4 ms·

>money launderers, criminals and pedophiles. I think it's important to expand on the above because the above terms are tame. They give an impression of individ

by kd913 4y ago

>money launderers, criminals and pedophiles. I think it's important to expand on the above because the above terms are tame. They give an impression of individual small time criminals. It's North Korea, Russia, dictators and despots across the world, the cartels, organized criminals. Large scale Tax avoiders, human traffickers, drug traffickers, weapon smugglers. It's the organized big money criminals, both high and low class that fund the worst aspects of humanity.

jcbrand 4y ago
Funnily enough, the people who live under dictators, despots, cartels and organized criminals often more easily realise the benefits of money that cannot be censored, cannot have its issuance be manipulated, is permissionless and very difficult to confiscate. (Talking about Bitcoin here. Not all crypto applies)
- kd913 4y ago
  Which examples? The ones who take hush money and are subject to increased violence from an increasingly powerful cartel? The ones who are paying for these open ponzi schemes by having their electricity stolen by the state? How about El Salvador, or Argentina, or Nigeria where the poorest lost significant chunks of their capital from btc crash to terra/luna collapse.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  Uhuh... and if the state, with its monopoly on violence, wishes to ban these currencies? D'you think an "ordinary person" is going to risk being thrown in a gulag? The problem with all these tech utopians is they think the relevant problems are technical: we've solved trust! (Between machines negotiating over a network). We've solved currency manipulation (oh its not a currency, it's an asset; and oh it can be manipulated by the 3 people who own 50% of it). All the problems are social, not technological. And crypto makes all of them worse! By an order of magnitude worse.
  - Zerverus 4y ago
    Moreso ordinary people using fully traceable digital money in these situations is a special kind of stupid
  - jcbrand 4y ago
    Uhuh... and if the state, with its monopoly on violence, wishes to ban these currencies? They can try, but it's very difficult to do. I hear we'll win the war on drugs any day now. All the problems are social, not technological No solution is 100% social or technological, you need both. The existence of cryptocurrencies doesn't remove the need for social coordination.
    - mjburgess 4y ago
      Right, but you realise that a system in which the handful of early-stakers have all of the power; and in which no change or revision is possible; and in which blackmail & abuse of key-holders is necessitated to obtain their funds; and in which there is no economy of the currency to provide a grounding in value; and in which therefore it is the late-stakers who provide liquidiy to the early feudal lords... and in which ... Is a worse situation, right? Crypto is just fedualism with land=coin. Really. That's what it is. It's about as anti-freedom as one can imagine. It's "freedom in form" and not in content. It's the freedom of the colonizer on new land, and the oppression of all else who live there. A necessary oppression, not open to revision, and executed by machine.
      - jcbrand 4y ago
        The issuance of Bitcoin is about as fair as one could hope for, for a non-state currency. Satoshi advertised the currency and the start of mining beforehand, to give other people a chance to participate. There was no pre-mine. In the early days there were faucets that handed out bitcoins for free. Due to the boom and bust cycle of Bitcoin, many of the early holders cashed out instead of holding all the way to untold wealth. This is actually a nice side-effect of the early stages of Bitcoin adoption. Very early holders of Bitcoin had to take the risk that the currency was somehow flawed and would go to zero, in some sense, the gains they made are a function of the risk they took. The solution to wealth inequality is not to force everything to be equal, it's to allow both upward and downward mobility. The wealthy must be allowed to fail and not be bailed out. Interestingly, bailouts are a common feature of the fiat monetary system.

by kd913 4y ago

jcbrand 4y ago

Funnily enough, the people who live under dictators, despots, cartels and organized criminals often more easily realise the benefits of money that cannot be censored, cannot have its issuance be manipulated, is permissionless and very difficult to confiscate. (Talking about Bitcoin here. Not all crypto applies)

kd913 4y ago
Which examples? The ones who take hush money and are subject to increased violence from an increasingly powerful cartel? The ones who are paying for these open ponzi schemes by having their electricity stolen by the state? How about El Salvador, or Argentina, or Nigeria where the poorest lost significant chunks of their capital from btc crash to terra/luna collapse.
mjburgess 4y ago
Uhuh... and if the state, with its monopoly on violence, wishes to ban these currencies? D'you think an "ordinary person" is going to risk being thrown in a gulag? The problem with all these tech utopians is they think the relevant problems are technical: we've solved trust! (Between machines negotiating over a network). We've solved currency manipulation (oh its not a currency, it's an asset; and oh it can be manipulated by the 3 people who own 50% of it). All the problems are social, not technological. And crypto makes all of them worse! By an order of magnitude worse.
- Zerverus 4y ago
  Moreso ordinary people using fully traceable digital money in these situations is a special kind of stupid
- jcbrand 4y ago
  Uhuh... and if the state, with its monopoly on violence, wishes to ban these currencies? They can try, but it's very difficult to do. I hear we'll win the war on drugs any day now. All the problems are social, not technological No solution is 100% social or technological, you need both. The existence of cryptocurrencies doesn't remove the need for social coordination.
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    Right, but you realise that a system in which the handful of early-stakers have all of the power; and in which no change or revision is possible; and in which blackmail & abuse of key-holders is necessitated to obtain their funds; and in which there is no economy of the currency to provide a grounding in value; and in which therefore it is the late-stakers who provide liquidiy to the early feudal lords... and in which ... Is a worse situation, right? Crypto is just fedualism with land=coin. Really. That's what it is. It's about as anti-freedom as one can imagine. It's "freedom in form" and not in content. It's the freedom of the colonizer on new land, and the oppression of all else who live there. A necessary oppression, not open to revision, and executed by machine.
    - jcbrand 4y ago
      The issuance of Bitcoin is about as fair as one could hope for, for a non-state currency. Satoshi advertised the currency and the start of mining beforehand, to give other people a chance to participate. There was no pre-mine. In the early days there were faucets that handed out bitcoins for free. Due to the boom and bust cycle of Bitcoin, many of the early holders cashed out instead of holding all the way to untold wealth. This is actually a nice side-effect of the early stages of Bitcoin adoption. Very early holders of Bitcoin had to take the risk that the currency was somehow flawed and would go to zero, in some sense, the gains they made are a function of the risk they took. The solution to wealth inequality is not to force everything to be equal, it's to allow both upward and downward mobility. The wealthy must be allowed to fail and not be bailed out. Interestingly, bailouts are a common feature of the fiat monetary system.