4 ms·

Yea its really great to be prosecuted for no reason except the whims of the powerful, we should really all be in favor of making everything illegal by default.

ben_w 5y ago
While I agree with the sarcastically made point that the whims of the powerful are not by themselves good enough reason to outlaw things, one of the more frustrating arguments made in favour of Bitcoin is that it can free us from government control. I say that claim is not true, and recon bitcoin is all hat and no cattle in this regard. I also reckon that when the government is sufficiently democratic (i.e. not just the whims of the powerful), undermining it is a bad thing, which is the only reason I don’t want to say “time for Bitcoin to prove us wrong”.
throwaaskjdfh 5y ago
No, being prosecuted at the whim of the powerful is horrible, but Bitcoin claims to be a kind of technological "escape hatch" from this kind of abuse. The sooner we find out that it isn't an escape hatch, the better. We can then return to social and political hard work of curbing the powerful, instead of pretending we can just take our cryptocurrencies and escape.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gordian-mind 5y ago
  How about you keep pretending to "curb the powerful" and stop arguing in bad faith against cryptocurrencies?
- nathias 5y ago
  I know you are arguing in bad faith, but immutability of monetary policy, ability to transact online outside of influence of MasterCard and Visa is something completely other than being resistant to its users being persecuted.
- Taek 5y ago
  That's a foregone conclusion isn't it? With the recent news from El Salvador, Bitcoin is already stepping up to the plate as a circumvention for sanctions.
redorb 5y ago
How was ransomware's ransom paid before crypto?
- ben_w 5y ago
  Judging by the Wikipedia page, pre-pay e-cash cards. But as police and criminals are in a constant arms race of what does and doesn’t work, that’s a bit like asking “how did we win wars before atomic bombs?” in a discussion about a country proposing to ban nuclear bombs.
pelorat 5y ago
Look, one problem with crypto is that there exists anonymous super-whale actors that are using it to siphon money off of smaller average-joe investors. No doubt some of these actors have nation-state backing (China, Russia, Iran...) The other problem is that for every idealist crypto supporter, there's exists another thousand crypto investors who have only one intention; to convert their investment back to fiat at a profit. The latter (the 99.9% super-majority) ensures that crypto, no matter its supposedly idealist origins, are intricately linked to fiat (virtual fiat at that). In fact crypto has gone from being a form of anti-banker for-the-people idealist payment options to being a form of virtual faith-based shares whose value is literally linked to nothing.
mumblemumble 5y ago
It at least lets one retain the moral high ground. By contrast, in El Salvador it's going to become illegal to not use Bitcoin. I see some outright hypocrisy in that move being cheered by more libertarian-minded folks. If Bitcoin's supposed to be about not being forced to do things by government, then wouldn't governments forcing people to use Bitcoin be just about the worst possible thing that can happen to it? This would be like if Frodo decided to start wearing the ring and using it to try and take over the world, kind of thing.

ben_w 5y ago

While I agree with the sarcastically made point that the whims of the powerful are not by themselves good enough reason to outlaw things, one of the more frustrating arguments made in favour of Bitcoin is that it can free us from government control. I say that claim is not true, and recon bitcoin is all hat and no cattle in this regard. I also reckon that when the government is sufficiently democratic (i.e. not just the whims of the powerful), undermining it is a bad thing, which is the only reason I don’t want to say “time for Bitcoin to prove us wrong”.

throwaaskjdfh 5y ago

No, being prosecuted at the whim of the powerful is horrible, but Bitcoin claims to be a kind of technological "escape hatch" from this kind of abuse. The sooner we find out that it isn't an escape hatch, the better. We can then return to social and political hard work of curbing the powerful, instead of pretending we can just take our cryptocurrencies and escape.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gordian-mind 5y ago
How about you keep pretending to "curb the powerful" and stop arguing in bad faith against cryptocurrencies?
nathias 5y ago
I know you are arguing in bad faith, but immutability of monetary policy, ability to transact online outside of influence of MasterCard and Visa is something completely other than being resistant to its users being persecuted.
Taek 5y ago
That's a foregone conclusion isn't it? With the recent news from El Salvador, Bitcoin is already stepping up to the plate as a circumvention for sanctions.

redorb 5y ago

How was ransomware's ransom paid before crypto?

ben_w 5y ago
Judging by the Wikipedia page, pre-pay e-cash cards. But as police and criminals are in a constant arms race of what does and doesn’t work, that’s a bit like asking “how did we win wars before atomic bombs?” in a discussion about a country proposing to ban nuclear bombs.

pelorat 5y ago

Look, one problem with crypto is that there exists anonymous super-whale actors that are using it to siphon money off of smaller average-joe investors. No doubt some of these actors have nation-state backing (China, Russia, Iran...) The other problem is that for every idealist crypto supporter, there's exists another thousand crypto investors who have only one intention; to convert their investment back to fiat at a profit. The latter (the 99.9% super-majority) ensures that crypto, no matter its supposedly idealist origins, are intricately linked to fiat (virtual fiat at that). In fact crypto has gone from being a form of anti-banker for-the-people idealist payment options to being a form of virtual faith-based shares whose value is literally linked to nothing.

mumblemumble 5y ago

It at least lets one retain the moral high ground. By contrast, in El Salvador it's going to become illegal to not use Bitcoin. I see some outright hypocrisy in that move being cheered by more libertarian-minded folks. If Bitcoin's supposed to be about not being forced to do things by government, then wouldn't governments forcing people to use Bitcoin be just about the worst possible thing that can happen to it? This would be like if Frodo decided to start wearing the ring and using it to try and take over the world, kind of thing.