5 ms·

Yes, and I agree. I'm not saying they should take that right away from Visa. But if a customer wants to do business online with someone Visa doesn't approve of

by swebs 5y ago

Yes, and I agree. I'm not saying they should take that right away from Visa. But if a customer wants to do business online with someone Visa doesn't approve of, they have very few options. And currently Bitcoin is the best option. And if the government does not want Bitcoin to prosper, they should come out with a better alternative in the form of a public (government run) payment system so we have the digital equivalent of the dollar. Because unlike private entities, the government is bound to the first amendment. Unlike Visa, the government does not have the right to pick and chose who they do business with.

camgunz 5y ago
> But if a customer wants to do business online with someone Visa doesn't approve of, they have very few options. And currently Bitcoin is the best option. I get what you're saying here but, the odds of someone taking actual BTC as payment are pretty low right now. It's way, way more likely I can just use another credit card company, a debit card, Venmo/Cash App/PayPal, etc. I think this argument, while common amongst BTC folks, is pretty hypothetical. > And if the government does not want Bitcoin to prosper, they should come out with a better alternative in the form of a public (government run) payment system so we have the digital equivalent of the dollar. The problem with this is that we'd lose lots of the tools we have to fight organized crime. These are people who run the drug trade, the weapons trade, and the modern slavery trade. It would probably also destroy our political system because of the ensuing corruption. I don't know exactly which side of the debate I fall on on this one (it's mostly the same as the encryption debate, although I think money isn't speech, but it also does seem like it sometimes, etc.), but I do know the consequences are pretty severe if we create a right to privacy for financial transactions. > Unlike Visa, the government does not have the right to pick and chose who they do business with. Believe it or not, I didn't exactly want to get into a BTC discussion here, I was trying to focus on your claims about 1A. I think this is another false claim; the government chooses who they do business with all the time--there's a contract bidding process, there's affirmative action, etc. etc. The government simply can't tell us whom we can do business with (as long as they're also Americans).
- swebs 5y ago
  >the odds of someone taking actual BTC as payment are pretty low right now. It's way, way more likely I can just use another credit card company, a debit card, Venmo/Cash App/PayPal, etc. I think this argument, while common amongst BTC folks, is pretty hypothetical. It's the only way you can buy a 4chan pass for example https://www.4channel.org/pass https://www.4channel.org/pass >The problem with this is that we'd lose lots of the tools we have to fight organized crime Well right now we have bitcoin where there is high anonymity and the government has no power over. In a government payment system they would have the power to freeze accounts and track transactions. I don't see how that's a worse system in regards to fighting crime. >I was trying to focus on your claims about 1A You completely misunderstood my original claim and went on a tangent bringing up common talking points. As if it were a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the words "corporate censorship" and "first amendment" in the same paragraph. I'm still not sure that you understand.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    > It's [crypto] the only way you can buy a 4chan pass for example Sure, I said "It's way, way more likely I can just use another credit card company, a debit card, Venmo/Cash App/PayPal". There are zillions of products, you named one for which there's very little demand, it looks like we agree. > Well right now we have bitcoin where there is high anonymity and the government has no power over. At least the US government regulates BTC. Lots of people have been arrested for violating finance laws re: BTC. The US could easily outlaw BTC or mandate further regulation. BTC is also not at all anonymous, the only thing that makes it "anonymous" is a tumbler. > In a government payment system they would have the power to freeze accounts and track transactions. I don't see how that's a worse system in regards to fighting crime. > You completely misunderstood my original claim... Yeah, sorry again I wanted to dispute your 1A claims. Insofar as your idea of nationalizing a payment infrastructure and using a blockchain, I guess that's fine. I broadly think most things don't make sense as markets, and in democratic societies people should nationalize almost everything. However, I don't think blockchain should be involved because it's generally junk tech. It's like, yet again a normal database would be just fine.

by swebs 5y ago

camgunz 5y ago

> But if a customer wants to do business online with someone Visa doesn't approve of, they have very few options. And currently Bitcoin is the best option. I get what you're saying here but, the odds of someone taking actual BTC as payment are pretty low right now. It's way, way more likely I can just use another credit card company, a debit card, Venmo/Cash App/PayPal, etc. I think this argument, while common amongst BTC folks, is pretty hypothetical. > And if the government does not want Bitcoin to prosper, they should come out with a better alternative in the form of a public (government run) payment system so we have the digital equivalent of the dollar. The problem with this is that we'd lose lots of the tools we have to fight organized crime. These are people who run the drug trade, the weapons trade, and the modern slavery trade. It would probably also destroy our political system because of the ensuing corruption. I don't know exactly which side of the debate I fall on on this one (it's mostly the same as the encryption debate, although I think money isn't speech, but it also does seem like it sometimes, etc.), but I do know the consequences are pretty severe if we create a right to privacy for financial transactions. > Unlike Visa, the government does not have the right to pick and chose who they do business with. Believe it or not, I didn't exactly want to get into a BTC discussion here, I was trying to focus on your claims about 1A. I think this is another false claim; the government chooses who they do business with all the time--there's a contract bidding process, there's affirmative action, etc. etc. The government simply can't tell us whom we can do business with (as long as they're also Americans).

swebs 5y ago
>the odds of someone taking actual BTC as payment are pretty low right now. It's way, way more likely I can just use another credit card company, a debit card, Venmo/Cash App/PayPal, etc. I think this argument, while common amongst BTC folks, is pretty hypothetical. It's the only way you can buy a 4chan pass for example https://www.4channel.org/pass https://www.4channel.org/pass >The problem with this is that we'd lose lots of the tools we have to fight organized crime Well right now we have bitcoin where there is high anonymity and the government has no power over. In a government payment system they would have the power to freeze accounts and track transactions. I don't see how that's a worse system in regards to fighting crime. >I was trying to focus on your claims about 1A You completely misunderstood my original claim and went on a tangent bringing up common talking points. As if it were a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the words "corporate censorship" and "first amendment" in the same paragraph. I'm still not sure that you understand.
- camgunz 5y ago
  > It's [crypto] the only way you can buy a 4chan pass for example Sure, I said "It's way, way more likely I can just use another credit card company, a debit card, Venmo/Cash App/PayPal". There are zillions of products, you named one for which there's very little demand, it looks like we agree. > Well right now we have bitcoin where there is high anonymity and the government has no power over. At least the US government regulates BTC. Lots of people have been arrested for violating finance laws re: BTC. The US could easily outlaw BTC or mandate further regulation. BTC is also not at all anonymous, the only thing that makes it "anonymous" is a tumbler. > In a government payment system they would have the power to freeze accounts and track transactions. I don't see how that's a worse system in regards to fighting crime. > You completely misunderstood my original claim... Yeah, sorry again I wanted to dispute your 1A claims. Insofar as your idea of nationalizing a payment infrastructure and using a blockchain, I guess that's fine. I broadly think most things don't make sense as markets, and in democratic societies people should nationalize almost everything. However, I don't think blockchain should be involved because it's generally junk tech. It's like, yet again a normal database would be just fine.