4 ms·

What solution already existed for transferring money across distance without a trusted 3rd party? If we go down this line of arguing we will end up with one or

What solution already existed for transferring money across distance without a trusted 3rd party? If we go down this line of arguing we will end up with one or more of - It's actually a good thing for a central bank to control the money supply - We should be able to censor/reverse certain transactions - Ordinary people don't actually care about those things proving my point that if you don't value decentralization then you will think that existing solutions that don't have it are better.

dmitriid 5y ago
> What solution already existed for transferring money across distance without a trusted 3rd party? This is a solution in search of a problem. > If we go down this line of arguing we will end up with one or more of Yes. Yes we do. And for a good reason. And no, not just those, though I see why you would only chose those. And yes, "ordinary people" do care about these things when it comes to reverting transactions, enforcing contracts, guaranteeing safety of funds etc. etc. > proving my point that if you don't value decentralization When you select your own questions that you assign to your opponent, it's so easy to win an argument, doesn't it? For example, you and sanderjd completely skipped the three bullet points I provided as criticism. And it's no wonder you did. Because all you, and other crypto-peddlers, can talk about is "BIG BAD GOVERNMENT CONTROLS AND CENSORS THE MONEY", and have literally nothing to offer in terms of actual concrete arguments for the "solutions" you peddle. Blockchains in their current form are 13 years this year. And these are still the only talking points you have. I will not engage in this thread anymore, so don't bother to reply.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  > And these are still the only talking points you have. Dude, I'm not even trying to argue in favor of crypto in this thread. My point was critics will never be satisfied by proponents' arguments because they don't value the one thing blockchains do, which is arrest control from central parties. And here you are, saying it's a solution in search of a problem (i.e. it adds no value) and making arguments like > reverting transactions, enforcing contracts, guaranteeing safety of funds etc. etc. which is exactly what I said you would come back with. Because when you don't value decentralization, the lack of centralized control looks like nothing but downsides. Thank you for proving my point. > don't bother to reply. It's no bother :^)

dmitriid 5y ago

> What solution already existed for transferring money across distance without a trusted 3rd party? This is a solution in search of a problem. > If we go down this line of arguing we will end up with one or more of Yes. Yes we do. And for a good reason. And no, not just those, though I see why you would only chose those. And yes, "ordinary people" do care about these things when it comes to reverting transactions, enforcing contracts, guaranteeing safety of funds etc. etc. > proving my point that if you don't value decentralization When you select your own questions that you assign to your opponent, it's so easy to win an argument, doesn't it? For example, you and sanderjd completely skipped the three bullet points I provided as criticism. And it's no wonder you did. Because all you, and other crypto-peddlers, can talk about is "BIG BAD GOVERNMENT CONTROLS AND CENSORS THE MONEY", and have literally nothing to offer in terms of actual concrete arguments for the "solutions" you peddle. Blockchains in their current form are 13 years this year. And these are still the only talking points you have. I will not engage in this thread anymore, so don't bother to reply.

jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
> And these are still the only talking points you have. Dude, I'm not even trying to argue in favor of crypto in this thread. My point was critics will never be satisfied by proponents' arguments because they don't value the one thing blockchains do, which is arrest control from central parties. And here you are, saying it's a solution in search of a problem (i.e. it adds no value) and making arguments like > reverting transactions, enforcing contracts, guaranteeing safety of funds etc. etc. which is exactly what I said you would come back with. Because when you don't value decentralization, the lack of centralized control looks like nothing but downsides. Thank you for proving my point. > don't bother to reply. It's no bother :^)