3 ms·

And that is understandable. But how does one leap from this fact to excusing a non-profit in a country without the underlying problem doing the same?

by gspr 5y ago

int_19h 5y ago
I believe that people don't really have the power to make systemic changes in US, either. The past 10 years or so of federal politics have been ample demonstration of that. But I digress. Mozilla is a US org, but it has worldwide outreach, and the product is certainly used worldwide, so it shouldn't be American-centric in its decision-making in any case. FWIW I don't think the decision adds up to anything either way, to be honest. It's not going to meaningfully affect global warming, and it's not going to meaningfully affect the usefulness (or not) of cryptocoins. It's just a PR stunt - a silly one, but certainly not something worth getting riled up over regardless of one's stance. Just to clear something up: I'm not actually all that bullish on existing cryptocoins myself - Bitcoin clearly has many problems, and it's not just energy wastefulness. What I'm interested in is radical political and economic decentralization in general, from an extreme left libertarian perspective. Decentralized money ought to be a part of that, somehow, and blockchain seems like a workable approach in principle, but it isn't there yet. I hope it will be someday. But in the meantime, something that lets people in, say, Venezuela send or receive money from US - or, for that matter, lets people in US send or receive money from Iran - is a worthwhile tool to have.
- gspr 5y ago
  > I believe that people don't really have the power to make systemic changes in US, either. The past 10 years or so of federal politics have been ample demonstration of that. I'm inclined to agree. > But I digress. Mozilla is a US org, but it has worldwide outreach, and the product is certainly used worldwide, so it shouldn't be American-centric in its decision-making in any case. I agree. But the discussion is about Mozilla embracing cryptocurrencies. The fact that there are parts of the world where cryptocurrencies might be an evil that helps someone locally doesn't mean that Mozilla has to embrace that evil. Mozilla is not operating under the adverse conditions that may rightfully incline someone towards cryptocurrencies. > FWIW I don't think the decision adds up to anything either way, to be honest. It's not going to meaningfully affect global warming, and it's not going to meaningfully affect the usefulness (or not) of cryptocoins. It's just a PR stunt - a silly one, but certainly not something worth getting riled up over regardless of one's stance. I think it's entirely reasonable to be upset that an important organization does PR stunts. > Decentralized money ought to be a part of that, somehow, and blockchain seems like a workable approach in principle, but it isn't there yet. I hope it will be someday. Decentralized flow of money is one thing. A decentralized supply is another. To me, the latter is giving up on society. Because some governments are evil, we throw out the whole concept of a benign government serving the people – i.e. a well-organized society. > But in the meantime, something that lets people in, say, Venezuela send or receive money from US - or, for that matter, lets people in US send or receive money from Iran - is a worthwhile tool to have. Perhaps. But it doesn't excuse Mozilla jumping on it. If someone from Venezuela relies on Bitcoin and wants to donate the Mozilla, and Mozilla only accepts donations in fiat currencies, what's the problem? That person will just buy fiat currencies with their Bitcoin, and donate them to Mozilla. There's no reason Mozilla has to start embracing Bitcoin!
  - int_19h 5y ago
    I don't see how decentralized supply of money is "giving up on society". Most of human history did not have centralized supply of money, and that did not preclude highly developed societies. The problem with centralized supply of money is that it creates a single point where too much power is concentrated. Even when governance is democratic, concentration of power invites its abuse - and the larger the scope of such a government, the more lucrative the abuse. Within a small, tightly knit community that has direct democratic governance, directly controlling its internal monetary supply is fine, because power can be kept in check at that scale. But you still need some common medium of exchange for those communities to interact economically. The problem with Bitcoin isn't that supply is decentralized, but rather that it's hardcoded as fixed in the long-term - because the people who created it were gold bugs. But that's not a fundamental problem with cryptocurrencies - you could have one where the supply grows steadily, or better yet, one where such growth is controlled collectively by actual users of the currency.

