5 ms·

that was not one of the arguments made in the RFC > Common arguments in support include: issues of environmental sustainability, that accepting cryptocurrencie

by jdrc 5y ago

that was not one of the arguments made in the RFC > Common arguments in support include: issues of environmental sustainability, that accepting cryptocurrencies constitutes implicit endorsement of the issues surrounding cryptocurrencies, and community issues with the risk to the movement’s reputation for accepting cryptocurrencies. it looks 100% ideological

aaronbrethorst 5y ago
Accepting cryptocurrencies is equally ideological
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  The ideology of people not needing a central government's permission to privately interact? What I would concede is that it does challenge the dominant ideology of the establishment. As this former Federal Reserve economist describes, the Federal Reserve system is extremely centralized: https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=20&t=NpU-wAnoZ5736jOsrE_v6A https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=... This is just one aspect of centralized economic control cryptocurrency threatens to upend. Centralization will inevitably engender rent-seeking, so the dominant ideological framework being one that glorifies that centralized gatekeeping, and villifies a free market, is entirely predictable.
- derevaunseraun 5y ago
  since when?
  - jeltz 4y ago
    Since many years ago. The cryptocurrency movement has always been very ideological.
    - jdrc 4y ago
      so has the anti-crypto so we are at an impasse
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        >> Since many years ago. The cryptocurrency movement has always been very ideological. > so has the anti-crypto so we are at an impasse No on both counts. Also, the "cryptocurrency movement" isn't just regular ideological, it's particularly ideological. Cryptocurrency wasn't made to fill any practical need, it was made to fit certain peculiar ideological obsessions.
        throwawaw741741 4y ago
        You're wrong. It was definitely made to fill a practical need: avoiding the middle man. Why do you think it's so popular in corrupt authorarian thirld-word countries? And if you live in the US/Europe, you'll get there eventually.
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > You're wrong. It was definitely made to fill a practical need: avoiding the middle man. No I'm not. Also, with cryptocurrency you still have middlemen. To whom are you paying fees to clear your transactions on your dog-slow, unscalable, extremely inefficient network? And why do these systems have the negative characteristics I just mentioned? The peculiar ideological obsessions I referred to earlier. > Why do you think it's so popular in corrupt authorarian thirld-word countries? And if you live in the US/Europe, you'll get there eventually. I'll believe it when I see it. And frankly, those use cases are nonsensical. How exactly is someone supposed to convert their Syrian Pounds into cryptocurrency, and after they do that, what use is it? It's not like it's an actual currency that you can buy things with. It's mainly speculative investment surrounded by enormous hype.
        throwawaw741741 4y ago
        >> with cryptocurrency you still have middlemen. To whom are you paying fees to clear your transactions on your dog-slow, unscalable, extremely inefficient network? True, but that's as close as you'll get to P2P for a currency. Still, there's thousands of btc nodes and anyone could theoretically run one... unlike "just one bank" or "just one Mastercard". It is slow, and inefficient precisely because there's no central authority (lool up Bizantine Generals problem). It has scaled extremely well for what it actually is. Some people don't seem to understand this and compare it with, say VISA transactions. >> It's not like it's an actual currency that you can buy things with. It is. I can pay someone to build a website using bitcoin. Or, I can buy a car using bitcoin. You just need to agree on a number. >> How exactly is someone supposed to convert their Syrian Pounds into cryptocurrency You can always buy bitcoin from an individual in exchange for Syrian pounds. It's like bartering. You can sell it back to an individual even if exchanges don't work. >> It's mainly speculative investment surrounded by enormous hype. That's just a byproduct. For example, I don't "save in bitcoin", I just use it for its intended purposes when I have to make a purchase. By the way, my govt said exacty the same about the black market of US dollars, because people here use them to protect themselves from a quickly devaluing currency (>60% yearly inflation) and to avoid the corrupt govt control over their money (enormous taxes in exchange for nothing).
- 0xRolex 5y ago
  Common arguments in opposition include: the existence of less energy-intensive cryptocurrencies (proof-of-stake), that cryptocurrencies provide safer ways to donate and engage in finance for people in oppressive countries I don't see how energy efficient currencies and allowing safer ways for people in oppressive countries to donate is ideological
- ea550ff70a 4y ago
  Accepting the war-driven petro-dollar is equally ideological.

