4 ms·

This entire post seems to avoid or lack the understanding of the basic reasons blockchain were created; that is, to offer a decentralized, permissionless, censo

This entire post seems to avoid or lack the understanding of the basic reasons blockchain were created; that is, to offer a decentralized, permissionless, censorship-resistant network. This was Satoshi's vision, and those values are a blockchain's express priority over scale and efficiency. Centralization is great for speed and efficiency, not so great for protection against authoritarian actors (governments or central banks).

flenserboy 5y ago
What's most hated about Satoshi's vision is how it prevents, and at the same time, theft through intentional inflation and easily picking/rewarding winners. The lifeblood of contemporary governments is cheating, and thus it makes sense that they will have strong immune responses against anything getting between them and their nutrients.
jrd259 5y ago
We have one already: cash. As for protection against authoritarian actors. If your state has already gone full panopticon, crypto won't save you, indeed the state will mandate exclusive use of their chosen crypto, gaining even more visibility into your life. If your state has not yet done so, you should fight to preserve liberty and the rule of law. If your country turns into a full-out surveillance state, you are not going to overthrow it by buying things with Bitcoin. I would like to see some data on what actually valuable applications or businesses have been enabled (or simply improved) by crypto currency. I regret that the only business I know to be benefiting from bitcoin is ransomware.
- badkitty99 5y ago
  Cash printer go burrrr
- coralreef 5y ago
  > We have one already: cash. Cash is awful if you live in Turkey, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, etc. The USD has lost 90% of its purchasing power since the 1950's, meaning cash is toxic over longer time horizons. You cannot have a society where everyone seeks to get rid of the reserve asset over time. > If your country turns into a full-out surveillance state, you are not going to overthrow it by buying things with Bitcoin. You're going to have much better chances anonymizing yourself, compared to say a bank account. > I would like to see some data on what actually valuable applications or businesses have been enabled (or simply improved) by crypto currency. Bitcoin is a savings account in a world where Bank of America's Savings account yields you 0.01% APY, or up to 0.04% if you have more money. We are increasingly forced to take on more risk simply to maintain the purchasing power of our wealth.
  - bildung 5y ago
    > The USD has lost 90% of its purchasing power since the 1950's That's a meaningless number without context: The median income gain was 2000% (i.e. double the purchasing power loss) during the same period (median yearly family income was $3300 in 1950 https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-009.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-00...)
    - coralreef 5y ago
      Yes, money creation pushed wages up as it did costs. And gains from technology resulted in real wealth increases for society in general. However, holding the asset itself resulted in loss of buying power over time. There is a distinction between cash the asset (the thing you hold and trade with), and income. Holding shares in a corporation over 50 years may be a good idea (depending on the company). Holding land/house over 50 years may be a good idea (depending on the location). Holding fiat cash over 50 years is never a good idea. And the problem is someone in society has to hold it; we can't all own stocks and houses.
      - sseagull 5y ago
        The flip side is deflation, though. Which isn’t exactly pretty. If the value of my fiat money is increasing, then I will hold on to it, which is good for me. If everyone does that, then the economy grinds to a halt. The stock/bond market is, although not always efficient, at least somewhat enabling of economic activity, whereas just holding your currency (including bitcoin) is not.
        coralreef 5y ago
        Right, it doesn't necessarily grind the economy to a halt; it simply forces investments to be worthwhile, because now they have to generate enough return to satisfy a higher interest rate. If money is not cheap, speculation is less rampant, but also risk taking is more expensive; this is a forcing mechanism for efficiency. The interest rate (cost of money) simply returns to a supply/demand market equilibrium. The economy possibly smoothens out, rather than giving us artificial boom and bust cycles thanks to inefficient central bank policies.
- tanseydavid 5y ago
  No one in the thread has mentioned "overthrowing a state" except for you.
zwiek 5y ago
But what is it actually used for? Okay, you can donate to WikiLeaks ... But probably 99.999% of people who have possessed cryptocurrency are just speculators: buy low, sell high. And ironically, the exchanges are centralized entities :p
- coralreef 5y ago
  Bitcoin in particular is used as a store of value, or a form of "digital gold". Everything is speculation (you hope it goes up in the future, but no one knows for sure), but large corporations are increasingly keeping a balance in Bitcoin, as are wealthy individuals and fund managers. To understand its place in the world, you need to be a bit more familiar with government bond yield and risks, money creation/monetary policy, the macroeconomics of perpetually rising debt and negative interest rates. Gold has a $11 trillion market cap, and its not because of industrial use or because it sells well as jewelry.
  - sweetbitter 5y ago
    You got brainwashed into believing this by Reddit. Back in 2017 when Bitcoin was utterly crippled in usability and scalability, the centralized forums upon which information was flowing were seized by bad actors and used to manufacture this narrative. Bitcoin was intended to be peer to peer money, not digital gold.
    - coralreef 5y ago
      Peer to peer money (low transaction cost, high scalability) is not immediately possible without tradeoffs to decentralization. You can increase block sizes to a degree, but that threatens decentralization by making it difficult/expensive for nodes to sync and store the chain. We have an experiment called Bitcoin Cash and endless other forks promising low fees, but adoption has not followed.
wizardofdos 5y ago
>> censorship-resistant As in impossible to influence via regulation. Once you realize that proper regulation is a good thing and a must in a functioning society, you realize something that can not be regulated can't be allowed to exist as it will undermine said society.
- coralreef 5y ago
  I've yet to see the demise of the movie industry thanks to BitTorrent.
- throwaway21332 5y ago
  Using the word "regulation" does not give you a moral pass for taking other people's money. Nobody forces you to use Bitcoin. Just keep using fiat if it's such a good thing for you.

