9 ms·

> the idea that people must now play like robots to earn a living so as to be human in their spare time is, indeed, the apotheosis of misanthropy This quote is

> the idea that people must now play like robots to earn a living so as to be human in their spare time is, indeed, the apotheosis of misanthropy This quote is amazing, and describes most of crypto.

pessimizer 5y ago
Very much in the same spirit as yesterday's "Books Become Games" post: https://justinehsmith.substack.com/p/books-become-games https://justinehsmith.substack.com/p/books-become-games
CryptoPunk 5y ago
The choice is not between some communist utopia that Varoufakis alludes to, and people grinding in virtual worlds to make a living. The choice is between a family in the Philippines facing severe hunger during the lockdown, and that family being able to sell virtual goods to wealthier people in the developed world, to put food on the table. More generally, allowing web users to assume genuine ownership - secured by provable scarcity and public key cryptography - over virtual goods, means the profit that the internet generates will not be monopolized by a few internet giants. Consider, the Ethereum Name Service airdrop rewarded over 100,000 accounts with its ENS tokens. This is a degree of diffusion in the distribution of ownership over critical protocols that was totally impossible before blockchain-based assets and networks.
- netsharc 5y ago
  > More generally, allowing web users to assume genuine ownership - secured by provable scarcity and public key cryptography - over virtual goods, means the profit that the internet generates will not be monopolized by a few internet giants. Arguably YouTube has enabled thousands of new entertainers, making many of them (but well, a small percentage of all) filthy rich and/or famous, by making entertainment products. Funnily, OnlyFans also fits in the category.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    You don't own anything in YouTube. YouTube can always deplatform you.
- FollowingTheDao 5y ago
  > The choice is between a family in the Philippines facing severe hunger during the lockdown, and that family being able to sell virtual goods to wealthier people in the developed world, to put food on the table. The answer to capitalism's problems is more capitalism? We are just no doing it hard enough? Why is the family is the Philippines facing severe hunger in the first place? Capitalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wax7wyWwnAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wax7wyWwnAU You know the same Filipinos have been fighting capitalism for the longest any people have ever fought it? https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3027414/explained-philippines-communist-rebellion-asias-longest-running https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3027414/expl... I do not have an answer for any of this, but I know it is not crypto. If you think money can can save people you know nothing about money or people.
  - Rufhfhs3747rhe7 5y ago
    Are you suggesting that the level of severe hunger was generally lower before capitalism? I don't believe that to be true.
    - FollowingTheDao 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - FredPret 5y ago
        Fascism is anathema to capitalism. Capitalism means free markets, for which you need free market actors, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement. Capitalism means trusting other adults to be able to use their own intelligence to make the best choices for them. Fascism and other authoritarian systems like communism is, at heart, pompous, arrogant, and disrespectful because it presumes to dictate what the people must do.
        FollowingTheDao 5y ago
        [flagged]
- lottin 5y ago
  > genuine ownership "Not your keys, not your coins" is the opposite of genuine ownership. Actual ownership is not lost by losing possession of the thing being owned. That's the whole point of ownership.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    This is the only genuine ownership that exists in the digital realm. Digital assets that use a ledger run by a trusted third party can always be seized or frozen by that party.
    - lottin 5y ago
      A trusted party is required to enforce ownership rights. If somebody steals your digital assets, the trusted party will seize the stolen assets and return them to their rightful owner. Without a trusted party that has the power to seize assets ownership cannot be enforced, in other words there cannot be ownership.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        In the "not your keys, not your coins" setup, that trusted third party is the government, which gives you security against theft, kidnapping, burglary, etc, so you can keep your keys safe. Adding another trusted third party, like a gaming company, to the mix, to act as the custodian of who owns what, creates a much less-reliable / more-fragile private property system, as that custodian, at their own behest or that of a political faction who holds the reigns to the govenment, can deprive you of your control over the virtual asset. So to put it another way, trusted third parties can also be a threat to private property. The right balance between being protected by a trusted third party from theft and robbery, and being protected against a trusted third party stealing and robbing you, is the "not your keys, not your coins" setup, where the trusted third party only enforces rules against others trespassing your person or home, without having custody of your property on your behalf, so as to not have intimate knowledge of and control over everything you own.
        5y ago
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
The problem, to me, is that this "work" is useless. These Filipinos could be doing something materially useful, but the vagueries of money mean they're doing this instead. I know I am being a dirty productivist here. Maybe we can zoom out and say all work is basically psychological: It makes people happy. Including useless things, like overpaying another person to make you a coffee, or to give you a blowjob. So why not pay someone to win a virtual hat you can wear in TF2, if it makes you happy? And why not trade in opium or oxycodone if it changes your customers' mental states in ways that they value? Why not? It just seems pointless, is the problem. I know I have no way to justify the idea that building a house (which will make someone feel good) is different from sucking a cock (which will make someone feel good) or giving them a rare NFT (same). But building the house somehow seems more meaningful and lasting. It is not just the manipulation of mental states.
- landemva 5y ago
  I'm encouraged they have an accessible choice. It's their life and their labor.