by jdrc 5y ago

aaronbrethorst 5y ago

Accepting cryptocurrencies is equally ideological

CryptoPunk 5y ago
The ideology of people not needing a central government's permission to privately interact? What I would concede is that it does challenge the dominant ideology of the establishment. As this former Federal Reserve economist describes, the Federal Reserve system is extremely centralized: https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=20&t=NpU-wAnoZ5736jOsrE_v6A https://twitter.com/gordonliao/status/1484605701435523072?s=... This is just one aspect of centralized economic control cryptocurrency threatens to upend. Centralization will inevitably engender rent-seeking, so the dominant ideological framework being one that glorifies that centralized gatekeeping, and villifies a free market, is entirely predictable.
derevaunseraun 5y ago
since when?
- jeltz 4y ago
  Since many years ago. The cryptocurrency movement has always been very ideological.
  - jdrc 4y ago
    so has the anti-crypto so we are at an impasse
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      >> Since many years ago. The cryptocurrency movement has always been very ideological. > so has the anti-crypto so we are at an impasse No on both counts. Also, the "cryptocurrency movement" isn't just regular ideological, it's particularly ideological. Cryptocurrency wasn't made to fill any practical need, it was made to fit certain peculiar ideological obsessions.
      - throwawaw741741 4y ago
        You're wrong. It was definitely made to fill a practical need: avoiding the middle man. Why do you think it's so popular in corrupt authorarian thirld-word countries? And if you live in the US/Europe, you'll get there eventually.
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > You're wrong. It was definitely made to fill a practical need: avoiding the middle man. No I'm not. Also, with cryptocurrency you still have middlemen. To whom are you paying fees to clear your transactions on your dog-slow, unscalable, extremely inefficient network? And why do these systems have the negative characteristics I just mentioned? The peculiar ideological obsessions I referred to earlier. > Why do you think it's so popular in corrupt authorarian thirld-word countries? And if you live in the US/Europe, you'll get there eventually. I'll believe it when I see it. And frankly, those use cases are nonsensical. How exactly is someone supposed to convert their Syrian Pounds into cryptocurrency, and after they do that, what use is it? It's not like it's an actual currency that you can buy things with. It's mainly speculative investment surrounded by enormous hype.
        throwawaw741741 4y ago
        >> with cryptocurrency you still have middlemen. To whom are you paying fees to clear your transactions on your dog-slow, unscalable, extremely inefficient network? True, but that's as close as you'll get to P2P for a currency. Still, there's thousands of btc nodes and anyone could theoretically run one... unlike "just one bank" or "just one Mastercard". It is slow, and inefficient precisely because there's no central authority (lool up Bizantine Generals problem). It has scaled extremely well for what it actually is. Some people don't seem to understand this and compare it with, say VISA transactions. >> It's not like it's an actual currency that you can buy things with. It is. I can pay someone to build a website using bitcoin. Or, I can buy a car using bitcoin. You just need to agree on a number. >> How exactly is someone supposed to convert their Syrian Pounds into cryptocurrency You can always buy bitcoin from an individual in exchange for Syrian pounds. It's like bartering. You can sell it back to an individual even if exchanges don't work. >> It's mainly speculative investment surrounded by enormous hype. That's just a byproduct. For example, I don't "save in bitcoin", I just use it for its intended purposes when I have to make a purchase. By the way, my govt said exacty the same about the black market of US dollars, because people here use them to protect themselves from a quickly devaluing currency (>60% yearly inflation) and to avoid the corrupt govt control over their money (enormous taxes in exchange for nothing).
0xRolex 5y ago
Common arguments in opposition include: the existence of less energy-intensive cryptocurrencies (proof-of-stake), that cryptocurrencies provide safer ways to donate and engage in finance for people in oppressive countries I don't see how energy efficient currencies and allowing safer ways for people in oppressive countries to donate is ideological
ea550ff70a 4y ago
Accepting the war-driven petro-dollar is equally ideological.