5 ms·

"problem most don't care about" Just as Chinese citizens seem to be mostly happy about the politics in their country. Maybe that is the actual problem, people

"problem most don't care about" Just as Chinese citizens seem to be mostly happy about the politics in their country. Maybe that is the actual problem, people not caring about issues like free speech until it is too late. (Julian Assange is still imprisoned in the UK and almost nobody cares)

cmeacham98 5y ago
Even if I assume you're completely correct and that is a problem, they're still totally correct that cryptocurrencies are solving problems that almost nobody cares about.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  And the problem is centralization, which facilitates censorship and totalitarian control. That nobody cares does not imply that it doesn't matter. I don't want to bash China specifically, it just happens to be the first example that comes to my mind. So for example nobody cares that millions of Uyghurs are being enslaved in China, but that does not imply that it is not important. (Or take the example of Assange I mentioned - nobody cares that the UK locked him away without good cause). Also most people don't really care about economics or how money or the stock market works. They just find themselves suddenly with a devalued currency or out of a job.
  - acdha 5y ago
    > And the problem is centralization, which facilitates censorship and totalitarian control. This is a gross misunderstanding of both the current banking system (which is decentralized) and the degree to which using a slow database doesn’t prevent legal actions. Blockchains are very easy to monitor and censor: ideal for an authoritarian government to get a signed confession for every disapproved transaction you make, and a high-volume always-on network is trivially blocked should they care to.
    - fullstackchris 5y ago
      I think that's a bit disingenuine considering the US government couldn't even put up a healthcare signup website without it crashing. With such a track record, you really think they could just "tap in" or "modify" any given crypto protocol so they could audit every transaction? Give me a break.
      - n8cpdx 5y ago
        I don’t really care about the assertion you’re trying to refute, but that’s the same US government that destroyed Iran’s centrifuges through software. You can’t really look at such a large organization and treat it as uniformly competent/incompetent when it clearly isn’t. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
      - acdha 5y ago
        > I think that's a bit disingenuine considering the US government couldn't even put up a healthcare signup website without it crashing. Speaking of disingenuous, I feel compelled to note that the failure was built by the private sector (CGI Federal) and fixed by the government (Mikey Dickinson’s USDS team), and it’s certainly not like there aren’t plenty of failures in private industry. You can’t honestly say anything about an entire sector based on a single cherry-picked example. For example, should we look at the high level of skill shown by Stuxnet and similar government operations, compare it to Experian, and conclude that the private sector can’t operate computers securely? > With such a track record, you really think they could just "tap in" or "modify" any given crypto protocol so they could audit every transaction? A public transaction ledger means you’re giving them that with no work and there are blockchain analytics companies which already have government contracts even if you believe that civil servants can’t use computers. Similarly, there’s a well documented history of governments monitoring network traffics, collecting forensics data from phones in police custody, installing malware on people’s phones or computers, etc. There’s a zero-percent chance that they would forget to check for cryptocurrency activity along with everything else.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      There are literally "central banks", and if banks don't want to give somebody a bank account, there is nothing these people can do about it. That is the result of centralized control. You can not prevent somebody from having a Bitcoin address. I know that transactions on the Bitcon blockchain are public. There are approaches to fixing it and several altcoins claim to fix it. It certainly isn't the last iteration of the tech forever. And I think you can also do things to anonymize Bitcoin transactions. I haven't really dug into it yet. The real fire test of governments attacking crypto coins has yet to happen, agreed. It won't be easy, but nothing will be easy under authoritarian control.
squabble 5y ago
Many people care about Julian Assange.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Sure, and many care about crypto. Just not enough to sway elections.

cmeacham98 5y ago

Even if I assume you're completely correct and that is a problem, they're still totally correct that cryptocurrencies are solving problems that almost nobody cares about.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
And the problem is centralization, which facilitates censorship and totalitarian control. That nobody cares does not imply that it doesn't matter. I don't want to bash China specifically, it just happens to be the first example that comes to my mind. So for example nobody cares that millions of Uyghurs are being enslaved in China, but that does not imply that it is not important. (Or take the example of Assange I mentioned - nobody cares that the UK locked him away without good cause). Also most people don't really care about economics or how money or the stock market works. They just find themselves suddenly with a devalued currency or out of a job.
- acdha 5y ago
  > And the problem is centralization, which facilitates censorship and totalitarian control. This is a gross misunderstanding of both the current banking system (which is decentralized) and the degree to which using a slow database doesn’t prevent legal actions. Blockchains are very easy to monitor and censor: ideal for an authoritarian government to get a signed confession for every disapproved transaction you make, and a high-volume always-on network is trivially blocked should they care to.
  - fullstackchris 5y ago
    I think that's a bit disingenuine considering the US government couldn't even put up a healthcare signup website without it crashing. With such a track record, you really think they could just "tap in" or "modify" any given crypto protocol so they could audit every transaction? Give me a break.
    - n8cpdx 5y ago
      I don’t really care about the assertion you’re trying to refute, but that’s the same US government that destroyed Iran’s centrifuges through software. You can’t really look at such a large organization and treat it as uniformly competent/incompetent when it clearly isn’t. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
    - acdha 5y ago
      > I think that's a bit disingenuine considering the US government couldn't even put up a healthcare signup website without it crashing. Speaking of disingenuous, I feel compelled to note that the failure was built by the private sector (CGI Federal) and fixed by the government (Mikey Dickinson’s USDS team), and it’s certainly not like there aren’t plenty of failures in private industry. You can’t honestly say anything about an entire sector based on a single cherry-picked example. For example, should we look at the high level of skill shown by Stuxnet and similar government operations, compare it to Experian, and conclude that the private sector can’t operate computers securely? > With such a track record, you really think they could just "tap in" or "modify" any given crypto protocol so they could audit every transaction? A public transaction ledger means you’re giving them that with no work and there are blockchain analytics companies which already have government contracts even if you believe that civil servants can’t use computers. Similarly, there’s a well documented history of governments monitoring network traffics, collecting forensics data from phones in police custody, installing malware on people’s phones or computers, etc. There’s a zero-percent chance that they would forget to check for cryptocurrency activity along with everything else.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    There are literally "central banks", and if banks don't want to give somebody a bank account, there is nothing these people can do about it. That is the result of centralized control. You can not prevent somebody from having a Bitcoin address. I know that transactions on the Bitcon blockchain are public. There are approaches to fixing it and several altcoins claim to fix it. It certainly isn't the last iteration of the tech forever. And I think you can also do things to anonymize Bitcoin transactions. I haven't really dug into it yet. The real fire test of governments attacking crypto coins has yet to happen, agreed. It won't be easy, but nothing will be easy under authoritarian control.

squabble 5y ago

Many people care about Julian Assange.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Sure, and many care about crypto. Just not enough to sway elections.