3 ms·

I'd would say none of the technologies listed even closely approach the impact of social technologies such as rule of law, democracy, etc. If your fellow citiz

I'd would say none of the technologies listed even closely approach the impact of social technologies such as rule of law, democracy, etc. If your fellow citizens in aggregate really don't like what you do and want to stop you, the will eventually find a way. You want a society that does not police where money flows - which is a big change and there is no evidence that broadly people like to open the taps on things like terrorist financing, slave trading etc. So there will likely be some limits that societies like to enforce. And of course they could attack crypto by taking over mining, policing any sale of hardware, making touching any crypto a felony, clamp down harder on any cause you want to donate to, etc. They might not win completely, but they might make things pretty uncomfortable for most that would want to use it.

roenxi 4y ago
Nobody likes homelessness. How is democracy going at putting an end to it? The list of similar examples is endless; democracies are forced to put up with a lot of stuff that nobody likes when everything that is tried turns out not to work. Democracy is a very powerful technology, no argument there. But it can't overcome technical realities. It is better at adjusting to them and giving up when the cost gets too high.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  Nobody likes homelessness, but do people care about it enough to vote for people with an agenda for it or pay for it to change? And no, technologies do not freely diffuse through societies, some stuff remains pretty firmly in highly policed boxes when the cost of letting it run free is deemed to high (can you just go buy nuclear weapons, for example?). Who is to say that the cost of banning crypto would be too high - I have not seen the evidence for that (also not really for a ban, either)? That is a political decision, not a technical one. And, yes, there can be bad decisions with really high costs, no doubt.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > ...do people care about it enough to vote for people with an agenda for it... Yep. Happens regularly. > ...or pay for it to change? And nope, certainly not. But crypto will fall into the same category - stamping out the ability to do the - rather simple - necessary maths would require horrific compromises that are simply not supportable. This technology has radically altered the power balance of moving funds around. Sure that isn't sunshine and roses, but at least we don't have to worry about so much about asset freezes.
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      I don't think asset freezes are high on most people's agenda in first world countries. And the developing world does not have the GDP to move how things are done in the large economies for now.
      - roenxi 4y ago
        Sure it is. Every so often the government rolls in and reallocates wealth to the wealthy - eg, as happened in '08 and is famously memorialised in the Bitcoin genesis block. Dealing with asset shenanigans like freezes is exactly why the crypto project started. If you've got no assets then sure, ignore that. Otherwise it makes sense to start tallying the risks against government seizures. Plus asset freezes are on the cards for shutting down protesting truckers. If we're living in a world where the Canadian government can attack truckers (of all people) with asset freezes why can't it happen to you or me? I don't see the much difference between myself and a Canadian trucker. I suppose I couldn't handle working hard for more than about 6 hours at a time.
        RandomLensman 4y ago
        Do you have any data backing up that asset freezes are high on most people's agenda? Where I live certainly it is not, doesn't even show up in any surveys etc. and the asset freezes at Canadian truckers are/were not really much of a news item (living in large European country). I can see that trust in banks has eroded a bit (still surprisingly high) but asset freezes or seizures are not a thing in the public eye where I live. I can believe that for some people the topic is high on the agenda, but really "most"?
- jesusofnazarath 4y ago
- pjc50 4y ago
  I think every time the subject comes up we find that people (not themselves homeless) do like homelessness, and regard it as a suitable punishment for failing to contribute to society, being mentally ill, or using hard drugs.

roenxi 4y ago

Nobody likes homelessness. How is democracy going at putting an end to it? The list of similar examples is endless; democracies are forced to put up with a lot of stuff that nobody likes when everything that is tried turns out not to work. Democracy is a very powerful technology, no argument there. But it can't overcome technical realities. It is better at adjusting to them and giving up when the cost gets too high.

RandomLensman 4y ago
Nobody likes homelessness, but do people care about it enough to vote for people with an agenda for it or pay for it to change? And no, technologies do not freely diffuse through societies, some stuff remains pretty firmly in highly policed boxes when the cost of letting it run free is deemed to high (can you just go buy nuclear weapons, for example?). Who is to say that the cost of banning crypto would be too high - I have not seen the evidence for that (also not really for a ban, either)? That is a political decision, not a technical one. And, yes, there can be bad decisions with really high costs, no doubt.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > ...do people care about it enough to vote for people with an agenda for it... Yep. Happens regularly. > ...or pay for it to change? And nope, certainly not. But crypto will fall into the same category - stamping out the ability to do the - rather simple - necessary maths would require horrific compromises that are simply not supportable. This technology has radically altered the power balance of moving funds around. Sure that isn't sunshine and roses, but at least we don't have to worry about so much about asset freezes.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    I don't think asset freezes are high on most people's agenda in first world countries. And the developing world does not have the GDP to move how things are done in the large economies for now.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      Sure it is. Every so often the government rolls in and reallocates wealth to the wealthy - eg, as happened in '08 and is famously memorialised in the Bitcoin genesis block. Dealing with asset shenanigans like freezes is exactly why the crypto project started. If you've got no assets then sure, ignore that. Otherwise it makes sense to start tallying the risks against government seizures. Plus asset freezes are on the cards for shutting down protesting truckers. If we're living in a world where the Canadian government can attack truckers (of all people) with asset freezes why can't it happen to you or me? I don't see the much difference between myself and a Canadian trucker. I suppose I couldn't handle working hard for more than about 6 hours at a time.
      - RandomLensman 4y ago
        Do you have any data backing up that asset freezes are high on most people's agenda? Where I live certainly it is not, doesn't even show up in any surveys etc. and the asset freezes at Canadian truckers are/were not really much of a news item (living in large European country). I can see that trust in banks has eroded a bit (still surprisingly high) but asset freezes or seizures are not a thing in the public eye where I live. I can believe that for some people the topic is high on the agenda, but really "most"?
jesusofnazarath 4y ago
pjc50 4y ago
I think every time the subject comes up we find that people (not themselves homeless) do like homelessness, and regard it as a suitable punishment for failing to contribute to society, being mentally ill, or using hard drugs.