6 ms·

I feel sort of bad for Vitalik. If he genuinely hoped cryptocurrency would serve as a counterweight to authoritarian governments and Silicon Valley greed, I thi

I feel sort of bad for Vitalik. If he genuinely hoped cryptocurrency would serve as a counterweight to authoritarian governments and Silicon Valley greed, I think he's going to be very disappointed. I think crypto is interesting and has utilities, but its not going to solve global social coordination. I just think technologists need to "think dumber". Its easier to make money if you have money. Some people get lucky for no reason whatsoever. Some people win big out of raw talent or effort, and then they become criminals. It costs money to use computers. Some people like status and gambling.

otterley 5y ago
> Its easier to make money if you have money Congratulations, you now understand how proof-of-stake works - and why it’s a bad underpinning of cryptocurrencies, although bad in a different way than proof of work. Destroy the environment or make the rich richer; pick your poison.
- biophysboy 5y ago
  I mean, doesn't proof of work also make the rich richer, because they have better computers and more of them?
  - otterley 5y ago
    How does that invalidate my point? Both things can be true.
    - biophysboy 5y ago
      I assumed you preferred proof-of-work over stake for the reason you gave. Maybe I misinterpreted.
- skybrian 5y ago
  This is more or less true of the company stock of any startup that wins big, so I don't get the hate. If they managed to get stability, security, low transaction fees, and is actually useful to consumers, then it seems like it might be a worthwhile project?
  - otterley 5y ago
    The main difference is that startups add value to society through inventions that ideally improve our quality of life and put food on people’s tables through employment. Cryptocurrency investors do none of that; they just mint a bunch of tokens and roll the dice.
    - dkersten 5y ago
      Cryptocurrency investors don't, but neither do startup investors. The question then is whether the startup produces anything of value to the world, so the analogous question is whether the cryptocurrency (not the investors) produces anything of value to the world. I've personally used cryptocurrencies to bypass expensive international bank transfer fees when moving money between family members in different countries. To me, they had beneficial value for this. I'm not saying that's enough to warrant their existence, but saying they literally have no value whatsoever is clearly not true. So the question is whether they provide enough value, compared to startups. In my opinion, a lot of silicon valley startups in many industries (social media and advertising being big ones) also don't provide anything worthwhile to the world, so at least those are about on par with cryptocurrencies. To me, investing in those startups is no different than investing in cryptocurrencies in the sense that they are equally negative forces on the world.
- dskloet 5y ago
  There is no picking. The rich always get richer.
the_other 5y ago
> I feel sort of bad for Vitalik. If he genuinely hoped cryptocurrency would serve as a counterweight to authoritarian governments and Silicon Valley greed, I think he's going to be very disappointed. Well, of course! If crypto is useful as a counter-balance to authoritarian governments, then the value of crypto is rooted in bad (other) government. Who wants to live in a world where all governments are shit but we can still move money around? Crypto might be a temporary plaster over some wounds, but we still need to close the wounds.
- biophysboy 5y ago
  My understanding is that technologists believe that this authority is founded on centralization, and if this centralization were removed, the authority would disappear. I, and likely you as well, don't agree with this at all.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    No. Even with decentralization, we still need to have institutions, authority roles and hierarchical coordination. What changes with crypto is that it gives people the chance to choose (a) who they affiliate with (b) on what terms and (c) allows unilateral disassociation at any time. Think of it this way: imagine if getting citizenship to any country in the world was something that involved no bureaucracy and could be as cheap as getting a cellphone sim card. Save from mass incarceration, there is nothing that authoritarian governments could do to stop people from participating in other economies. People would suddenly be able to participate in a "global market of governance models" without even necessarily having to relocate physically. Authoritarian governments will of course try to stop this, but my bet is they will lose all type of support when the technology is accessible to the middle-class and they get to compare their relative status with the whole world, not just the local society. This would lead (I hope) to the realization that governments are only necessary when they serve the people and that will be the most important piece to fix the current broken lack of "checks and balances". We've got a glimpse of what could happen because of the pandemic and the millions of people who realized that they could do their job from anywhere in the world, and how lots of countries responded by offering "remote work" and "digital nomad" visas. Now imagine if more countries acting like Estonia and start offering "e-residency" programs. The countries would start competing among themselves to see who can attract the most people / most productive people. It's the possibility of self-sovereignty that is important, not the actual realization.
AlexandrB 5y ago
This seems like a repeating pattern: brilliant tech visionaries attempting to undermine political/financial power with technology. Every time this is attempted it's subverted either by the application of power (firewalls, censorship, KYC/obscenity laws) or money (acquisitions, embrace extend extinguish, advertising[1], astroturf/spam). It seems like there might be a persistent gap in STEM education where each new generation of hackers is unaware of the underlying societal reasons why such attempts fail and convinces themselves: "this time it's going to be different". [1] By this I mean that if a platform decides to be ad-funded, they often begin to self-censor to stay in the advertiser's good graces. Over time this gives increasing power to large advertisers to control content - see: Youtube.
- emerged 5y ago
  Makes me question that they are in fact “brilliant tech visionaries” — most of us have been able to see through the bullshit for many years. It’s mostly greed and naivety.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > It seems like there might be a persistent gap in STEM education where each new generation of hackers is unaware of the underlying societal reasons why such attempts fail and convinces themselves: "this time it's going to be different". I think that's true. More broadly, I think it's a totally unfounded belief that computer technology can somehow transcend human nature coupled with a general ignorance, disinterest, or even contempt for non-computer technology. Take cryptocurrency: in large part its original vision was rooted in contempt for law (a kind of social technology), which just meant it repeated a bunch of mistakes that have been solved in well-developed legal systems, with little to no value-add.
  - bmitc 5y ago
    > More broadly, I think it's a totally unfounded belief that computer technology can somehow transcend human nature coupled with a general ignorance, disinterest, or even contempt for non-computer technology. This is an excellent point and the crux of the matter. Technology, particularly software-related technology, provides an amplification effect of the worst of humanity. I'm reminded of the scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey where the chimps discover bones as weapons. Well, now that bone is the Internet. There's this belief amongst technocrats is that we can somehow be saved by technology. A good documentary on this is Adam Curtis' All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace.
pdpi 5y ago
Crypto very much suffers from a chronic case of "one bad apple spoils the barrel". There was a time when I was proud of working on crypto, and how most of our users were actually, genuinely using our product to evade various forms of abuse from their local authorities. Once prices started going up and and a bunch of people started using it as a get-rich-quick scheme, that rapidly became a vicious cycle with people like me started leaving the ecosystem in disgust, and we lost what pressure existed within crypto-adjancent companies to stay true to the original goals. This article makes it sound that Vitalik is reaching that state of disillusionment as well. Shame, he's one of the last few "true believers" I know of.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  Mate it seems like most of the bag of apples is rotten, thought I appreciate you are saying not all.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > There was a time when I was proud of working on crypto, and how most of our users were actually, genuinely using our product to evade various forms of abuse from their local authorities. This is one of cases where the term "crypto" is genuinely confusing. I'd easily believe your claim if it were about cryptography, but I'm highly skeptical about it as applied to cryptocurrency. I wouldn't be surprised if, when the final history of cryptocurrency is written, its main effects will be judged to have been scams and linguistic confusion.

