5 ms·

> So IMHO crypto currencies are an aspect of hyper capitalism pretending to be something else. Yes, exactly! The "problem" cryptocurrency solves is people with

> So IMHO crypto currencies are an aspect of hyper capitalism pretending to be something else. Yes, exactly! The "problem" cryptocurrency solves is people with wealth having too many restrictions on that wealth. I think blockchain technology is super interesting, and insofar as cryptocurrencies are an implementation of that technology they're interesting, but I'm very much not in agreement that they're solving any real problem that needs solving, and in fact the concept of cryptocurrency as money actually exacerbates an already bad situation. If one is worried about a small number of economic elite having undue influence over society, crypto is part of the problem, not the solution.

landemva 5y ago
A couple real problems solved: . censorship resistance . government theft/seizure There are more, though these two have helped me.
- dathinab 5y ago
  The problem is that the same tools which helps with "censorship resistance" also prevent certain forms of well intended "moderation"* similar "government seizure" isn't necessary theft at all as it might e.g. "seizure" of stolen money (e.g. through hacking) or "seizure" of money earned through serve crimes (murder, human traffican, etc.). *like e.g. removing videos of a rape used to blackmail a innocent person. I don't believe that you can magically/blindely solve problems of society with technical solutions.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Tools are amoral. A 90 pound woman using a tool built of metal to defend herself from home incursion and possible rape implies no morals to the metal tool. Tools can be a defensive equalizer, and should be readily available.
    - dathinab 5y ago
      > Tools are amoral. That's a red hering argument. (In my opinion.) Tools are designed for a use case. Tools are also widely used for some (potentially different) use case. As such tools are often not amoral at all. A assault riffle is designed to kill people and potentially many of them (self defense per gun doesn't require killing). As such it's not a amoral tool. Even through you might end up using it in a "good" way, or as "hobby" it's design makes it fundamentally a "weapon for killing, not self defense". Through this is kinda getting off-topic. Because whatever moral you want to attach to tools is irrelevant for aboves discussion. Crypto currencies are a tool for unchecked Kaptialism, which has nothing to do with moral nor does it mean others can't use it for other purposes.
      - landemva 5y ago
        When did private money / store of value become 'unchecked Kapitalism'? Is gold also unchecked Kapitalism? Seems we both can agree USA-funded murderer Lon Horiuchi did an evil thing when he pulled the trigger and killed an unarmed mother using an assault rifle. https://lmtribune.com/northwest/fbi-sniper-is-at-the-center-of-storm-thats-still-lingering-over-ruby-ridge-those/article_efccccf2-82af-50c2-a95c-20ab91f94dcb.html https://lmtribune.com/northwest/fbi-sniper-is-at-the-center-... 'which Horiuchi said was aimed at Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, instead killed Weaver's wife Vicki. It then hit Harris, lodging in his chest.'
        dathinab 5y ago
        when it wasn't designed as a tool to "just" store value but to circumvent any "checks" on value transfer/ownership etc. I mean that's the whole point of crypto currencies. Both for good and bad.
    - frollo 5y ago
      Tools have use cases and use cases are not amoral. You can argue that in some cases otherwise immoral actions can be justified (such as your example), but this doesn't justify said actions moral outside that case. Assuming that a tool is amoral just because it, theoreatically, could be used to act in a morally justified way is just cherry-picking situations in order to have them fit your worldview.
- anyonecancode 5y ago
  If controlling money means controlling speech, and so keeping money free from regulation is a strike against censorship, then I'd suggest the problem isn't over-regulation of money, but rather that somehow money == speech. Cryptocurrency seems to make that worse, focusing on protecting the freedom of wealth but doing nothing to break the unhealthy premising of freedom on wealth.
  - throwaway248329 5y ago
    You can't have freedom of speech without freedom of wealth. The more Money is controlled by the government, the more it will be able to censor opposition and incentivize loyalism.
    - dathinab 5y ago
      But you can't have freedom of speech with unchecked capitalism either as extreme wealth individuals/companies then can easily manipulate/undermine it. This is especially true for countries without a constitutional right for free speech or such which made the mistake to only protect free speech from the government but not extremely powerful non-government entities. Furthermore putting checks on capitalism doesn't mean the government is not directly controlling the money (I mean it's not the same as e.g. communist style planed economy). To make thinks worse as long as a government still has any power they still can undermine freedom of speech even in mostly unchecked capitalism as they can subtle motivate the extremely money-rich entities such a system will produce to use there money to undermine free speech. Now some would bring here the argument that the markets self regulation will fix that, but I think it should be obvious this doesn't really work for many various reasons (like e.g. DRM, or just the simple fact that everything is extremely complex where it's close to impossible for a consumer to e.g. reliable not buy a direct or indirect nestle owned, to just name some examples.).

