6 ms·

They view it as a feature, but for all the reasons this poster pointed out, the rest of us view it as an anti-feature.

StanislavPetrov 5y ago
That's the beauty of the concept of freedom. In a free society, we'd all be able to choose our own poison. Unfortunately, many who view it as an anti-feature seek to prevent those who view it as a feature from making their own choice, either through regulation or outright bans.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, anarchism is the only form of free government. All laws and regulations necessarily take freedom away. That is the basis of the social contract: you aren’t free to harm others.
  - StanislavPetrov 5y ago
    If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist. In reality the definition of "harm" and the laws and regulations that are necessary and desirable to mitigate these harms are very much up for debate. It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction.
    - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
      > If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist. This doesn’t check out. The existence of good laws doesn’t preclude the existence of (other) bad laws. > It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction. This doesn’t factor in negative externalities (e.g. climate impact).
  - cf141q5325 5y ago
    >social contract Thats a bad case of framing. Contract implies willing participants and free choice. You have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
    - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
      > You have a story which with you justify forcing people around. I repeat: that’s the definition of the social contract. You are forced, by threat of violence, not to engage in harmful activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
      - cf141q5325 5y ago
        You just repeated the wording of your story while ignoring my post entirely. 1) Contract implies consenting parties. Using the word in another capacity is a frame. It being a popular one doesnt change that. 2) Your actions entailing a lot more then just your declared intentions. As in your definition of harmful being quite broad. Or differently put, you have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
        Tijdreiziger 5y ago
        Any contract must be backed up by force, or else it’s meaningless. As an example, if you enter into a legal contract, that contract is backed up by the threat of litigation (and by extension, force). If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any incentive to obey it. And yes, I do believe that the consensus is that activities with an outsized climate impact are harmful.
        cf141q5325 5y ago
        IF you enter. There is the choice that is lacking is this case. Without the choice there is no contract, just the force. And if it were consensus you wouldnt have to force it. Both "contract" and "consensus" are nice frames for forcing people to do what you think is right. At least be honest about it.
gfodor 5y ago
The nature of the benefits and harms of such a thing is highly context dependent. Making an absolute statement like this is basically meaningless without specifying more.
hedora 5y ago
Thieves also consider the analogous irreversibility of cash transactions to be a feature. The rest of us probably actually want an anonymous, "like cash" crypto currency that is resilient against theft (which basically implies some sort of non-repudiation and compensating transactions). But, such a currency probably wouldn't be great for speculation or black market transactions, which are the killer use cases for bitcoin.
- dropnerd 5y ago
  it's easier to add time delays to cryptocurrencies than anonymity to our current banking system.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    Perhaps: > Chaum published the idea of anonymous electronic money in a 1983 paper;[1] eCash software on the user's local computer stored money in a digital format, cryptographically signed by a bank. The user could spend the digital money at any shop accepting eCash, without having to open an account with the vendor first, or transmitting credit card numbers. Security was ensured by public key digital signature schemes. The RSA blind signatures achieved unlinkability between withdrawal and spend transactions. Depending on the payment transactions, one distinguishes between on-line and off-line electronic cash: If the payee has to contact a third party (e.g., the bank or the credit-card company acting as an acquirer) before accepting a payment, the system is called an on-line system.[2] In 1990, Chaum together with Moni Naor proposed the first off-line e-cash system, which was also based on blind signatures.[3] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash
cf141q5325 5y ago
Then you are not the target audience. You want additional safety at the cost of giving up your autonomy. Good luck with that
- floodyberry- 5y ago
  Exactly! Imagine not wanting to be your own bank or lose your life savings to a buggy contract... pathetic
- danShumway 5y ago
  If you're trying to build a functional currency, you can't really afford to say that the majority of people earning and spending money are "not the target audience." That's not how currency works, people have to want your coins for you to spend them. At best, having this perspective relegates Bitcoin to be nothing more than a speculative asset/investment. But if you want it to be more than that and you're just scoffing at normal people who point out why they don't want to transact with you, well then... surprise, they won't want to accept your currency for transactions. Popularity actually matters for a currency.
  - cf141q5325 5y ago
    Currencies dont really work at the "may the best one win" level, especially with so much political power behind it. You have a dominant one which stays dominant till it implodes. Then people fall back to the next best thing. You dont need to be attractive, it just has to work.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      If your strategy is "we will be the only currency remaining after every other fiat is gone, and then people will use our currency even though they hate it because they have no other option", then I have bad news for you about the future of Bitcoin. If your perspective is that Bitcoin isn't going to be a ubiquitous alternative to the USD for general purchases until after the government collapses and no longer has the political power to prop up the dollar, then I have bad news for you about your currency's usefulness as an anti-authoritarian weapon/tool.

