5 ms·

Because they know more than surface-level details and understand that trustless, permission-less financial systems offer a huge amount of value, especially to t

Because they know more than surface-level details and understand that trustless, permission-less financial systems offer a huge amount of value, especially to those in less-developed and authoritarian countries, who are regularly abused by a small group of people running their country's financial affairs. But that doesn't apply to you because you live in the developed world, where you've never had to deal with not being allowed a bank account or extortionist fees or the government simply coming and seizing your assets for an arbitrary, amoral reason.

vosper 4y ago
I'm sure these authoritarian governments are definitely just going to sit by while some foreign technology disrupts their control of the financial system. The Security XKCD says it better - it even uses the term "crypto"! https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- siftrics 4y ago
  You make a good point, but this is still a step in the right direction. This offers users the chance to flee their country and retain their assets. Good luck getting your assets out of a legacy banking system in such a country.
  - vosper 4y ago
    Yup that's a good point, and one I haven't seen before.
dvtrn 4y ago
or the government simply coming and seizing your assets for an arbitrary, amoral reason. You mean people don’t like it when the large amorphous and powerful body that asks its constituents to trust it pulls the rug, and all of their currency out from under them?
- siftrics 4y ago
  Red herring. I'm not arguing for any system that has the power to rug their constituents, crypto systems included. Crypto at least enables systems to be built. It's up to you to either trust it without any due diligence or read the source code yourself. This is a step in the right direction for people who like to assume their own risk and don't like to pay for the bad decision-making of others.
  - dvtrn 4y ago
    It's up to you to either trust it without any due diligence or read the source code yourself. I suppose so, but given that your entire conceit started off with a defense of people in under-developed nations, and their access to capital and money, is this really about serving those people? If so, how are people in a country with heavily-devalued currencies under authoritarian regimes served by reading source code for cryptocurrencies? How many people in these countries are you expecting to pop open a laptop and start reading the ETH source before they can buy these digital coins and buy their next meal with it? I'm sorry but the response here of "just read the source code", given you yourself are holding up impoverished nations, where people are not even "allowed a bank account" as beneficiaries of cryptocurrencies is some LOUD hubris. This is a step in the right direction for people who like to assume their own risk Isn't this something someone can already do on established markets in the physical world? don't like to pay for the bad decision-making of others Isn't this exactly what just happened in the article we're discussing right now in this thread?
    - siftrics 4y ago
      >Isn't this something someone can already do on established markets in the physical world? Name one trustless, permission-less system that avoids the double spending problem. I would love to know about it. >Isn't this exactly what just happened in the article we're discussing right now in this thread? I don't know what you're saying. Participants could do their due diligence and fully understand the risks before participating. Who paid for someone else's screw up?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
HomeGear 4y ago
The “developed world” is who is holding the values up. Crypto is not a savings account for poor people to avoid authoritarian governments. It has no use. It’s nothing more than gambling at this point.
nawgz 4y ago
> Because they know more than surface-level details Implying those who criticize a project or idea simply lack knowledge is facile; you mightaswell just write "because they're haters" > you've never had to deal with not being allowed a bank account or extortionist fees or the government simply coming and seizing your assets for an arbitrary, amoral reason So, you argue some value exists in Bitcoin as a political tool to subvert dictatorial influence; what exactly does that do to justify massive compute requiring fees 10-100x greater than the transaction value and associated use of real-world energy? Why would another system not serve this same idea in a better way? What guarantees do people using this as a financial system that it will deliver this value? Ultimately, what you're saying is "this absurdly compute- and energy-heavy system serves an unintended purpose slightly better than the status quo it competes against in some circumstances, and that justifies all its downsides". I don't really agree with that, and I don't understand why you can't have an honest conversation with nuance about it
- siftrics 4y ago
  > what exactly does that do to justify massive compute requiring fees 10-100x greater than the transaction value and associated use of real-world energy? You're confused. Bitcoin does not have such fees. Ethereum, while it does have such fees, is moving to proof-of-stake and the energy argument no longer holds up. There are numerous non-PoW chains already actively used, for which the energy argument does not hold up. This is the only way we know how to avoid double-spending in a trustless, permission-less way. If you know of another way that maintains those two properties, I would love to learn about it.
  - nawgz 4y ago
    > You're confused. Bitcoin does not have such fees This is an Ethereum thread, is it not? > Ethereum, while it does have such fees, is moving to proof-of-stake and the energy argument no longer holds up. Um, excuse me, Ethereum very much has these fees still, so the argument is extremely valid in the moment; additionally, this "proof of stake" movement was meant to occur in 2019 no? They are 3 years late and at best 1/3 complete, 9 years of delay sounds about right - this space is full of speculation and grifters treating that speculation as truth to grift. > There are numerous non-PoW chains That have extremely unstable financial valuations, destroying the credibility of them as alternatives to existing financial systems. Your arguments hold no water, they require hypothetical futures and blatantly false things to hold, so why are you making them? > This is the only way we know how to avoid double-spending in a trustless, permission-less way The value prop of this is 0 today. Maybe it's even a net negative on the world, with the transactions on these chains having an extremely significant scam rate while also using more energy than entire mid-sized countries do to literally exist. You need to justify why "trustless and permissionless" are important before you can just say "we need systems with these properties!". I can only feel that you are financially deep into these systems and rationalizing to hold your position, you seem like you'd be perfectly capable of constructing good arguments when not emotionally compromised by the topic.