landemva 5y ago

A couple real problems solved: . censorship resistance . government theft/seizure There are more, though these two have helped me.

dathinab 5y ago
The problem is that the same tools which helps with "censorship resistance" also prevent certain forms of well intended "moderation"* similar "government seizure" isn't necessary theft at all as it might e.g. "seizure" of stolen money (e.g. through hacking) or "seizure" of money earned through serve crimes (murder, human traffican, etc.). *like e.g. removing videos of a rape used to blackmail a innocent person. I don't believe that you can magically/blindely solve problems of society with technical solutions.
- landemva 5y ago
  Tools are amoral. A 90 pound woman using a tool built of metal to defend herself from home incursion and possible rape implies no morals to the metal tool. Tools can be a defensive equalizer, and should be readily available.
  - dathinab 5y ago
    > Tools are amoral. That's a red hering argument. (In my opinion.) Tools are designed for a use case. Tools are also widely used for some (potentially different) use case. As such tools are often not amoral at all. A assault riffle is designed to kill people and potentially many of them (self defense per gun doesn't require killing). As such it's not a amoral tool. Even through you might end up using it in a "good" way, or as "hobby" it's design makes it fundamentally a "weapon for killing, not self defense". Through this is kinda getting off-topic. Because whatever moral you want to attach to tools is irrelevant for aboves discussion. Crypto currencies are a tool for unchecked Kaptialism, which has nothing to do with moral nor does it mean others can't use it for other purposes.
    - landemva 5y ago
      When did private money / store of value become 'unchecked Kapitalism'? Is gold also unchecked Kapitalism? Seems we both can agree USA-funded murderer Lon Horiuchi did an evil thing when he pulled the trigger and killed an unarmed mother using an assault rifle. https://lmtribune.com/northwest/fbi-sniper-is-at-the-center-of-storm-thats-still-lingering-over-ruby-ridge-those/article_efccccf2-82af-50c2-a95c-20ab91f94dcb.html https://lmtribune.com/northwest/fbi-sniper-is-at-the-center-... 'which Horiuchi said was aimed at Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, instead killed Weaver's wife Vicki. It then hit Harris, lodging in his chest.'
      - dathinab 5y ago
        when it wasn't designed as a tool to "just" store value but to circumvent any "checks" on value transfer/ownership etc. I mean that's the whole point of crypto currencies. Both for good and bad.
  - frollo 5y ago
    Tools have use cases and use cases are not amoral. You can argue that in some cases otherwise immoral actions can be justified (such as your example), but this doesn't justify said actions moral outside that case. Assuming that a tool is amoral just because it, theoreatically, could be used to act in a morally justified way is just cherry-picking situations in order to have them fit your worldview.
anyonecancode 5y ago
If controlling money means controlling speech, and so keeping money free from regulation is a strike against censorship, then I'd suggest the problem isn't over-regulation of money, but rather that somehow money == speech. Cryptocurrency seems to make that worse, focusing on protecting the freedom of wealth but doing nothing to break the unhealthy premising of freedom on wealth.
- throwaway248329 5y ago
  You can't have freedom of speech without freedom of wealth. The more Money is controlled by the government, the more it will be able to censor opposition and incentivize loyalism.
  - dathinab 5y ago
    But you can't have freedom of speech with unchecked capitalism either as extreme wealth individuals/companies then can easily manipulate/undermine it. This is especially true for countries without a constitutional right for free speech or such which made the mistake to only protect free speech from the government but not extremely powerful non-government entities. Furthermore putting checks on capitalism doesn't mean the government is not directly controlling the money (I mean it's not the same as e.g. communist style planed economy). To make thinks worse as long as a government still has any power they still can undermine freedom of speech even in mostly unchecked capitalism as they can subtle motivate the extremely money-rich entities such a system will produce to use there money to undermine free speech. Now some would bring here the argument that the markets self regulation will fix that, but I think it should be obvious this doesn't really work for many various reasons (like e.g. DRM, or just the simple fact that everything is extremely complex where it's close to impossible for a consumer to e.g. reliable not buy a direct or indirect nestle owned, to just name some examples.).