4 ms·

Yes, but the real question always is: Who will make a decision as to what is considered frivolous. Not to search very far, I consider trucks in US for non-con

Yes, but the real question always is: Who will make a decision as to what is considered frivolous. Not to search very far, I consider trucks in US for non-contractor use to be frivolous, but I don't go around telling people those need to be banned.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Trucks move people and items. Bitcoin allows us to buy porn, pot and run scams on a mostly centralized network.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  Can you explain how it is centralized? Because… it isn’t.
  - ruined 5y ago
    there's only one blockchain
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      Only one Bitcoin blockchain, correct. There are affinity scams like bcash and bsv that try to steal the name. The users/miners decided, in decentralized fashion by contributing resources. Decentralized!
    - bavell 5y ago
      Depends on if you count hard forks as new chains. Successful hard forks require decentralized consensus to follow the new chain.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Lets say Coinbase and Paypal (both BTC processors) stop supporting your website. Do you think that you'll get as many BTC transactions if this happens?
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      I don’t think you understand how cryptocurrencies work. There ain’t much Coinbase and PayPal can do to stop someone sending coins to my address. I don’t have a website, nor do I care what Coinbase or PayPal do or say.
      - dragontamer 5y ago
        I don't think you understand the practical business realities of the internet. No typical business is going to work with BTC addresses on the raw. They're going to (and currently) using simple APIs like Coinbase API (https://developers.coinbase.com/ https://developers.coinbase.com/) to "implement BTC receipts". As far as US business is concerned, the typical payment processor for bitcoin is Coinbase. They handle the bitcoint transfer, transaction history, and conversion into USD all at the same time.
        randomhodler84 5y ago
        There are many business that run their own payment infrastructure, BTCPay is the most popular. It is better for the network if people DONT use centralized providers. We all have the power to use decentralized infrastructure. Bitcoin works the way it is intended, that is peer to peer payments. Everything else is just ecosystem, which can be replaced. Coinbase is important as an on-ramp for users for now, yes, but their importance to the network is peripheral.
        dragontamer 5y ago
        And the Exim email-server and "bind" DNS server is "decentralized", except everybody uses gmail.com, or even centralized upon AWS. There's your theory, and there's the practice of the internet and business. In theory, they should be the same. In practice, they're different.
        randomhodler84 5y ago
        Bitcoin doesn’t care about businesses. It doesn’t care about peoples wishes. It doesn’t care that everyone else is using Gmail. It provides a peer to peer, censorship resistant append only ledger for transactions secured by cryptographic signatures and proof of work. That is all. And that is plenty.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  I think the issue is your concern does not really answer the question I posed. We can follow the use 'use' argument as soon as we deal with the 'who has the authority to tell people what to do with energy/money/equipment'. Is it me? Is it you? Is it society? Is it government? As soon as we get through that conundrum, we can discuss how crypto is basically evil and used for nefarious purposes only and cars are more like knives ( I disagree, but we can get to it once we know who can actually make the call on the behalf of humanity as a whole that a given technology is banned ).
