4 ms·

Hitting yourself in the head with a hammer might offer some benefits: - The cool metal might cool your head on a hot summer day - Might knock yourself unconsc

Hitting yourself in the head with a hammer might offer some benefits: - The cool metal might cool your head on a hot summer day - Might knock yourself unconscious to avoid boredom (could be real handy during long flights!) But these nice features are inseparable from the fact that you're hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, which has many serious downsides, too. The "improved self-custody" crypto offers is one side of the ledger. The other side is: you lose regulatory protection, and can be swindled with virtually zero repercussions. Crypto's entire reason for existing is to circumvent government control—it's pretty "new world order" all the way to the core.

gonehome 5y ago
This is a comparison dumb enough to basically be in bad faith. Ignoring that and focusing on the substance: > "The "improved self-custody" crypto offers is one side of the ledger. The other side is: you lose regulatory protection, and can be swindled with virtually zero repercussions." Yeah I don't disagree with this - the risks are real. Some of this can improve with better tools, but some is just higher risk that exists with self-custody. You don't need to move 100% of your wealth into crypto (and I'd argue you shouldn't in nearly all cases). Crypto provides a new capability to take control in a way that other options don't or don't support as well. There is value in this capability even though it has associated risks. > "Crypto's entire reason for existing is to circumvent government control—it's pretty "new world order" all the way to the core." Not all governments are good and even good governments can implement bad policy. Self-custody is a lever against the kind of top down CCP like control of entire economies and a totally controlled cashless future. It's also a hedge against stupid actions from your government (like what we're seeing in Russia currently). New world order suggests replacing the entirety of the existing thing. I'm not suggesting that, I'm focusing on the fact that it offers a new/improved capability that gives individuals more power. I think this is a good thing, but good/bad subjectivity aside it's just a true feature of crypto. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb...
- the_gastropod 5y ago
  > Not all governments are good and even good governments can implement bad policy. Indeed! Many governments are truly awful. And it's a deeply complex problem to solve. The strategy of "screw it, let's just bypass the laws when I feel like it" is deeply troubling. And I think you needn't look further than the fact that so many despots have wholly embraced Bitcoin: Bukele, Putin, Kim Jong-un, Erdogan, Maduro, Assad, etc. Why do you suspect that is? Are they just clueless dummies who're getting fleeced by the Bitcoin pumper geniuses? The problems with corrupt governments is the lack of accountability via regulation and legal redress. The solution is increasing accountability—often a difficult problem, no doubt. But advocating for crypto as the solution, is advocating for the harms done to people to be anonymized, and ultimately made unaccountable. That's a Very Bad Idea™.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    You're arguing a strawman.
    - the_gastropod 5y ago
      With all due respect, I don't think you understand the full weight of what you're arguing. Which was the point of my original comment. You don't get to just pick-and-choose which aspects of crypto are beneficial and ignore the side-effects. Crypto, by design, bypasses the legal system. There are some heavy consequences to that design.
      - gonehome 5y ago
        I acknowledge the higher risk associated with crypto and self-custody. I just think the capability it provides is valuable. Like most things it's a nuanced issue and it's not all good or bad. A lot of your argued side-effects are also true of cash. Yet most (at least for now) are not arguing to get rid of cash because not every transaction can be monitored and controlled. Crypto gives more capability to individuals which is good (similar to cash). It creates a store of value outside of government monetary policy (in the BTC case more similar to gold). People tend to simplify these things into "crypto is entirely bad" or "crypto is entirely good". I think it's a new tool that gives individuals new capabilities, but also has its own risks. I value the new capabilities and acknowledge the risks. > "Crypto, by design, bypasses the legal system. There are some heavy consequences to that design." This is mostly false. In the case of public ledgers - it's even easier to see transaction history than it is with cash (though this is less true of Zcash). It doesn't bypass the legal system it just requires a higher degree of intervention for your money to be taken from you (which is often desirable, especially if living under an oppressive government). Does cash bypass the legal system by design?

gonehome 5y ago

This is a comparison dumb enough to basically be in bad faith. Ignoring that and focusing on the substance: > "The "improved self-custody" crypto offers is one side of the ledger. The other side is: you lose regulatory protection, and can be swindled with virtually zero repercussions." Yeah I don't disagree with this - the risks are real. Some of this can improve with better tools, but some is just higher risk that exists with self-custody. You don't need to move 100% of your wealth into crypto (and I'd argue you shouldn't in nearly all cases). Crypto provides a new capability to take control in a way that other options don't or don't support as well. There is value in this capability even though it has associated risks. > "Crypto's entire reason for existing is to circumvent government control—it's pretty "new world order" all the way to the core." Not all governments are good and even good governments can implement bad policy. Self-custody is a lever against the kind of top down CCP like control of entire economies and a totally controlled cashless future. It's also a hedge against stupid actions from your government (like what we're seeing in Russia currently). New world order suggests replacing the entirety of the existing thing. I'm not suggesting that, I'm focusing on the fact that it offers a new/improved capability that gives individuals more power. I think this is a good thing, but good/bad subjectivity aside it's just a true feature of crypto. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb...

the_gastropod 5y ago
> Not all governments are good and even good governments can implement bad policy. Indeed! Many governments are truly awful. And it's a deeply complex problem to solve. The strategy of "screw it, let's just bypass the laws when I feel like it" is deeply troubling. And I think you needn't look further than the fact that so many despots have wholly embraced Bitcoin: Bukele, Putin, Kim Jong-un, Erdogan, Maduro, Assad, etc. Why do you suspect that is? Are they just clueless dummies who're getting fleeced by the Bitcoin pumper geniuses? The problems with corrupt governments is the lack of accountability via regulation and legal redress. The solution is increasing accountability—often a difficult problem, no doubt. But advocating for crypto as the solution, is advocating for the harms done to people to be anonymized, and ultimately made unaccountable. That's a Very Bad Idea™.
- gonehome 5y ago
  You're arguing a strawman.
  - the_gastropod 5y ago
    With all due respect, I don't think you understand the full weight of what you're arguing. Which was the point of my original comment. You don't get to just pick-and-choose which aspects of crypto are beneficial and ignore the side-effects. Crypto, by design, bypasses the legal system. There are some heavy consequences to that design.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      I acknowledge the higher risk associated with crypto and self-custody. I just think the capability it provides is valuable. Like most things it's a nuanced issue and it's not all good or bad. A lot of your argued side-effects are also true of cash. Yet most (at least for now) are not arguing to get rid of cash because not every transaction can be monitored and controlled. Crypto gives more capability to individuals which is good (similar to cash). It creates a store of value outside of government monetary policy (in the BTC case more similar to gold). People tend to simplify these things into "crypto is entirely bad" or "crypto is entirely good". I think it's a new tool that gives individuals new capabilities, but also has its own risks. I value the new capabilities and acknowledge the risks. > "Crypto, by design, bypasses the legal system. There are some heavy consequences to that design." This is mostly false. In the case of public ledgers - it's even easier to see transaction history than it is with cash (though this is less true of Zcash). It doesn't bypass the legal system it just requires a higher degree of intervention for your money to be taken from you (which is often desirable, especially if living under an oppressive government). Does cash bypass the legal system by design?