5 ms·

> Fundamentally it's the antithesis to democracy. No one is forced to use crypto. No one is forced to mine it. No one is forced to use it at all. Is this no

> Fundamentally it's the antithesis to democracy. No one is forced to use crypto. No one is forced to mine it. No one is forced to use it at all. Is this not democratic? The users choose whether they want to use it, miners choose whether to mine it, and the "lack of accountability" you suggest, I just don't agree with at all. Crypto removes the need for government fiat. There is no need for a central authority any more over money supply. If you don't like it, fork it, or create a new crypto, and market it. See if it catches on. The democracy of the people will decide whether to use it or not. Some cryptos also have voting / governance rights, so the users can democratically vote on protocols, directly. In comparison, if I want a law to change at the federal level in the US, first of all there has to be a bill created in support of it (which I have almost zero control over), and then I can call my senator and ask that they support that bill. At that point they can choose to listen or not. I assume they will just do whatever is in their interest to stay in power and support their friends in government that supported them before, not to mention the lobbyists. Even my vote for president in the US in the end is decided by the electoral college, not by the popular vote. How is all of that democratic? I understand the energy concerns with crypto, but since you are figuring in a zero carbon footprint, I disagree and think you completely miss the benefits that crypto offers over existing systems. In the end, time will tell and I think there's almost no way that blockchain and crypto won't play a major part in future economies and governance.

mavhc 5y ago
Only reason people jump on cryptocurrencies is their pyramid scheme type nature, get in first or lose out. They're not currencies, they're speculation. People want to spend currencies, why would you ever spend bitcoin when it's designed to always increase in value? Governments are their citizens, they're just people we picked. If you hate the people that are running, there's a built in solution, get someone better to run. That's the fundamental part of democracy, anyone can run for office. Why is a central control over money supply bad? Lets you attempt to control the boom/bust cycle.
- lottin 5y ago
  The idea that a product (e.g. bitcoin) can be designed in such a way as to always increase in price has to be dismissed as crackpottery.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    Everything that has a fixed quantity will always increase in price (assuming the Fed continues inflating the currency 1-5% /yr) Land, collectibles, natural resources, Bitcoin: as long as they are priced in USD and USD is constantly devalued year after year - prices will rise.
    - lottin 5y ago
      A fixed quantity only means that the supply is inelastic, it doesn't —by any stretch of the imagination— mean that the price will always increase. The only thing that is guaranteed to increase in price, assuming a positive rate of inflation, is a large basket of goods and services. Anything else is a gamble.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    a) There's a limited supply of bitcoins b) The amount of bitcoin you get decreases as more are made c) The larger the network the more it costs to make a bitcoin d) Some bitcoin are deleted forever, accidentally. So a) Bitcoins become harder to make, and b) The total possible number of Bitcoins goes down.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  > Only reason people jump on cryptocurrencies is their pyramid scheme type nature, get in first or lose out. Or they see benefits in the technology? > People want to spend currencies, why would you ever spend bitcoin when it's designed to always increase in value? It's possible some of the other cryptos are more suited for currencies. Bitcoin may be more of a store of value like gold, or maybe it's volatility will decrease over time and it would be more suited for a currency. Right now we don't know, but I'm not going to write off the whole sector due to that. > Governments are their citizens, they're just people we picked. If you hate the people that are running, there's a built in solution, get someone better to run. That's the fundamental part of democracy, anyone can run for office. I think the normal citizen is so far removed at this point. At least in the US, it's essentially a two party system, and they are both rather full of shit. I still vote though, because why not? But I don't think the system is working well. > Why is a central control over money supply bad? Lets you attempt to control the boom/bust cycle. I hold USD. I'd like for it to stay valuable. I have a government that seems to value equities more, and wants people to spend their USD. They print and borrow money like there's no tomorrow. I think this is a bad option, and I'd like there to be alternatives.
godelski 5y ago
We should also note that we can build contracts into the network itself. For example algorand built a contract to offset emissions through transaction fees (they are POS so have a lower footprint than POW). But there's no reason we couldn't build taxes into such a system as well. I think a lot of people are missing that cryptocurrency is still a very new concept. Both the bulls and bears. It's going to take some time to work it all out and that's okay, just like with any technology. We're talking about something invented in 2008, that's 12 years. It's unsurprising that there's a lot of kinks to be worked out. It typically takes 20 years for a technology to start to mature. I mean hell, the internet is a lot older and we still have a lot of things to work out. Will crypto be useful in the long run? Who knows. I think it holds some promise but I do think people vault over sell it and people also dismiss it too quickly.
croes 5y ago
You aren't forced to use crypto because fiat exists. If fiat would be replaced by crypto, you would be forced. Crypto is not democratic, it's redundant and it heavily biased towards the one with most resources. It's an oligarchy.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  Anyone can create a crypto now and it could become a predominant one, if it provides enough benefits or has the right marketing. To me that's the difference. It's essentially technology, that iterates, and the market decides.
- fleddr 5y ago
  Heavily biased towards the one with the most resources? You mean like with every asset class?
  - croes 5y ago
    Yep, that's why crypto doesn't change anything.