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    I don't understand why anyone thinks this argument is some kind of checkmate. This is the equivalent of screaming you're a sovereign citizen when the police ask for your name. Governments have this general monopoly on the use of force, which is why they tell you you can't do things like sell heroin. If you disobey them, they will send men with firearms and make you stop. Governments can obtain their consent in a bunch of different models and lots of people argue about which ones are better. A "world wide ban on crypto" probably is not going to happen but more and more countries are banning it. I suspect many more will continue.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      You still did not give me an answer by the way and I have to question as to whether you are arguing in good faith. Still, I will address your comment in good faith. It is not a checkmate. I am simply just trying to see what world model you have in your head. We clearly disagree, but it does not mean we can't openly discuss those disagreements. It is mostly the beauty of HN. If you present a logical argument, I might simply say, it makes sense. Right now I am confused. Are you officially arguing government is the one to say as to whether technology is banned? If so, which government speaks for humanity as a whole? <<This is the equivalent of screaming you're a sovereign citizen when the police ask for your name. Is it? Can you elaborate a little bit? The analogy seems a little off. <<Governments have this general monopoly on the use of force, which is why they tell you you can't do things like sell heroin. Yes. Government monopoly on power has been a well established theory. We are not breaking new ground here. Is crypto heroin in this scenario? <<If you disobey them, they will send men with firearms and make you stop. Yes. See above. How does that help your argument? <<Governments can obtain their consent in a bunch of different models and lots of people argue about which ones are better. Yes. See above. How does that help your argument? <<A "world wide ban on crypto" probably is not going to happen but more and more countries are banning it. I suspect many more will continue. Maybe yes. Maybe not. It is not, however, an argument for or against crypto banning, whether it should be banned or not. It is not an argument at all. At best, it is just a speculation.
preommr 5y ago
> I consider trucks in US for non-contractor use to be frivolous, but I don't go around telling people those need to be banned. What does you not liking trucks have to do with the issue of putting limitations on mining crypto? Just because you don't care about this random issue doesn't invalidate serious concerns other people have. Also, this is a pretty bad faith argument to say 'who can make these decisions'. We make rules in society all the time. If enough people can be convinced for a particular regulation and the laws of the society allow it, then it'll be implemented.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  I do not believe it is a bad faith argument. At the end of the day, trucks are there to illustrate a point that people may not agree what is considered 'good','efficient' or whatever qualifier you want to add. Trucks - those humongous behemoths intended for largely for contractors, but bought people with more money than sense for reasons that are not 'good','efficient' or whatever other qualifier you would want to add to crypto - are largely inefficient for a family unit. Some could easily argue that those should be banned for personal use as their gas-guzzling abilities are a MUCH greater threat to climate change than the entirety of crypto mining operation. But do I suggest people are mandated to only get one Prius every 5 years? No. Do you know why, because the concerns of the people may be real, but we have not, as a society, yet decided that it is ok for those concerns to override individual choices. You are right about society. You are wrong about the argument.

