4 ms·

> You still haven't told me why it's interesting or good to decentralise getting a bank account, you're just asserting it. Not being financially censored by t

> You still haven't told me why it's interesting or good to decentralise getting a bank account, you're just asserting it. Not being financially censored by the government or banks? Not having to be at their mercy for your money? The benefits seem pretty clear. > and whether there is some background process that takes longer is not really relevant to me or the people I transfer to. Clearly you have never had a low balance and had to wait for your money to settle in your bank. A reality most people deal with every day. > And I should support those things? They are a great argument for KYC/AML in themselves. You asked for a real-world example of crypto being used for goods and services. I gave one. Feel free to let the government decide what you’re allowed to buy and ingest. A lot of people want freedom from that. It goes further - assume a malicious government, as all governments historically fail their citizens - only cash and cryptocurrency will be reasonable exchanges of value. PayPal and Zelle might work for you, today, but to suggest that they’re a viable long- or even medium-term solution for digital currency amongst humanity is ludicrous. > Sure, but you don't keep cash in a file on an easily compromised computer, Neither do you with crypto. The vast majority of your savings would be in a hardware wallet, presumably easier to use by the time crypto is mainstream. > Irreversible transactions are not idiot-proof by nature. The concept is as idiot-proof as cash, which has clearly proven enough for humanity for thousands of years. > doesn't that just scream "bad idea!" to you? Nope. It reduces trust, reliance, and censorship on or by entities that don’t have your best interests at heart. I suppose we simply have different priors. You trust banks and the government. You are okay with forfeiting your financial privacy. I am not.

Nursie 5y ago
> Not being financially censored by the government or banks? Not having to be at their mercy for your money? The benefits seem pretty clear. This is of no interest to me whatsoever. The 'benefits' are not being able to recall money from rogue merchants, not being insured against thefts and fraud, all sorts of "benefits" that look to most people like lunacy and huge steps backwards. I have never felt at the mercy of big banks, they are heavily regulated and work well, and if I don't like their services I can switch to another. > Clearly you have never had a low balance and had to wait for your money to settle in your bank This is not something that happens, bank transfers are instant here. > Feel free to let the government decide what you’re allowed to buy and ingest. Oh I definitely think it's a good thing that governments can keep an eye on transactions, for stopping fraud and other financial crimes, and that's just a start. Like I said before, this is a positive of the banking system, not a drawback. > PayPal and Zelle might work for you, today, but to suggest that they’re a viable long- or even medium-term solution for digital currency amongst humanity is ludicrous. I don't use those for transfers, but you haven't said why using banks or these sort of services is ludicrous, just asserted it. > The vast majority of your savings would be in a hardware wallet, presumably easier to use by the time crypto is mainstream. And when you lose it? As many, many people will? This is no solution to widespread use by people not versed in computer security. And they shouldn't have to be versed in computer security to keep their money safe > The concept is as idiot-proof as cash Except it's not, because it involves key files and computer security. > It reduces trust It certainly does, I wouldn't ever put my trust in unregulated financial instruments. And I said before, I have no issue with financial "censorship", it's an important mechanism to fight crime, limit cash flows to rogue nations, terrorist groups and despots etc. It's a good thing. > You trust banks and the government. More than cryptocurrency miners and developers, yes. Hell yes. More than sellers in any given marketplace, where we have thousands of years of evidence that people will be ripped off at every turn? Yes. More than my own computer security skills? Still yes by a long way. > You are okay with forfeiting your financial privacy. I am not. And you are OK enabling ransomware, widespread fraud, and ordinary users losing everything because they are not equipped to manage their own affairs (they really, really are not). I still have financial privacy, and what's more I have a ton of financial protections, if something goes wrong then things can be reversed, tracked, traced and compensated. These benefits are real rather than idealogical, and I don't buy into your ideology. Democratic government is far from perfect, but it's generally better than the alternatives.

Nursie 5y ago

> Not being financially censored by the government or banks? Not having to be at their mercy for your money? The benefits seem pretty clear. This is of no interest to me whatsoever. The 'benefits' are not being able to recall money from rogue merchants, not being insured against thefts and fraud, all sorts of "benefits" that look to most people like lunacy and huge steps backwards. I have never felt at the mercy of big banks, they are heavily regulated and work well, and if I don't like their services I can switch to another. > Clearly you have never had a low balance and had to wait for your money to settle in your bank This is not something that happens, bank transfers are instant here. > Feel free to let the government decide what you’re allowed to buy and ingest. Oh I definitely think it's a good thing that governments can keep an eye on transactions, for stopping fraud and other financial crimes, and that's just a start. Like I said before, this is a positive of the banking system, not a drawback. > PayPal and Zelle might work for you, today, but to suggest that they’re a viable long- or even medium-term solution for digital currency amongst humanity is ludicrous. I don't use those for transfers, but you haven't said why using banks or these sort of services is ludicrous, just asserted it. > The vast majority of your savings would be in a hardware wallet, presumably easier to use by the time crypto is mainstream. And when you lose it? As many, many people will? This is no solution to widespread use by people not versed in computer security. And they shouldn't have to be versed in computer security to keep their money safe > The concept is as idiot-proof as cash Except it's not, because it involves key files and computer security. > It reduces trust It certainly does, I wouldn't ever put my trust in unregulated financial instruments. And I said before, I have no issue with financial "censorship", it's an important mechanism to fight crime, limit cash flows to rogue nations, terrorist groups and despots etc. It's a good thing. > You trust banks and the government. More than cryptocurrency miners and developers, yes. Hell yes. More than sellers in any given marketplace, where we have thousands of years of evidence that people will be ripped off at every turn? Yes. More than my own computer security skills? Still yes by a long way. > You are okay with forfeiting your financial privacy. I am not. And you are OK enabling ransomware, widespread fraud, and ordinary users losing everything because they are not equipped to manage their own affairs (they really, really are not). I still have financial privacy, and what's more I have a ton of financial protections, if something goes wrong then things can be reversed, tracked, traced and compensated. These benefits are real rather than idealogical, and I don't buy into your ideology. Democratic government is far from perfect, but it's generally better than the alternatives.