5 ms·

when you understand that a centralized authority decides what is okay and what is not okay and after that bans transactions that pay for the "not okay" items yo

when you understand that a centralized authority decides what is okay and what is not okay and after that bans transactions that pay for the "not okay" items you will understand why a centralized authority is evil. The magic keywords are "Prohibited Products and Services" Plug that into google + your favorite payment gateway. Here are some samples: https://www.nextpay.com/list-prohibited-industries.html https://www.nextpay.com/list-prohibited-industries.html https://stripe.com/restricted-businesses https://stripe.com/restricted-businesses https://support.wix.com/en/article/wix-payments-prohibited-products-and-services https://support.wix.com/en/article/wix-payments-prohibited-p... http://support.worldpay.com/support/kb/gg/billdesk/content/prohibitedmerchantcategories.htm http://support.worldpay.com/support/kb/gg/billdesk/content/p...

grey-area 5y ago
The problem with this argument is that governments still have jurisdiction over your decentralised blockchain, the developers, the miners, and anyone else involved in it. If you sincerely and seriously want to dismantle that power structure, that's fine, but please start in the right place, with government. It's naive and ultimately fruitless to throw out all the good things that centralised payments bring (fast transactions, fraud control, etc etc) in the hope that you'll be able to get rid of a thing they don't actually have ultimate jurisdiction over (what is ok and not ok to buy).
- rantwasp 5y ago
  yes, but no. how would enforcing such jurisdiction even look like? you cannot take something off the blockchain. Can you shutdown miners? sure. So what? The mining will happens somewhere else. Can you really prohibit developers from working on the tech? If it comes down to this we're in full anarchy mode (and even at that point there are going to be people working on it). Who said anything about throwing away all the good things centralized payments bring? How about we take a decentralized payments system and actually add those things (or even better, build a system that has them out of the box)
  - Retric 5y ago
    Nations can do much worse than just shutting down miners. Repeated 51% attacks would actually destroy a coins viability. "He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing." - Paul Atreides/Frank Herbert
    - rantwasp 5y ago
      you're making a lot of assumptions here. what coin? different coins work in different ways. Also, "51%" attacks have been known to be executed against "proper currencies, with backing of a central bank" https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-ban...
  - mtalantikite 5y ago
    > Can you really prohibit developers from working on the tech? If it comes down to this we're in full anarchy mode I understand what you mean but that's not what anarchy the word means. It's actually the opposite and more in line with what most crypto people seem to be advocating for, the absence of government.
- thekyle 5y ago
  If you look at those lists, most of the items are not illegal. They mostly consist of things like gift cards, gambling, pornography, etc.
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    yup. you would expect items that are illegal to be prohibited. you would not expect travel checks to be banned. Travel Checks!!! also, most payment processors ban guns, ammo and porn. that’s straight up un-American!!!
- d0gbread 5y ago
  First, you're assuming everyone is out for the same thing. There are and will be centralized blockchains and services that meet specific needs. That's okay. Second, it is not always a bad thing to have one fewer level of government, which is what centralization brings. A decentralized platform still operating within national regulations is like not having an HOA on your home. Not always a benefit, but usually, and especially over time.
  - chris_wot 5y ago
    I’m sorry, but what is the point if a centralised blockchain? The entire point of a blockchain is that it is decentralised!
    - d0gbread 5y ago
      Centralized and decentralized are far too broad a term to make a sweeping generalization at that level.
  - grey-area 5y ago
    No, I'm not assuming that, I'm taking the arguments above about avoiding statist control of transactions at face value. 1. A centralised blockchain is a database with bad performance. 2. But that's my point - blockchain doesn't sidestep government and regulation as you and many proponents assume. In the short term maybe, while government catches up. In the long term, all your transactions are in public and can be inspected retrospectively, so good luck avoiding taxes or regulations with it if people actually started using it as a currency. It cannot reduce government because it does not replace government, it's aiming at the wrong target and just hand waving away problems of power which are central to control of money.
    - d0gbread 5y ago
      I won't presume to know if there's a real use case for #1 -- I agree that a centralized blockchain likely makes little sense, especially in this moment in time. But I would absolutely not be shocked if there is a use-case for "a database with bad performance" that's governed by one, or a group of, entities. A way to maintain transparency, vote on improvements, etc but only within, say, automotive, or whatever. There are only going to be growing use cases for data, ownership, privacy, and transparency use cases. For #2, I think you're missing the point but apologize if you're not. However, I didn't say, and very few are saying, that blockchain sidesteps government and regulation. What I and many others are saying is that it sidesteps the additional layer of government that is a business entity. If you want to earn yield on BlockFi or Celsius for example, you are beholden to TOS and decisions in ways that are critically different than engaging similar functionality via a dapp. My core point is that both can and likely will co-exist, because one is not inherently better than the other; the pros and cons will hit differently depending on the use case.
mtalantikite 5y ago
For some reason I was reminded of the ending of Dave Chappelle's old bit about Disney World: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG7XikEENZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG7XikEENZ4