vorpalhex 5y ago

Trucks move people and items. Bitcoin allows us to buy porn, pot and run scams on a mostly centralized network.

randomhodler84 5y ago
Can you explain how it is centralized? Because… it isn’t.
- ruined 5y ago
  there's only one blockchain
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    Only one Bitcoin blockchain, correct. There are affinity scams like bcash and bsv that try to steal the name. The users/miners decided, in decentralized fashion by contributing resources. Decentralized!
  - bavell 5y ago
    Depends on if you count hard forks as new chains. Successful hard forks require decentralized consensus to follow the new chain.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Lets say Coinbase and Paypal (both BTC processors) stop supporting your website. Do you think that you'll get as many BTC transactions if this happens?
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    I don’t think you understand how cryptocurrencies work. There ain’t much Coinbase and PayPal can do to stop someone sending coins to my address. I don’t have a website, nor do I care what Coinbase or PayPal do or say.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      I don't think you understand the practical business realities of the internet. No typical business is going to work with BTC addresses on the raw. They're going to (and currently) using simple APIs like Coinbase API (https://developers.coinbase.com/ https://developers.coinbase.com/) to "implement BTC receipts". As far as US business is concerned, the typical payment processor for bitcoin is Coinbase. They handle the bitcoint transfer, transaction history, and conversion into USD all at the same time.
      - randomhodler84 5y ago
        There are many business that run their own payment infrastructure, BTCPay is the most popular. It is better for the network if people DONT use centralized providers. We all have the power to use decentralized infrastructure. Bitcoin works the way it is intended, that is peer to peer payments. Everything else is just ecosystem, which can be replaced. Coinbase is important as an on-ramp for users for now, yes, but their importance to the network is peripheral.
        dragontamer 5y ago
        And the Exim email-server and "bind" DNS server is "decentralized", except everybody uses gmail.com, or even centralized upon AWS. There's your theory, and there's the practice of the internet and business. In theory, they should be the same. In practice, they're different.
        randomhodler84 5y ago
        Bitcoin doesn’t care about businesses. It doesn’t care about peoples wishes. It doesn’t care that everyone else is using Gmail. It provides a peer to peer, censorship resistant append only ledger for transactions secured by cryptographic signatures and proof of work. That is all. And that is plenty.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
I think the issue is your concern does not really answer the question I posed. We can follow the use 'use' argument as soon as we deal with the 'who has the authority to tell people what to do with energy/money/equipment'. Is it me? Is it you? Is it society? Is it government? As soon as we get through that conundrum, we can discuss how crypto is basically evil and used for nefarious purposes only and cars are more like knives ( I disagree, but we can get to it once we know who can actually make the call on the behalf of humanity as a whole that a given technology is banned ).
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  I don't understand why anyone thinks this argument is some kind of checkmate. This is the equivalent of screaming you're a sovereign citizen when the police ask for your name. Governments have this general monopoly on the use of force, which is why they tell you you can't do things like sell heroin. If you disobey them, they will send men with firearms and make you stop. Governments can obtain their consent in a bunch of different models and lots of people argue about which ones are better. A "world wide ban on crypto" probably is not going to happen but more and more countries are banning it. I suspect many more will continue.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    You still did not give me an answer by the way and I have to question as to whether you are arguing in good faith. Still, I will address your comment in good faith. It is not a checkmate. I am simply just trying to see what world model you have in your head. We clearly disagree, but it does not mean we can't openly discuss those disagreements. It is mostly the beauty of HN. If you present a logical argument, I might simply say, it makes sense. Right now I am confused. Are you officially arguing government is the one to say as to whether technology is banned? If so, which government speaks for humanity as a whole? <<This is the equivalent of screaming you're a sovereign citizen when the police ask for your name. Is it? Can you elaborate a little bit? The analogy seems a little off. <<Governments have this general monopoly on the use of force, which is why they tell you you can't do things like sell heroin. Yes. Government monopoly on power has been a well established theory. We are not breaking new ground here. Is crypto heroin in this scenario? <<If you disobey them, they will send men with firearms and make you stop. Yes. See above. How does that help your argument? <<Governments can obtain their consent in a bunch of different models and lots of people argue about which ones are better. Yes. See above. How does that help your argument? <<A "world wide ban on crypto" probably is not going to happen but more and more countries are banning it. I suspect many more will continue. Maybe yes. Maybe not. It is not, however, an argument for or against crypto banning, whether it should be banned or not. It is not an argument at all. At best, it is just a speculation.

preommr 5y ago

> I consider trucks in US for non-contractor use to be frivolous, but I don't go around telling people those need to be banned. What does you not liking trucks have to do with the issue of putting limitations on mining crypto? Just because you don't care about this random issue doesn't invalidate serious concerns other people have. Also, this is a pretty bad faith argument to say 'who can make these decisions'. We make rules in society all the time. If enough people can be convinced for a particular regulation and the laws of the society allow it, then it'll be implemented.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
I do not believe it is a bad faith argument. At the end of the day, trucks are there to illustrate a point that people may not agree what is considered 'good','efficient' or whatever qualifier you want to add. Trucks - those humongous behemoths intended for largely for contractors, but bought people with more money than sense for reasons that are not 'good','efficient' or whatever other qualifier you would want to add to crypto - are largely inefficient for a family unit. Some could easily argue that those should be banned for personal use as their gas-guzzling abilities are a MUCH greater threat to climate change than the entirety of crypto mining operation. But do I suggest people are mandated to only get one Prius every 5 years? No. Do you know why, because the concerns of the people may be real, but we have not, as a society, yet decided that it is ok for those concerns to override individual choices. You are right about society. You are wrong about the argument.