> the idea that people must now play like robots to earn a living so as to be human in their spare time is, indeed, the apotheosis of misanthropy This quote is amazing, and describes most of crypto.

pessimizer 5y ago

Very much in the same spirit as yesterday's "Books Become Games" post: https://justinehsmith.substack.com/p/books-become-games https://justinehsmith.substack.com/p/books-become-games

CryptoPunk 5y ago

The choice is not between some communist utopia that Varoufakis alludes to, and people grinding in virtual worlds to make a living. The choice is between a family in the Philippines facing severe hunger during the lockdown, and that family being able to sell virtual goods to wealthier people in the developed world, to put food on the table. More generally, allowing web users to assume genuine ownership - secured by provable scarcity and public key cryptography - over virtual goods, means the profit that the internet generates will not be monopolized by a few internet giants. Consider, the Ethereum Name Service airdrop rewarded over 100,000 accounts with its ENS tokens. This is a degree of diffusion in the distribution of ownership over critical protocols that was totally impossible before blockchain-based assets and networks.

netsharc 5y ago
> More generally, allowing web users to assume genuine ownership - secured by provable scarcity and public key cryptography - over virtual goods, means the profit that the internet generates will not be monopolized by a few internet giants. Arguably YouTube has enabled thousands of new entertainers, making many of them (but well, a small percentage of all) filthy rich and/or famous, by making entertainment products. Funnily, OnlyFans also fits in the category.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  You don't own anything in YouTube. YouTube can always deplatform you.
FollowingTheDao 5y ago
> The choice is between a family in the Philippines facing severe hunger during the lockdown, and that family being able to sell virtual goods to wealthier people in the developed world, to put food on the table. The answer to capitalism's problems is more capitalism? We are just no doing it hard enough? Why is the family is the Philippines facing severe hunger in the first place? Capitalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wax7wyWwnAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wax7wyWwnAU You know the same Filipinos have been fighting capitalism for the longest any people have ever fought it? https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3027414/explained-philippines-communist-rebellion-asias-longest-running https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3027414/expl... I do not have an answer for any of this, but I know it is not crypto. If you think money can can save people you know nothing about money or people.
- Rufhfhs3747rhe7 5y ago
  Are you suggesting that the level of severe hunger was generally lower before capitalism? I don't believe that to be true.
  - FollowingTheDao 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - FredPret 5y ago
      Fascism is anathema to capitalism. Capitalism means free markets, for which you need free market actors, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement. Capitalism means trusting other adults to be able to use their own intelligence to make the best choices for them. Fascism and other authoritarian systems like communism is, at heart, pompous, arrogant, and disrespectful because it presumes to dictate what the people must do.
      - FollowingTheDao 5y ago
        [flagged]
lottin 5y ago
> genuine ownership "Not your keys, not your coins" is the opposite of genuine ownership. Actual ownership is not lost by losing possession of the thing being owned. That's the whole point of ownership.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  This is the only genuine ownership that exists in the digital realm. Digital assets that use a ledger run by a trusted third party can always be seized or frozen by that party.
  - lottin 5y ago
    A trusted party is required to enforce ownership rights. If somebody steals your digital assets, the trusted party will seize the stolen assets and return them to their rightful owner. Without a trusted party that has the power to seize assets ownership cannot be enforced, in other words there cannot be ownership.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      In the "not your keys, not your coins" setup, that trusted third party is the government, which gives you security against theft, kidnapping, burglary, etc, so you can keep your keys safe. Adding another trusted third party, like a gaming company, to the mix, to act as the custodian of who owns what, creates a much less-reliable / more-fragile private property system, as that custodian, at their own behest or that of a political faction who holds the reigns to the govenment, can deprive you of your control over the virtual asset. So to put it another way, trusted third parties can also be a threat to private property. The right balance between being protected by a trusted third party from theft and robbery, and being protected against a trusted third party stealing and robbing you, is the "not your keys, not your coins" setup, where the trusted third party only enforces rules against others trespassing your person or home, without having custody of your property on your behalf, so as to not have intimate knowledge of and control over everything you own.
      - 5y ago

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago

The problem, to me, is that this "work" is useless. These Filipinos could be doing something materially useful, but the vagueries of money mean they're doing this instead. I know I am being a dirty productivist here. Maybe we can zoom out and say all work is basically psychological: It makes people happy. Including useless things, like overpaying another person to make you a coffee, or to give you a blowjob. So why not pay someone to win a virtual hat you can wear in TF2, if it makes you happy? And why not trade in opium or oxycodone if it changes your customers' mental states in ways that they value? Why not? It just seems pointless, is the problem. I know I have no way to justify the idea that building a house (which will make someone feel good) is different from sucking a cock (which will make someone feel good) or giving them a rare NFT (same). But building the house somehow seems more meaningful and lasting. It is not just the manipulation of mental states.

landemva 5y ago
I'm encouraged they have an accessible choice. It's their life and their labor.