4 ms·

> This is an oxymoron. How can you mathematically enforce a purely social concept? Property rights aren't tangible things; they are creations purely of law and

> This is an oxymoron. How can you mathematically enforce a purely social concept? Property rights aren't tangible things; they are creations purely of law and of the societies they inhabit. Can you mathematically enforce that no one build a house on the land I own? That no one picks an apple from my apple tree, except with my permission? Land or an apple tree aren't natively digital assets. So no, they cannot be cryptographically enforced. Bitcoin is natively digital. If I alone have access to a wallet (i.e. memorized a seed-phrase), my rights to that bitcoin are enforced cryptographically and defended by the power of the network. "Ownership" meaning I have exclusive rights to "spend" them. "Social construct" still absolutely comes into play though. The social construct is money. Bitcoin being money is a manifestation of a social construct. Are you suggesting something being a social construct means that they are not "real"? Because that would be a MUCH larger debate. > I just don't see how cryptocurrency helps the unbanked--what does it bring that M-PESA doesn't bring? A trustless and self-sovereign way to store value? This becomes increasingly important the more corrupt your Government is. For example, if your government wanted to freeze your money because you participated in a protest they don't like. > Furthermore, how are those benefits worth the externalities of cryptocurrency, specifically the massive energy consumption that undoubtedly fuels the climate change that is slowly worsening the lives of many of the unbanked it's purporting to help? Electricity consumption, in and of itself, does not fuel climate change. CO2 emissions do. Also depends on the relative climate cost between one system and the system it looks to replace. For example, electric cars are bad for the environment if you look at them in a vacuum. But, they are better than ICE cars. So they are applauded.

smaryjerry 5y ago
I think this is a major point of misunderstanding with the value of crypto currencies. Yes you are protected from say inflation in a currency with a corrupt government, but you will never be protected from someone with more force than you. Meaning, unless you know that no one will hold you at gun point and ask for your password, you are not safe from your government or anyone else. And when I say gunpoint I mean it literally and also figuratively with threats of prison and worse. Hell even in the US 4.5 billion in crypto was confiscated. Why didn’t those people just not give their password to keep the money? Because in the end government control goes way beyond a password.
- djschnei 5y ago
  That's a presumption about ownership of anything under the reign of a government. How is that argument crypto specific at all? Also, that 4.5 billion was mostly confiscatable because of poor key management - not people handing over their keys under duress. Also also, pretending like telling a bank to freeze an account vs threatening you into giving your keys are the same is ridiculous.
  - smaryjerry 5y ago
    Because crypto is thought of as a unique cross border banking solution but you still end up at the whims of your own governments laws, regulations, and their level of protection. Countries like China have banned crypto exchanges, Canada has confiscated crypto for protesting. It’s not this miracle bank account only you have access to that everyone hoped it would be.
    - djschnei 5y ago
      ...And other countries/states have embraced Bitcoin. The China ban was going to be "the end", fast forward less than a year and the network is stronger than ever. It has more users than it ever has. Bitcoin continues to grow regardless of these actions. It simply doesn't care. You didn't address the difference between unilateral government-bank cooperative freezing of accounts en masse vs. what's required to strong-arm keys from a single person. Do you acknowledge they aren't even close to the same thing?
      - smaryjerry 5y ago
        No those are very much the same thing. If you can say give me your key or go to prison, the password doesn’t work that well. I would add that crypto is no longer even decentralized as well. Good luck find someone trust worthy to trade into and out of any fiat currency with only your wallet and without using or involving a centralized exchange or program. When goods and services aren’t able to be purchased in the crypto denomination that means on and off ramps actually make buying anything with crypto more expensive after paying any exchange fees. The only benefit would be if crypto went up in relation to fiat currency, but the ones getting rich are those earlier holders only. This is because when you buy crypto you are buying from another person. That other person took your fiat money in order to sell crypto, it was never created upon the moment you bought it except with certain stable coins which are essentially just banks for regular fiat currency, not actually crypto and definitely not decentralized.

smaryjerry 5y ago

I think this is a major point of misunderstanding with the value of crypto currencies. Yes you are protected from say inflation in a currency with a corrupt government, but you will never be protected from someone with more force than you. Meaning, unless you know that no one will hold you at gun point and ask for your password, you are not safe from your government or anyone else. And when I say gunpoint I mean it literally and also figuratively with threats of prison and worse. Hell even in the US 4.5 billion in crypto was confiscated. Why didn’t those people just not give their password to keep the money? Because in the end government control goes way beyond a password.

djschnei 5y ago
That's a presumption about ownership of anything under the reign of a government. How is that argument crypto specific at all? Also, that 4.5 billion was mostly confiscatable because of poor key management - not people handing over their keys under duress. Also also, pretending like telling a bank to freeze an account vs threatening you into giving your keys are the same is ridiculous.
- smaryjerry 5y ago
  Because crypto is thought of as a unique cross border banking solution but you still end up at the whims of your own governments laws, regulations, and their level of protection. Countries like China have banned crypto exchanges, Canada has confiscated crypto for protesting. It’s not this miracle bank account only you have access to that everyone hoped it would be.
  - djschnei 5y ago
    ...And other countries/states have embraced Bitcoin. The China ban was going to be "the end", fast forward less than a year and the network is stronger than ever. It has more users than it ever has. Bitcoin continues to grow regardless of these actions. It simply doesn't care. You didn't address the difference between unilateral government-bank cooperative freezing of accounts en masse vs. what's required to strong-arm keys from a single person. Do you acknowledge they aren't even close to the same thing?
    - smaryjerry 5y ago
      No those are very much the same thing. If you can say give me your key or go to prison, the password doesn’t work that well. I would add that crypto is no longer even decentralized as well. Good luck find someone trust worthy to trade into and out of any fiat currency with only your wallet and without using or involving a centralized exchange or program. When goods and services aren’t able to be purchased in the crypto denomination that means on and off ramps actually make buying anything with crypto more expensive after paying any exchange fees. The only benefit would be if crypto went up in relation to fiat currency, but the ones getting rich are those earlier holders only. This is because when you buy crypto you are buying from another person. That other person took your fiat money in order to sell crypto, it was never created upon the moment you bought it except with certain stable coins which are essentially just banks for regular fiat currency, not actually crypto and definitely not decentralized.