitrog 6y ago

How is it the fault of an ideology that decentralised solutions are required? Is there something inherent in Socialist ideology that you can point me to?

blockyhead 6y ago
Socialists want to create a government that controls every detail of the citizens lives, and ensures they can not accumulate any wealth. That is a centralized threat to people's wealth.
- gitrog 6y ago
  That is definitely not what "Socialists" want. I apologise on behalf of any Socialist that gave you that impression.
  - blockyhead 6y ago
    Of course it is. Name any socialist policy that does not work towards that goal. Any policy that is not a constraint on freedom. The motivating force behind socialism is envy. Nobody is allowed to have something that somebody else doesn't have. Good intentions (like free healthcare or basic income or rent controls) don't prevent the inevitable outcome. Ultimately Socialism wants to do with individual property and have everybody work for the common good, not for their personal gain. It is extremely anti-freedom, and of course anti-wealth.
    - mtrower 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism You seem to be speaking of communism, not socialism. > The motivating force behind socialism is envy. Nobody is allowed to have something that somebody else doesn't have. You also appear to be grossly misunderstanding motivations. The general motivation is not that existing imbalance is some sort of sin, but rather that the imbalance, by nature, slides further and further out of control. > not for their personal gain. Arguments about working for personal gain and accumulation of wealth mean little to working class individuals that work mostly for survival and to accumulate their employer's wealth. Individuals (especially those supporting families) living paycheck to paycheck, with no financial mobility or leverage, are surely not seeing freedom in the system or even a path to get there.
      - blockyhead 6y ago
        Socialism and Communism amount to nearly the same thing. It is at most a gradual distinction, and neither have such hard cut definitions. The entry on socialism starts with "social ownership". That means they want private property to go away. That means nobody will be allowed to own anything that somebody else can't have (except the political elite, of course). That leads us back to the original discussion: since socialists want to take away people's property, people try to flee into Bitcoin. "but rather that the imbalance, by nature, slides further and further out of control" Even if it were so, why would it bother you, as long as the people are doing well? If you do better than 20 years ago, but somebody else does even better, it bothers the socialists. That is envy. Rich people getting richer may be an issue, but it isn't automatically true that they will swallow everything. That is more of a borderline breakdown case (one of many possible ones). It is just as unlikely as "interest" eating up the world. "Arguments about working for personal gain and accumulation of wealth mean little to working class individuals that work mostly for survival and to accumulate their employer's wealth." If they don't like accumulating their employer's wealth, maybe they shouldn't work for them? Your sentence is classic, pure socialist hate speech and propaganda. Instead of hating on employers, you should celebrate that somebody provides jobs for other people. And if you think it can be done better, just do it. If you belief that "the government" can create better jobs, why can't people? Your belief in the government is just wishful thinking, you imagine smart people planning everything beautifully so that there is a super duper economy with everybody getting everything they want. But no such smart people exist.