otterley 5y ago

> Its easier to make money if you have money Congratulations, you now understand how proof-of-stake works - and why it’s a bad underpinning of cryptocurrencies, although bad in a different way than proof of work. Destroy the environment or make the rich richer; pick your poison.

biophysboy 5y ago
I mean, doesn't proof of work also make the rich richer, because they have better computers and more of them?
- otterley 5y ago
  How does that invalidate my point? Both things can be true.
  - biophysboy 5y ago
    I assumed you preferred proof-of-work over stake for the reason you gave. Maybe I misinterpreted.
skybrian 5y ago
This is more or less true of the company stock of any startup that wins big, so I don't get the hate. If they managed to get stability, security, low transaction fees, and is actually useful to consumers, then it seems like it might be a worthwhile project?
- otterley 5y ago
  The main difference is that startups add value to society through inventions that ideally improve our quality of life and put food on people’s tables through employment. Cryptocurrency investors do none of that; they just mint a bunch of tokens and roll the dice.
  - dkersten 5y ago
    Cryptocurrency investors don't, but neither do startup investors. The question then is whether the startup produces anything of value to the world, so the analogous question is whether the cryptocurrency (not the investors) produces anything of value to the world. I've personally used cryptocurrencies to bypass expensive international bank transfer fees when moving money between family members in different countries. To me, they had beneficial value for this. I'm not saying that's enough to warrant their existence, but saying they literally have no value whatsoever is clearly not true. So the question is whether they provide enough value, compared to startups. In my opinion, a lot of silicon valley startups in many industries (social media and advertising being big ones) also don't provide anything worthwhile to the world, so at least those are about on par with cryptocurrencies. To me, investing in those startups is no different than investing in cryptocurrencies in the sense that they are equally negative forces on the world.
dskloet 5y ago
There is no picking. The rich always get richer.

the_other 5y ago

> I feel sort of bad for Vitalik. If he genuinely hoped cryptocurrency would serve as a counterweight to authoritarian governments and Silicon Valley greed, I think he's going to be very disappointed. Well, of course! If crypto is useful as a counter-balance to authoritarian governments, then the value of crypto is rooted in bad (other) government. Who wants to live in a world where all governments are shit but we can still move money around? Crypto might be a temporary plaster over some wounds, but we still need to close the wounds.