vosper 4y ago

I'm sure these authoritarian governments are definitely just going to sit by while some foreign technology disrupts their control of the financial system. The Security XKCD says it better - it even uses the term "crypto"! https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/

siftrics 4y ago
You make a good point, but this is still a step in the right direction. This offers users the chance to flee their country and retain their assets. Good luck getting your assets out of a legacy banking system in such a country.
- vosper 4y ago
  Yup that's a good point, and one I haven't seen before.

dvtrn 4y ago

or the government simply coming and seizing your assets for an arbitrary, amoral reason. You mean people don’t like it when the large amorphous and powerful body that asks its constituents to trust it pulls the rug, and all of their currency out from under them?

siftrics 4y ago
Red herring. I'm not arguing for any system that has the power to rug their constituents, crypto systems included. Crypto at least enables systems to be built. It's up to you to either trust it without any due diligence or read the source code yourself. This is a step in the right direction for people who like to assume their own risk and don't like to pay for the bad decision-making of others.
- dvtrn 4y ago
  It's up to you to either trust it without any due diligence or read the source code yourself. I suppose so, but given that your entire conceit started off with a defense of people in under-developed nations, and their access to capital and money, is this really about serving those people? If so, how are people in a country with heavily-devalued currencies under authoritarian regimes served by reading source code for cryptocurrencies? How many people in these countries are you expecting to pop open a laptop and start reading the ETH source before they can buy these digital coins and buy their next meal with it? I'm sorry but the response here of "just read the source code", given you yourself are holding up impoverished nations, where people are not even "allowed a bank account" as beneficiaries of cryptocurrencies is some LOUD hubris. This is a step in the right direction for people who like to assume their own risk Isn't this something someone can already do on established markets in the physical world? don't like to pay for the bad decision-making of others Isn't this exactly what just happened in the article we're discussing right now in this thread?
  - siftrics 4y ago
    >Isn't this something someone can already do on established markets in the physical world? Name one trustless, permission-less system that avoids the double spending problem. I would love to know about it. >Isn't this exactly what just happened in the article we're discussing right now in this thread? I don't know what you're saying. Participants could do their due diligence and fully understand the risks before participating. Who paid for someone else's screw up?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

HomeGear 4y ago

The “developed world” is who is holding the values up. Crypto is not a savings account for poor people to avoid authoritarian governments. It has no use. It’s nothing more than gambling at this point.

nawgz 4y ago

> Because they know more than surface-level details Implying those who criticize a project or idea simply lack knowledge is facile; you mightaswell just write "because they're haters" > you've never had to deal with not being allowed a bank account or extortionist fees or the government simply coming and seizing your assets for an arbitrary, amoral reason So, you argue some value exists in Bitcoin as a political tool to subvert dictatorial influence; what exactly does that do to justify massive compute requiring fees 10-100x greater than the transaction value and associated use of real-world energy? Why would another system not serve this same idea in a better way? What guarantees do people using this as a financial system that it will deliver this value? Ultimately, what you're saying is "this absurdly compute- and energy-heavy system serves an unintended purpose slightly better than the status quo it competes against in some circumstances, and that justifies all its downsides". I don't really agree with that, and I don't understand why you can't have an honest conversation with nuance about it

siftrics 4y ago
> what exactly does that do to justify massive compute requiring fees 10-100x greater than the transaction value and associated use of real-world energy? You're confused. Bitcoin does not have such fees. Ethereum, while it does have such fees, is moving to proof-of-stake and the energy argument no longer holds up. There are numerous non-PoW chains already actively used, for which the energy argument does not hold up. This is the only way we know how to avoid double-spending in a trustless, permission-less way. If you know of another way that maintains those two properties, I would love to learn about it.
- nawgz 4y ago
  > You're confused. Bitcoin does not have such fees This is an Ethereum thread, is it not? > Ethereum, while it does have such fees, is moving to proof-of-stake and the energy argument no longer holds up. Um, excuse me, Ethereum very much has these fees still, so the argument is extremely valid in the moment; additionally, this "proof of stake" movement was meant to occur in 2019 no? They are 3 years late and at best 1/3 complete, 9 years of delay sounds about right - this space is full of speculation and grifters treating that speculation as truth to grift. > There are numerous non-PoW chains That have extremely unstable financial valuations, destroying the credibility of them as alternatives to existing financial systems. Your arguments hold no water, they require hypothetical futures and blatantly false things to hold, so why are you making them? > This is the only way we know how to avoid double-spending in a trustless, permission-less way The value prop of this is 0 today. Maybe it's even a net negative on the world, with the transactions on these chains having an extremely significant scam rate while also using more energy than entire mid-sized countries do to literally exist. You need to justify why "trustless and permissionless" are important before you can just say "we need systems with these properties!". I can only feel that you are financially deep into these systems and rationalizing to hold your position, you seem like you'd be perfectly capable of constructing good arguments when not emotionally compromised by the topic.