8 ms·

The problem with your rebuttal is that there is ZERO liability in asking Bitcoin to be moved into an anonymous wallet. And when you include the whole world into

by slver 5y ago

The problem with your rebuttal is that there is ZERO liability in asking Bitcoin to be moved into an anonymous wallet. And when you include the whole world into your scenario, you need to realize there are a whole lot of countries that can't give a flying fuck about America, or Japan, or basically any other country than theirs, especially when for example the target country is dropping bombs on their heads, or crippling their economy with sanctions. You think we're all good guys and we'll get along, see? But actually, Bitcoin has enabled a new type of international warfare. And thinking positive thoughts will do nothing to prevent that.

vmception 5y ago
I can make the same observations as you, the difference is that this doesn't bother me. The concept will never go away. The concept of computing a hash client side under an agreed upon set of conformity for eventually addition to a globally stored list of hashes. Although you haven't argued for making it go away, people that talk like you typically are arguing for the idea that the state can successfully make it go away. This concept works whether institutional exchanges say each hash is part of a unit worth $60,000 a pop or those institutions don't exist and the market says the units are worth $2 a pop.
- slver 5y ago
  The concept of deciding something that's rare is valuable will never go away. It's just revision #987192 of the "tulip craze" phenomenon. But this will keep getting worse and worse until cryptocurrencies are outlawed. And this will not stop their use completely, but their value hinges on their trade value, which in large part depends on their legality. So the value will collapse to nothing. So now blockchains have no incentive to exist either. Poof.
  - vmception 5y ago
    > Although you haven't argued for making it go away, people that talk like you typically are arguing for the idea that the state can successfully make it go away. and there it is.
    - slver 5y ago
      Yeah I read this the first time around. My point was to explain why a trade tool's value is determined by its ability to trade with it, and demonstrate why legality of the currency itself matters. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the concept of currency in the first place. Something being rare is not sufficient for it to have trade value.
      - vmception 5y ago
        The concept requires demand, which you already identified. The demand helps retains the exchange rate. You think the demand will evaporate if the cryptocurrency is illegal or hard to obtain. I think this is not true. Compliant hashes will still be easy to generate, acquire, and transfer and some people that they are transferred to will append the hash to a globally stored ledger. These concepts are not bannable.

by slver 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

I can make the same observations as you, the difference is that this doesn't bother me. The concept will never go away. The concept of computing a hash client side under an agreed upon set of conformity for eventually addition to a globally stored list of hashes. Although you haven't argued for making it go away, people that talk like you typically are arguing for the idea that the state can successfully make it go away. This concept works whether institutional exchanges say each hash is part of a unit worth $60,000 a pop or those institutions don't exist and the market says the units are worth $2 a pop.

slver 5y ago
The concept of deciding something that's rare is valuable will never go away. It's just revision #987192 of the "tulip craze" phenomenon. But this will keep getting worse and worse until cryptocurrencies are outlawed. And this will not stop their use completely, but their value hinges on their trade value, which in large part depends on their legality. So the value will collapse to nothing. So now blockchains have no incentive to exist either. Poof.
- vmception 5y ago
  > Although you haven't argued for making it go away, people that talk like you typically are arguing for the idea that the state can successfully make it go away. and there it is.
  - slver 5y ago
    Yeah I read this the first time around. My point was to explain why a trade tool's value is determined by its ability to trade with it, and demonstrate why legality of the currency itself matters. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the concept of currency in the first place. Something being rare is not sufficient for it to have trade value.
    - vmception 5y ago
      The concept requires demand, which you already identified. The demand helps retains the exchange rate. You think the demand will evaporate if the cryptocurrency is illegal or hard to obtain. I think this is not true. Compliant hashes will still be easy to generate, acquire, and transfer and some people that they are transferred to will append the hash to a globally stored ledger. These concepts are not bannable.