mavhc 5y ago

Only reason people jump on cryptocurrencies is their pyramid scheme type nature, get in first or lose out. They're not currencies, they're speculation. People want to spend currencies, why would you ever spend bitcoin when it's designed to always increase in value? Governments are their citizens, they're just people we picked. If you hate the people that are running, there's a built in solution, get someone better to run. That's the fundamental part of democracy, anyone can run for office. Why is a central control over money supply bad? Lets you attempt to control the boom/bust cycle.

lottin 5y ago
The idea that a product (e.g. bitcoin) can be designed in such a way as to always increase in price has to be dismissed as crackpottery.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Everything that has a fixed quantity will always increase in price (assuming the Fed continues inflating the currency 1-5% /yr) Land, collectibles, natural resources, Bitcoin: as long as they are priced in USD and USD is constantly devalued year after year - prices will rise.
  - lottin 5y ago
    A fixed quantity only means that the supply is inelastic, it doesn't —by any stretch of the imagination— mean that the price will always increase. The only thing that is guaranteed to increase in price, assuming a positive rate of inflation, is a large basket of goods and services. Anything else is a gamble.
- mavhc 5y ago
  a) There's a limited supply of bitcoins b) The amount of bitcoin you get decreases as more are made c) The larger the network the more it costs to make a bitcoin d) Some bitcoin are deleted forever, accidentally. So a) Bitcoins become harder to make, and b) The total possible number of Bitcoins goes down.
hackingforfun 5y ago
> Only reason people jump on cryptocurrencies is their pyramid scheme type nature, get in first or lose out. Or they see benefits in the technology? > People want to spend currencies, why would you ever spend bitcoin when it's designed to always increase in value? It's possible some of the other cryptos are more suited for currencies. Bitcoin may be more of a store of value like gold, or maybe it's volatility will decrease over time and it would be more suited for a currency. Right now we don't know, but I'm not going to write off the whole sector due to that. > Governments are their citizens, they're just people we picked. If you hate the people that are running, there's a built in solution, get someone better to run. That's the fundamental part of democracy, anyone can run for office. I think the normal citizen is so far removed at this point. At least in the US, it's essentially a two party system, and they are both rather full of shit. I still vote though, because why not? But I don't think the system is working well. > Why is a central control over money supply bad? Lets you attempt to control the boom/bust cycle. I hold USD. I'd like for it to stay valuable. I have a government that seems to value equities more, and wants people to spend their USD. They print and borrow money like there's no tomorrow. I think this is a bad option, and I'd like there to be alternatives.

godelski 5y ago

We should also note that we can build contracts into the network itself. For example algorand built a contract to offset emissions through transaction fees (they are POS so have a lower footprint than POW). But there's no reason we couldn't build taxes into such a system as well. I think a lot of people are missing that cryptocurrency is still a very new concept. Both the bulls and bears. It's going to take some time to work it all out and that's okay, just like with any technology. We're talking about something invented in 2008, that's 12 years. It's unsurprising that there's a lot of kinks to be worked out. It typically takes 20 years for a technology to start to mature. I mean hell, the internet is a lot older and we still have a lot of things to work out. Will crypto be useful in the long run? Who knows. I think it holds some promise but I do think people vault over sell it and people also dismiss it too quickly.

croes 5y ago

You aren't forced to use crypto because fiat exists. If fiat would be replaced by crypto, you would be forced. Crypto is not democratic, it's redundant and it heavily biased towards the one with most resources. It's an oligarchy.

hackingforfun 5y ago
Anyone can create a crypto now and it could become a predominant one, if it provides enough benefits or has the right marketing. To me that's the difference. It's essentially technology, that iterates, and the market decides.
fleddr 5y ago
Heavily biased towards the one with the most resources? You mean like with every asset class?
- croes 5y ago
  Yep, that's why crypto doesn't change anything.