3 ms·

It won't, and it's a very important technology since it's the only way for humans to store digital property without relying on some government or corporation.

It won't, and it's a very important technology since it's the only way for humans to store digital property without relying on some government or corporation. Also, it ever gets attacked, much more will be at stake, including your freedom for choosing what software can be run on your computer.

DangitBobby 5y ago
Cryptocurrencies, not cryptography. My software freedom is not dependent on the existence of cryptocurrencies. My hardware freedom is currently significantly hampered by them.
- bouncycastle 5y ago
  freedom for me, but not anyone else. Genius.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    That reply probably sounded pretty smart in your head. Maybe you think I'm suggesting that we should outlaw or criminalize them? That makes sense based on your previous comment. But I said no such thing. Wishing it ill is not the same as taking away your freedom.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  And that is where the contradiction exists — let’s say you get your way, and governments start arresting people doing arbitrary computation on their graphics card — let’s say hashing. That would very bad for everyone’s freedoms, software and hardware. The same anticryptocurrency playbook is what was used against cryptography in the 90s. Technology that challenges the powerful is dangerous! It’s ok to not like cryptocurrency and not use it. Others can, and will. Be on the side that empowers people with technology, not the side that wants to take it away.
  - forgetfulness 5y ago
    If we just arrest people for selling them for money instead, 99% of the problem would go away overnight. People can trade them as stamps or even barter them if they're so inclined, nobody has to be arrested for performing hash collisions on strings.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  > Be on the side that empowers people with technology, not the side that wants to take it away. I'm not really advocating for taking it away. I'm happy with a natural death or a market induced death. I'd definitely advocate for hardware that's terrible at mining because I'm not really being given a lot of options. You can't really say "freedom to use your hardware as you will" out of one side of your mouth while saying "you can't want hardware with restrictions" out of the other. It's a paradox. We both want the hardware that works for us, don't we? If NVidia can make cards that suck at mining, it's my economic freedom and right to choose to support that, and I would, just like it's your economic right and freedom to buy all hardware in existence to waste energy. I can tell you 100% that cryptocurrencies are the opposite of empowering for me and those around me in my current life.
eru 5y ago
> It won't, and it's a very important technology since it's the only way for humans to store digital property without relying on some government or corporation. Proof of work is the thing people have a problem with. There's lots of cryptographic techniques that you can use without proof of work. And the only thing the likes of bitcoin need proof-of-work for is to avoid double-spending attacks. Not quite sure what you mean by digital property. I can store valuable files just fine without proof-of-work. And we can copy them and give them to everyone in the world, too, at almost no cost. Cryptocurrencies (and similar) allow you to keep a digital ledger. But the meaning of that ledger is still something we construct socially. As a silly example: people agree to treat bitcoins as fungible. But they are perfectly traceable, so people could also agree to reject some specific bitcoin (and any descendent bitcoin that can be traced back to the banned ones; so if you mix them in a transaction, you just spread the taint). For a slightly more real world example: I can imagine if Satoshi rose from the grave and held an auction to sell off the first bitcoin ever mined, he would get more than whatever bitcoin is currently trading for.
hgomersall 5y ago
How on earth does it stop reliance on a government? Or specifically, prevent reliance on some entity monopolising force? This crypto wet dream, like all libertarian wet dreams, ultimately relies on there being a benevolent entity that prevents someone with a bigger gun than you from marching in and taking whatever they want.

DangitBobby 5y ago

Cryptocurrencies, not cryptography. My software freedom is not dependent on the existence of cryptocurrencies. My hardware freedom is currently significantly hampered by them.

bouncycastle 5y ago
freedom for me, but not anyone else. Genius.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  That reply probably sounded pretty smart in your head. Maybe you think I'm suggesting that we should outlaw or criminalize them? That makes sense based on your previous comment. But I said no such thing. Wishing it ill is not the same as taking away your freedom.
randomhodler84 5y ago
And that is where the contradiction exists — let’s say you get your way, and governments start arresting people doing arbitrary computation on their graphics card — let’s say hashing. That would very bad for everyone’s freedoms, software and hardware. The same anticryptocurrency playbook is what was used against cryptography in the 90s. Technology that challenges the powerful is dangerous! It’s ok to not like cryptocurrency and not use it. Others can, and will. Be on the side that empowers people with technology, not the side that wants to take it away.
- forgetfulness 5y ago
  If we just arrest people for selling them for money instead, 99% of the problem would go away overnight. People can trade them as stamps or even barter them if they're so inclined, nobody has to be arrested for performing hash collisions on strings.
DangitBobby 5y ago
> Be on the side that empowers people with technology, not the side that wants to take it away. I'm not really advocating for taking it away. I'm happy with a natural death or a market induced death. I'd definitely advocate for hardware that's terrible at mining because I'm not really being given a lot of options. You can't really say "freedom to use your hardware as you will" out of one side of your mouth while saying "you can't want hardware with restrictions" out of the other. It's a paradox. We both want the hardware that works for us, don't we? If NVidia can make cards that suck at mining, it's my economic freedom and right to choose to support that, and I would, just like it's your economic right and freedom to buy all hardware in existence to waste energy. I can tell you 100% that cryptocurrencies are the opposite of empowering for me and those around me in my current life.

eru 5y ago

> It won't, and it's a very important technology since it's the only way for humans to store digital property without relying on some government or corporation. Proof of work is the thing people have a problem with. There's lots of cryptographic techniques that you can use without proof of work. And the only thing the likes of bitcoin need proof-of-work for is to avoid double-spending attacks. Not quite sure what you mean by digital property. I can store valuable files just fine without proof-of-work. And we can copy them and give them to everyone in the world, too, at almost no cost. Cryptocurrencies (and similar) allow you to keep a digital ledger. But the meaning of that ledger is still something we construct socially. As a silly example: people agree to treat bitcoins as fungible. But they are perfectly traceable, so people could also agree to reject some specific bitcoin (and any descendent bitcoin that can be traced back to the banned ones; so if you mix them in a transaction, you just spread the taint). For a slightly more real world example: I can imagine if Satoshi rose from the grave and held an auction to sell off the first bitcoin ever mined, he would get more than whatever bitcoin is currently trading for.

hgomersall 5y ago

How on earth does it stop reliance on a government? Or specifically, prevent reliance on some entity monopolising force? This crypto wet dream, like all libertarian wet dreams, ultimately relies on there being a benevolent entity that prevents someone with a bigger gun than you from marching in and taking whatever they want.