grey-area 5y ago

The problem with this argument is that governments still have jurisdiction over your decentralised blockchain, the developers, the miners, and anyone else involved in it. If you sincerely and seriously want to dismantle that power structure, that's fine, but please start in the right place, with government. It's naive and ultimately fruitless to throw out all the good things that centralised payments bring (fast transactions, fraud control, etc etc) in the hope that you'll be able to get rid of a thing they don't actually have ultimate jurisdiction over (what is ok and not ok to buy).

rantwasp 5y ago
yes, but no. how would enforcing such jurisdiction even look like? you cannot take something off the blockchain. Can you shutdown miners? sure. So what? The mining will happens somewhere else. Can you really prohibit developers from working on the tech? If it comes down to this we're in full anarchy mode (and even at that point there are going to be people working on it). Who said anything about throwing away all the good things centralized payments bring? How about we take a decentralized payments system and actually add those things (or even better, build a system that has them out of the box)
- Retric 5y ago
  Nations can do much worse than just shutting down miners. Repeated 51% attacks would actually destroy a coins viability. "He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing." - Paul Atreides/Frank Herbert
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    you're making a lot of assumptions here. what coin? different coins work in different ways. Also, "51%" attacks have been known to be executed against "proper currencies, with backing of a central bank" https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-ban...
- mtalantikite 5y ago
  > Can you really prohibit developers from working on the tech? If it comes down to this we're in full anarchy mode I understand what you mean but that's not what anarchy the word means. It's actually the opposite and more in line with what most crypto people seem to be advocating for, the absence of government.
thekyle 5y ago
If you look at those lists, most of the items are not illegal. They mostly consist of things like gift cards, gambling, pornography, etc.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  yup. you would expect items that are illegal to be prohibited. you would not expect travel checks to be banned. Travel Checks!!! also, most payment processors ban guns, ammo and porn. that’s straight up un-American!!!
d0gbread 5y ago
First, you're assuming everyone is out for the same thing. There are and will be centralized blockchains and services that meet specific needs. That's okay. Second, it is not always a bad thing to have one fewer level of government, which is what centralization brings. A decentralized platform still operating within national regulations is like not having an HOA on your home. Not always a benefit, but usually, and especially over time.
- chris_wot 5y ago
  I’m sorry, but what is the point if a centralised blockchain? The entire point of a blockchain is that it is decentralised!
  - d0gbread 5y ago
    Centralized and decentralized are far too broad a term to make a sweeping generalization at that level.
- grey-area 5y ago
  No, I'm not assuming that, I'm taking the arguments above about avoiding statist control of transactions at face value. 1. A centralised blockchain is a database with bad performance. 2. But that's my point - blockchain doesn't sidestep government and regulation as you and many proponents assume. In the short term maybe, while government catches up. In the long term, all your transactions are in public and can be inspected retrospectively, so good luck avoiding taxes or regulations with it if people actually started using it as a currency. It cannot reduce government because it does not replace government, it's aiming at the wrong target and just hand waving away problems of power which are central to control of money.
  - d0gbread 5y ago
    I won't presume to know if there's a real use case for #1 -- I agree that a centralized blockchain likely makes little sense, especially in this moment in time. But I would absolutely not be shocked if there is a use-case for "a database with bad performance" that's governed by one, or a group of, entities. A way to maintain transparency, vote on improvements, etc but only within, say, automotive, or whatever. There are only going to be growing use cases for data, ownership, privacy, and transparency use cases. For #2, I think you're missing the point but apologize if you're not. However, I didn't say, and very few are saying, that blockchain sidesteps government and regulation. What I and many others are saying is that it sidesteps the additional layer of government that is a business entity. If you want to earn yield on BlockFi or Celsius for example, you are beholden to TOS and decisions in ways that are critically different than engaging similar functionality via a dapp. My core point is that both can and likely will co-exist, because one is not inherently better than the other; the pros and cons will hit differently depending on the use case.

mtalantikite 5y ago

For some reason I was reminded of the ending of Dave Chappelle's old bit about Disney World: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG7XikEENZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG7XikEENZ4