3 ms·

> They are not at all. Governments and financial institutions can lock funds, do 'hair cuts', as they did in the European financial crisis, and engage in other

> They are not at all. Governments and financial institutions can lock funds, do 'hair cuts', as they did in the European financial crisis, and engage in other such shenanigans. They can debank or otherwise exclude people and companies from the payment system, or refuse them banking services at all. All that is signed off and approved by the popultion. In the beginning the nascent financial system which today is labled "legacy" was the wild west as well. Then it was an organic growth of scrutiny because it was demanded by the population. Every megasocial system such as US, EU, China...even North Korea organizes itself based on the population desires. All those things aren't imposed from above by an omniscent and evil dictator or done in the dark, the Patriot Act is supported by the majority of the population, so it's all the rest. People accept and embrace the government playing the role of policeman in the financial and capital markets. You are the fringe minority, and frankly people in the cryptospace lack the pragmatism to understand that they are a fringe minority. People who are the fringe minority should hide and find holes in the power of the controlling authority and USE THEM AND KEEP THEM TO THEMSELVES opposed to creating mega structures to invite and pursue those who sign off and approve the aforementioned authority. Such attempts will fail because the target demographics is totally onboard with the authority. > Uniswap had $10 billion in trading volume over the last week. That's in the same league as major exchanges like Bitfinex and Kraken. It's also extremely easy to use, with no sign-up/registration required, and a trade being possible with 3 clicks. Sure in the ETH ecosystem, tell me again where can I spend ETH or Stablecoins based on ETH? Nowhere.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>All that is signed off and approved by the popultion. Same with the central banks that inflate the currency. They are created by the government that the population approves of. You're making a selective argument against the principle of financial self-sovereignty that underlies the entire Bitcoin and cryptocurrency movement, that just happens to lead to a conclusion that decentralized finance is bad, whereas a decentralized currency - bitcoin - is good. >>Then it was an organic growth of scrutiny because it was demanded by the population. Every megasocial system such as US, EU, China...even North Korea organizes itself based on the population desires. There is nothing organic about massively complex political systems. They are as artificial/non-organic as anything else produced by modern human civilization. They are nascent forms of human organization susceptible to massive corruption and rent-seeking. Putting all that aside, majority approval does not justify violating people's basic liberties/human-rights, like the right to engage with other consenting adults in mutually voluntary economic interactions. That is true whether you are talking about the US, or North Korea. >>Such attempts will fail because the target demographics is totally onboard with the authority. What the majority approves of changes when technology changes. When the social costs of enforcing a particular type of law that limits voluntary interaction massively increases, for example as a result of the advent of widely accessible strong encryption, then the majority will become more opposed to enforcing such laws. >>Sure in the ETH ecosystem ETH-based assets will gain mass-adoption soon enough. And when they do, your final plausibly pro-crypto objection to DeFi will have disappeared. All you'll be left with is the argument that cryptocurrency, as a whole, is bad for society, by enabling non-compliance with politically enacted forms of centralized gatekeeping. At that point, it will be even more obvious now that an argument against decentralized finance is an argument against the entire principle that Bitcoin is based on, and was created to advance.
- ObserverNeutral 5y ago
  > Same with the central banks that inflate the currency. They are created by the government that the population approves of. You're making a selective argument against the principle of financial self-sovereignty that underlies the entire Bitcoin and cryptocurrency movement The fed is non elected. there is a separation between Govt and the Fed Public cannot vote on the Fed Fund Rate

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>All that is signed off and approved by the popultion. Same with the central banks that inflate the currency. They are created by the government that the population approves of. You're making a selective argument against the principle of financial self-sovereignty that underlies the entire Bitcoin and cryptocurrency movement, that just happens to lead to a conclusion that decentralized finance is bad, whereas a decentralized currency - bitcoin - is good. >>Then it was an organic growth of scrutiny because it was demanded by the population. Every megasocial system such as US, EU, China...even North Korea organizes itself based on the population desires. There is nothing organic about massively complex political systems. They are as artificial/non-organic as anything else produced by modern human civilization. They are nascent forms of human organization susceptible to massive corruption and rent-seeking. Putting all that aside, majority approval does not justify violating people's basic liberties/human-rights, like the right to engage with other consenting adults in mutually voluntary economic interactions. That is true whether you are talking about the US, or North Korea. >>Such attempts will fail because the target demographics is totally onboard with the authority. What the majority approves of changes when technology changes. When the social costs of enforcing a particular type of law that limits voluntary interaction massively increases, for example as a result of the advent of widely accessible strong encryption, then the majority will become more opposed to enforcing such laws. >>Sure in the ETH ecosystem ETH-based assets will gain mass-adoption soon enough. And when they do, your final plausibly pro-crypto objection to DeFi will have disappeared. All you'll be left with is the argument that cryptocurrency, as a whole, is bad for society, by enabling non-compliance with politically enacted forms of centralized gatekeeping. At that point, it will be even more obvious now that an argument against decentralized finance is an argument against the entire principle that Bitcoin is based on, and was created to advance.

ObserverNeutral 5y ago
> Same with the central banks that inflate the currency. They are created by the government that the population approves of. You're making a selective argument against the principle of financial self-sovereignty that underlies the entire Bitcoin and cryptocurrency movement The fed is non elected. there is a separation between Govt and the Fed Public cannot vote on the Fed Fund Rate