4 ms·

I think I understand your point a bit better now: people will not accept crypto because they prefer a mutable legal system over an immutable system of crypto co

by jerry1979 5y ago

I think I understand your point a bit better now: people will not accept crypto because they prefer a mutable legal system over an immutable system of crypto contracts. However, your argument relies on taking an imagined crypto-future and applying it seamlessly over all of society. Also, I think a crucial element in this equation exists in the form of all of us regular people that do not have power in the system today. Besides, so long as we have some combination of riots, guns, and jails, I wonder if people will experience much of a difference between a system of "who has the gold makes the rules" and "who has the egold makes the rules".

knorker 5y ago
> I wonder if people will experience much of a difference between a system of "who has the gold makes the rules" and "who has the egold makes the rules". If the people who don't have the gold are treated poorly enough, then in a democracy they in principle have the power to change it. In a non-democracy there's a second threshold where they will overthrow the power at a risk of their own lives. You can't vote out the person with the egold, you can't rebel against them. So yes, I do believe that the people who have egold and nothing to fear will be far more tyrannical than the people who have gold, for this reason. If we could at least get online microtransactions for it, but we can't (at least with bitcoin) because of all its other technical flaws.
- jerry1979 5y ago
  As you stated, people don't want crypto systems to seamlessly cover all of society. So, we can reasonably expect other systems to exist and also some crypto systems to exist. I have a cautious eye towards crypto, but a realistic future includes people using crypto for some things and using interpersonal agreements for other things.
  - knorker 5y ago
    What people want is incompatible with cryptocurrencies existing. Maybe some use will be accepted, just like some level of murder is accepted. We sacrifice some lives for the benefit of not living in another type of dystopia. But no, there's no harmony there. There is no right amount of AIDS in your blood.

knorker 5y ago

> I wonder if people will experience much of a difference between a system of "who has the gold makes the rules" and "who has the egold makes the rules". If the people who don't have the gold are treated poorly enough, then in a democracy they in principle have the power to change it. In a non-democracy there's a second threshold where they will overthrow the power at a risk of their own lives. You can't vote out the person with the egold, you can't rebel against them. So yes, I do believe that the people who have egold and nothing to fear will be far more tyrannical than the people who have gold, for this reason. If we could at least get online microtransactions for it, but we can't (at least with bitcoin) because of all its other technical flaws.

jerry1979 5y ago
As you stated, people don't want crypto systems to seamlessly cover all of society. So, we can reasonably expect other systems to exist and also some crypto systems to exist. I have a cautious eye towards crypto, but a realistic future includes people using crypto for some things and using interpersonal agreements for other things.
- knorker 5y ago
  What people want is incompatible with cryptocurrencies existing. Maybe some use will be accepted, just like some level of murder is accepted. We sacrifice some lives for the benefit of not living in another type of dystopia. But no, there's no harmony there. There is no right amount of AIDS in your blood.