biophysboy 5y ago
My understanding is that technologists believe that this authority is founded on centralization, and if this centralization were removed, the authority would disappear. I, and likely you as well, don't agree with this at all.
- rglullis 5y ago
  No. Even with decentralization, we still need to have institutions, authority roles and hierarchical coordination. What changes with crypto is that it gives people the chance to choose (a) who they affiliate with (b) on what terms and (c) allows unilateral disassociation at any time. Think of it this way: imagine if getting citizenship to any country in the world was something that involved no bureaucracy and could be as cheap as getting a cellphone sim card. Save from mass incarceration, there is nothing that authoritarian governments could do to stop people from participating in other economies. People would suddenly be able to participate in a "global market of governance models" without even necessarily having to relocate physically. Authoritarian governments will of course try to stop this, but my bet is they will lose all type of support when the technology is accessible to the middle-class and they get to compare their relative status with the whole world, not just the local society. This would lead (I hope) to the realization that governments are only necessary when they serve the people and that will be the most important piece to fix the current broken lack of "checks and balances". We've got a glimpse of what could happen because of the pandemic and the millions of people who realized that they could do their job from anywhere in the world, and how lots of countries responded by offering "remote work" and "digital nomad" visas. Now imagine if more countries acting like Estonia and start offering "e-residency" programs. The countries would start competing among themselves to see who can attract the most people / most productive people. It's the possibility of self-sovereignty that is important, not the actual realization.

AlexandrB 5y ago

This seems like a repeating pattern: brilliant tech visionaries attempting to undermine political/financial power with technology. Every time this is attempted it's subverted either by the application of power (firewalls, censorship, KYC/obscenity laws) or money (acquisitions, embrace extend extinguish, advertising[1], astroturf/spam). It seems like there might be a persistent gap in STEM education where each new generation of hackers is unaware of the underlying societal reasons why such attempts fail and convinces themselves: "this time it's going to be different". [1] By this I mean that if a platform decides to be ad-funded, they often begin to self-censor to stay in the advertiser's good graces. Over time this gives increasing power to large advertisers to control content - see: Youtube.

emerged 5y ago
Makes me question that they are in fact “brilliant tech visionaries” — most of us have been able to see through the bullshit for many years. It’s mostly greed and naivety.
tablespoon 5y ago
> It seems like there might be a persistent gap in STEM education where each new generation of hackers is unaware of the underlying societal reasons why such attempts fail and convinces themselves: "this time it's going to be different". I think that's true. More broadly, I think it's a totally unfounded belief that computer technology can somehow transcend human nature coupled with a general ignorance, disinterest, or even contempt for non-computer technology. Take cryptocurrency: in large part its original vision was rooted in contempt for law (a kind of social technology), which just meant it repeated a bunch of mistakes that have been solved in well-developed legal systems, with little to no value-add.
- bmitc 5y ago
  > More broadly, I think it's a totally unfounded belief that computer technology can somehow transcend human nature coupled with a general ignorance, disinterest, or even contempt for non-computer technology. This is an excellent point and the crux of the matter. Technology, particularly software-related technology, provides an amplification effect of the worst of humanity. I'm reminded of the scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey where the chimps discover bones as weapons. Well, now that bone is the Internet. There's this belief amongst technocrats is that we can somehow be saved by technology. A good documentary on this is Adam Curtis' All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace.

pdpi 5y ago

Crypto very much suffers from a chronic case of "one bad apple spoils the barrel". There was a time when I was proud of working on crypto, and how most of our users were actually, genuinely using our product to evade various forms of abuse from their local authorities. Once prices started going up and and a bunch of people started using it as a get-rich-quick scheme, that rapidly became a vicious cycle with people like me started leaving the ecosystem in disgust, and we lost what pressure existed within crypto-adjancent companies to stay true to the original goals. This article makes it sound that Vitalik is reaching that state of disillusionment as well. Shame, he's one of the last few "true believers" I know of.

hackerfromthefu 5y ago
Mate it seems like most of the bag of apples is rotten, thought I appreciate you are saying not all.
tablespoon 5y ago
> There was a time when I was proud of working on crypto, and how most of our users were actually, genuinely using our product to evade various forms of abuse from their local authorities. This is one of cases where the term "crypto" is genuinely confusing. I'd easily believe your claim if it were about cryptography, but I'm highly skeptical about it as applied to cryptocurrency. I wouldn't be surprised if, when the final history of cryptocurrency is written, its main effects will be judged to have been scams and linguistic confusion.