4 ms·

None of this matters. The system is unblock able and your opinion doesn't matter. It will go on without me or you. That is how it is. You can complain all you w

None of this matters. The system is unblock able and your opinion doesn't matter. It will go on without me or you. That is how it is. You can complain all you want.

lanternfish 6y ago
This is a remarkable regressive perspective. Nothing is 'unblockable'. If global powers decided tomorrow that bitcoin was a blight on humanity, they could effectively wipe out the network in a variety of ways; it wouldn't take very much coordinated regulation to deflate the hype to a point where the utility of crypto basically tanks for the average user (who are mostly speculators at this point). Just because a system _could_ theoretically replace fiat currencies doesn't mean it will; there's a reason fiat powers are fiat. Moreover, the parent comment isn't simply complaining, and isn't even necessarily interested in presenting an opinion. You made a very strong claim about the lack of a necessary resource expenditure race in bitcoin mining (a point which I think is laughable from a thermodynamic/economic perspective) and this comment is presenting a counterargument; If none of this matters, why did you even bring it up?
- hparadiz 6y ago
  > If none of this matters, why did you even bring it up? Because it's pretty funny everytime I come on here and people are bringing up lot's of weird theories, speculations, and just outright falsehoods but fail to acknowledge the elephant in the room: the pandora's box is open and that's that. You can try to make bitcoin illegal but you will find it's like making drugs illegal. All you will do is lose further control over it while not actually addressing any of the downsides of having the system running. There's always another jurisdiction that doesn't care and will perpetuate the blockchain
  - MrMan 6y ago
    If what you say is true then what is the logical outcome? As you become more economically powerful due to the price of bitcoing going up, but you need to defend ever larger investment in mining and power generation infrastructure, you will either need to capture government and become the government, or go to war with government, or mobs of starving people, or militias of other bitcoin cartels. That means your best skillet is that of warlord / military strategist.
Hermio 6y ago
I see you stoped caring about real arguments because its to much effort for you to read through them and trying to argue against them. Sure, lucky enough, i'm arguing on hn also to make sure that comments and articles dont' scew the image of bitcoins being bad for the environment and happy enough, you stop arguing about it, does exactly this.
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  Your arguments also seem deliberately wordy and full of minor inaccuracies or things that look inaccurate but are simply your opinions; you give the impression of someone who crafts his arguments not to inform but to waste the time of people engaging him, then claims victory when they let him have the last word.
  - Hermio 6y ago
    I brought arguments. It should be easy for you to take part in this discussion by using my arguments and showing they are wrong. I have no clue why you would see my writing as 'deliberately wordy' if you could just counterargue them? I'm also not a native speaker, not sure if my style of writing is just different. "who crafts his arguments not to inform but to waste the time of people engaging him" I'm lost. You make it really easy to do the same as the other commentor. You don't reference anything i wrote, you don't bring any examples or showing any issues in my argumentation.
    - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
      Ah well, if English is not your primary language I suppose I could have been a bit harsh. I'll give one example and expand. You wrote: >No country has a benefit of allowing bitcoin. which is absurd to anyone who's heard the first argument in favour of Bitcoin. Cryptocurrency allows reliable recordkeeping of transactions without a bribe-able human in the loop. Therefore, it allows default transparency and reduces corruption. Every government gains a benefit from allowing that. As for Bitcoin specifically, in multi-country deals it offers a neutral currency that neither party has more control over. Among other things this allows loans to be brokered without a risk of either party manipulating the supply of currency in which the loan must be repaid. It's a huge benefit to most countries to have a tool like that available. These are very basic arguments in favour of crypto. You seem highly informed on the subject by how much you have to say, but it's unlikely a highly informed person would have never encountered them. Therefore, you give the impression of being dishonest or at least uninterested in the other side's arguments. Just a note in general, there are various manuals online about how to control the narrative around contentious topics. One method commonly outlined is to provide lengthy, slightly rambling opinions for one side. The lengthy nature of these replies makes them difficult to thoroughly argue against, if they're copy and pasted it actually takes more effort to read them than to write them. This causes many people who could argue against them to decide it's not worth the trouble. Neutral or uninformed parties then see a large amount of intelligent-seeming text in favour of one side of the argument with no responses, and conclude that the side posting these large text blocks is correct without themselves evaluating the content. Now, brevity is obviously more difficult in a non-native language and I have sympathy for that. You might have noticed my own writing has a similarly wordy tone, and most people struggle with saying a lot with few words. I just hope it's worth knowing there's a pattern of malicious action that your comment resembled.