That's the beauty of the concept of freedom. In a free society, we'd all be able to choose our own poison. Unfortunately, many who view it as an anti-feature seek to prevent those who view it as a feature from making their own choice, either through regulation or outright bans.

Tijdreiziger 5y ago
If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, anarchism is the only form of free government. All laws and regulations necessarily take freedom away. That is the basis of the social contract: you aren’t free to harm others.
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist. In reality the definition of "harm" and the laws and regulations that are necessary and desirable to mitigate these harms are very much up for debate. It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    > If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist. This doesn’t check out. The existence of good laws doesn’t preclude the existence of (other) bad laws. > It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction. This doesn’t factor in negative externalities (e.g. climate impact).
- cf141q5325 5y ago
  >social contract Thats a bad case of framing. Contract implies willing participants and free choice. You have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    > You have a story which with you justify forcing people around. I repeat: that’s the definition of the social contract. You are forced, by threat of violence, not to engage in harmful activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
    - cf141q5325 5y ago
      You just repeated the wording of your story while ignoring my post entirely. 1) Contract implies consenting parties. Using the word in another capacity is a frame. It being a popular one doesnt change that. 2) Your actions entailing a lot more then just your declared intentions. As in your definition of harmful being quite broad. Or differently put, you have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
      - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
        Any contract must be backed up by force, or else it’s meaningless. As an example, if you enter into a legal contract, that contract is backed up by the threat of litigation (and by extension, force). If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any incentive to obey it. And yes, I do believe that the consensus is that activities with an outsized climate impact are harmful.
        cf141q5325 5y ago
        IF you enter. There is the choice that is lacking is this case. Without the choice there is no contract, just the force. And if it were consensus you wouldnt have to force it. Both "contract" and "consensus" are nice frames for forcing people to do what you think is right. At least be honest about it.

gfodor 5y ago

The nature of the benefits and harms of such a thing is highly context dependent. Making an absolute statement like this is basically meaningless without specifying more.

hedora 5y ago

Thieves also consider the analogous irreversibility of cash transactions to be a feature. The rest of us probably actually want an anonymous, "like cash" crypto currency that is resilient against theft (which basically implies some sort of non-repudiation and compensating transactions). But, such a currency probably wouldn't be great for speculation or black market transactions, which are the killer use cases for bitcoin.

dropnerd 5y ago
it's easier to add time delays to cryptocurrencies than anonymity to our current banking system.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Perhaps: > Chaum published the idea of anonymous electronic money in a 1983 paper;[1] eCash software on the user's local computer stored money in a digital format, cryptographically signed by a bank. The user could spend the digital money at any shop accepting eCash, without having to open an account with the vendor first, or transmitting credit card numbers. Security was ensured by public key digital signature schemes. The RSA blind signatures achieved unlinkability between withdrawal and spend transactions. Depending on the payment transactions, one distinguishes between on-line and off-line electronic cash: If the payee has to contact a third party (e.g., the bank or the credit-card company acting as an acquirer) before accepting a payment, the system is called an on-line system.[2] In 1990, Chaum together with Moni Naor proposed the first off-line e-cash system, which was also based on blind signatures.[3] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash

cf141q5325 5y ago

Then you are not the target audience. You want additional safety at the cost of giving up your autonomy. Good luck with that

floodyberry- 5y ago
Exactly! Imagine not wanting to be your own bank or lose your life savings to a buggy contract... pathetic
danShumway 5y ago
If you're trying to build a functional currency, you can't really afford to say that the majority of people earning and spending money are "not the target audience." That's not how currency works, people have to want your coins for you to spend them. At best, having this perspective relegates Bitcoin to be nothing more than a speculative asset/investment. But if you want it to be more than that and you're just scoffing at normal people who point out why they don't want to transact with you, well then... surprise, they won't want to accept your currency for transactions. Popularity actually matters for a currency.
- cf141q5325 5y ago
  Currencies dont really work at the "may the best one win" level, especially with so much political power behind it. You have a dominant one which stays dominant till it implodes. Then people fall back to the next best thing. You dont need to be attractive, it just has to work.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    If your strategy is "we will be the only currency remaining after every other fiat is gone, and then people will use our currency even though they hate it because they have no other option", then I have bad news for you about the future of Bitcoin. If your perspective is that Bitcoin isn't going to be a ubiquitous alternative to the USD for general purchases until after the government collapses and no longer has the political power to prop up the dollar, then I have bad news for you about your currency's usefulness as an anti-authoritarian weapon/tool.