And that is understandable. But how does one leap from this fact to excusing a non-profit in a country without the underlying problem doing the same?

by gspr 5y ago

And that is understandable. But how does one leap from this fact to excusing a non-profit in a country without the underlying problem doing the same?

int_19h 5y ago

I believe that people don't really have the power to make systemic changes in US, either. The past 10 years or so of federal politics have been ample demonstration of that. But I digress. Mozilla is a US org, but it has worldwide outreach, and the product is certainly used worldwide, so it shouldn't be American-centric in its decision-making in any case. FWIW I don't think the decision adds up to anything either way, to be honest. It's not going to meaningfully affect global warming, and it's not going to meaningfully affect the usefulness (or not) of cryptocoins. It's just a PR stunt - a silly one, but certainly not something worth getting riled up over regardless of one's stance. Just to clear something up: I'm not actually all that bullish on existing cryptocoins myself - Bitcoin clearly has many problems, and it's not just energy wastefulness. What I'm interested in is radical political and economic decentralization in general, from an extreme left libertarian perspective. Decentralized money ought to be a part of that, somehow, and blockchain seems like a workable approach in principle, but it isn't there yet. I hope it will be someday. But in the meantime, something that lets people in, say, Venezuela send or receive money from US - or, for that matter, lets people in US send or receive money from Iran - is a worthwhile tool to have.

gspr 5y ago
> I believe that people don't really have the power to make systemic changes in US, either. The past 10 years or so of federal politics have been ample demonstration of that. I'm inclined to agree. > But I digress. Mozilla is a US org, but it has worldwide outreach, and the product is certainly used worldwide, so it shouldn't be American-centric in its decision-making in any case. I agree. But the discussion is about Mozilla embracing cryptocurrencies. The fact that there are parts of the world where cryptocurrencies might be an evil that helps someone locally doesn't mean that Mozilla has to embrace that evil. Mozilla is not operating under the adverse conditions that may rightfully incline someone towards cryptocurrencies. > FWIW I don't think the decision adds up to anything either way, to be honest. It's not going to meaningfully affect global warming, and it's not going to meaningfully affect the usefulness (or not) of cryptocoins. It's just a PR stunt - a silly one, but certainly not something worth getting riled up over regardless of one's stance. I think it's entirely reasonable to be upset that an important organization does PR stunts. > Decentralized money ought to be a part of that, somehow, and blockchain seems like a workable approach in principle, but it isn't there yet. I hope it will be someday. Decentralized flow of money is one thing. A decentralized supply is another. To me, the latter is giving up on society. Because some governments are evil, we throw out the whole concept of a benign government serving the people – i.e. a well-organized society. > But in the meantime, something that lets people in, say, Venezuela send or receive money from US - or, for that matter, lets people in US send or receive money from Iran - is a worthwhile tool to have. Perhaps. But it doesn't excuse Mozilla jumping on it. If someone from Venezuela relies on Bitcoin and wants to donate the Mozilla, and Mozilla only accepts donations in fiat currencies, what's the problem? That person will just buy fiat currencies with their Bitcoin, and donate them to Mozilla. There's no reason Mozilla has to start embracing Bitcoin!
- int_19h 5y ago
  I don't see how decentralized supply of money is "giving up on society". Most of human history did not have centralized supply of money, and that did not preclude highly developed societies. The problem with centralized supply of money is that it creates a single point where too much power is concentrated. Even when governance is democratic, concentration of power invites its abuse - and the larger the scope of such a government, the more lucrative the abuse. Within a small, tightly knit community that has direct democratic governance, directly controlling its internal monetary supply is fine, because power can be kept in check at that scale. But you still need some common medium of exchange for those communities to interact economically. The problem with Bitcoin isn't that supply is decentralized, but rather that it's hardcoded as fixed in the long-term - because the people who created it were gold bugs. But that's not a fundamental problem with cryptocurrencies - you could have one where the supply grows steadily, or better yet, one where such growth is controlled collectively by actual users of the currency.