None of this matters. The system is unblock able and your opinion doesn't matter. It will go on without me or you. That is how it is. You can complain all you want.

lanternfish 6y ago

This is a remarkable regressive perspective. Nothing is 'unblockable'. If global powers decided tomorrow that bitcoin was a blight on humanity, they could effectively wipe out the network in a variety of ways; it wouldn't take very much coordinated regulation to deflate the hype to a point where the utility of crypto basically tanks for the average user (who are mostly speculators at this point). Just because a system _could_ theoretically replace fiat currencies doesn't mean it will; there's a reason fiat powers are fiat. Moreover, the parent comment isn't simply complaining, and isn't even necessarily interested in presenting an opinion. You made a very strong claim about the lack of a necessary resource expenditure race in bitcoin mining (a point which I think is laughable from a thermodynamic/economic perspective) and this comment is presenting a counterargument; If none of this matters, why did you even bring it up?

hparadiz 6y ago
> If none of this matters, why did you even bring it up? Because it's pretty funny everytime I come on here and people are bringing up lot's of weird theories, speculations, and just outright falsehoods but fail to acknowledge the elephant in the room: the pandora's box is open and that's that. You can try to make bitcoin illegal but you will find it's like making drugs illegal. All you will do is lose further control over it while not actually addressing any of the downsides of having the system running. There's always another jurisdiction that doesn't care and will perpetuate the blockchain
- MrMan 6y ago
  If what you say is true then what is the logical outcome? As you become more economically powerful due to the price of bitcoing going up, but you need to defend ever larger investment in mining and power generation infrastructure, you will either need to capture government and become the government, or go to war with government, or mobs of starving people, or militias of other bitcoin cartels. That means your best skillet is that of warlord / military strategist.

Hermio 6y ago

I see you stoped caring about real arguments because its to much effort for you to read through them and trying to argue against them. Sure, lucky enough, i'm arguing on hn also to make sure that comments and articles dont' scew the image of bitcoins being bad for the environment and happy enough, you stop arguing about it, does exactly this.

SuoDuanDao 6y ago
Your arguments also seem deliberately wordy and full of minor inaccuracies or things that look inaccurate but are simply your opinions; you give the impression of someone who crafts his arguments not to inform but to waste the time of people engaging him, then claims victory when they let him have the last word.
- Hermio 6y ago
  I brought arguments. It should be easy for you to take part in this discussion by using my arguments and showing they are wrong. I have no clue why you would see my writing as 'deliberately wordy' if you could just counterargue them? I'm also not a native speaker, not sure if my style of writing is just different. "who crafts his arguments not to inform but to waste the time of people engaging him" I'm lost. You make it really easy to do the same as the other commentor. You don't reference anything i wrote, you don't bring any examples or showing any issues in my argumentation.
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    Ah well, if English is not your primary language I suppose I could have been a bit harsh. I'll give one example and expand. You wrote: >No country has a benefit of allowing bitcoin. which is absurd to anyone who's heard the first argument in favour of Bitcoin. Cryptocurrency allows reliable recordkeeping of transactions without a bribe-able human in the loop. Therefore, it allows default transparency and reduces corruption. Every government gains a benefit from allowing that. As for Bitcoin specifically, in multi-country deals it offers a neutral currency that neither party has more control over. Among other things this allows loans to be brokered without a risk of either party manipulating the supply of currency in which the loan must be repaid. It's a huge benefit to most countries to have a tool like that available. These are very basic arguments in favour of crypto. You seem highly informed on the subject by how much you have to say, but it's unlikely a highly informed person would have never encountered them. Therefore, you give the impression of being dishonest or at least uninterested in the other side's arguments. Just a note in general, there are various manuals online about how to control the narrative around contentious topics. One method commonly outlined is to provide lengthy, slightly rambling opinions for one side. The lengthy nature of these replies makes them difficult to thoroughly argue against, if they're copy and pasted it actually takes more effort to read them than to write them. This causes many people who could argue against them to decide it's not worth the trouble. Neutral or uninformed parties then see a large amount of intelligent-seeming text in favour of one side of the argument with no responses, and conclude that the side posting these large text blocks is correct without themselves evaluating the content. Now, brevity is obviously more difficult in a non-native language and I have sympathy for that. You might have noticed my own writing has a similarly wordy tone, and most people struggle with saying a lot with few words. I just hope it's worth knowing there's a pattern of malicious action that your comment resembled.