flenserboy 5y ago

What's most hated about Satoshi's vision is how it prevents, and at the same time, theft through intentional inflation and easily picking/rewarding winners. The lifeblood of contemporary governments is cheating, and thus it makes sense that they will have strong immune responses against anything getting between them and their nutrients.

jrd259 5y ago

We have one already: cash. As for protection against authoritarian actors. If your state has already gone full panopticon, crypto won't save you, indeed the state will mandate exclusive use of their chosen crypto, gaining even more visibility into your life. If your state has not yet done so, you should fight to preserve liberty and the rule of law. If your country turns into a full-out surveillance state, you are not going to overthrow it by buying things with Bitcoin. I would like to see some data on what actually valuable applications or businesses have been enabled (or simply improved) by crypto currency. I regret that the only business I know to be benefiting from bitcoin is ransomware.

badkitty99 5y ago
Cash printer go burrrr
coralreef 5y ago
> We have one already: cash. Cash is awful if you live in Turkey, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, etc. The USD has lost 90% of its purchasing power since the 1950's, meaning cash is toxic over longer time horizons. You cannot have a society where everyone seeks to get rid of the reserve asset over time. > If your country turns into a full-out surveillance state, you are not going to overthrow it by buying things with Bitcoin. You're going to have much better chances anonymizing yourself, compared to say a bank account. > I would like to see some data on what actually valuable applications or businesses have been enabled (or simply improved) by crypto currency. Bitcoin is a savings account in a world where Bank of America's Savings account yields you 0.01% APY, or up to 0.04% if you have more money. We are increasingly forced to take on more risk simply to maintain the purchasing power of our wealth.
- bildung 5y ago
  > The USD has lost 90% of its purchasing power since the 1950's That's a meaningless number without context: The median income gain was 2000% (i.e. double the purchasing power loss) during the same period (median yearly family income was $3300 in 1950 https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-009.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-00...)
  - coralreef 5y ago
    Yes, money creation pushed wages up as it did costs. And gains from technology resulted in real wealth increases for society in general. However, holding the asset itself resulted in loss of buying power over time. There is a distinction between cash the asset (the thing you hold and trade with), and income. Holding shares in a corporation over 50 years may be a good idea (depending on the company). Holding land/house over 50 years may be a good idea (depending on the location). Holding fiat cash over 50 years is never a good idea. And the problem is someone in society has to hold it; we can't all own stocks and houses.
    - sseagull 5y ago
      The flip side is deflation, though. Which isn’t exactly pretty. If the value of my fiat money is increasing, then I will hold on to it, which is good for me. If everyone does that, then the economy grinds to a halt. The stock/bond market is, although not always efficient, at least somewhat enabling of economic activity, whereas just holding your currency (including bitcoin) is not.
      - coralreef 5y ago
        Right, it doesn't necessarily grind the economy to a halt; it simply forces investments to be worthwhile, because now they have to generate enough return to satisfy a higher interest rate. If money is not cheap, speculation is less rampant, but also risk taking is more expensive; this is a forcing mechanism for efficiency. The interest rate (cost of money) simply returns to a supply/demand market equilibrium. The economy possibly smoothens out, rather than giving us artificial boom and bust cycles thanks to inefficient central bank policies.
tanseydavid 5y ago
No one in the thread has mentioned "overthrowing a state" except for you.

zwiek 5y ago

But what is it actually used for? Okay, you can donate to WikiLeaks ... But probably 99.999% of people who have possessed cryptocurrency are just speculators: buy low, sell high. And ironically, the exchanges are centralized entities :p

coralreef 5y ago
Bitcoin in particular is used as a store of value, or a form of "digital gold". Everything is speculation (you hope it goes up in the future, but no one knows for sure), but large corporations are increasingly keeping a balance in Bitcoin, as are wealthy individuals and fund managers. To understand its place in the world, you need to be a bit more familiar with government bond yield and risks, money creation/monetary policy, the macroeconomics of perpetually rising debt and negative interest rates. Gold has a $11 trillion market cap, and its not because of industrial use or because it sells well as jewelry.
- sweetbitter 5y ago
  You got brainwashed into believing this by Reddit. Back in 2017 when Bitcoin was utterly crippled in usability and scalability, the centralized forums upon which information was flowing were seized by bad actors and used to manufacture this narrative. Bitcoin was intended to be peer to peer money, not digital gold.
  - coralreef 5y ago
    Peer to peer money (low transaction cost, high scalability) is not immediately possible without tradeoffs to decentralization. You can increase block sizes to a degree, but that threatens decentralization by making it difficult/expensive for nodes to sync and store the chain. We have an experiment called Bitcoin Cash and endless other forks promising low fees, but adoption has not followed.

wizardofdos 5y ago

>> censorship-resistant As in impossible to influence via regulation. Once you realize that proper regulation is a good thing and a must in a functioning society, you realize something that can not be regulated can't be allowed to exist as it will undermine said society.

coralreef 5y ago
I've yet to see the demise of the movie industry thanks to BitTorrent.
throwaway21332 5y ago
Using the word "regulation" does not give you a moral pass for taking other people's money. Nobody forces you to use Bitcoin. Just keep using fiat if it's such a good thing for you.