5 ms·

> This is trivially falsifiable: blockchains are being used to facilitate illegal transactions. He literally makes this point in the article.

gfodor 4y ago
I read the article and do not see this point being made. Can you point it out?
- lolinder 4y ago
  > Someone, please show me an application where blockchain is essential. That is, a problem that could not have been solved without blockchain that can now be solved with it. (And “ransomware couldn’t exist because criminals are blocked from using the conventional financial networks, and cash payments aren’t feasible” does not count.) He's specifically calling out ransomware criminals as not counting, but I think he'd extend the logic to crime in general.
  - gfodor 4y ago
    That's not refuting my argument. My argument is that the general problem of being able to transact freely across the globe with radically reduced risk of government interception is a legitimate problem for many individuals now and in the past, who live under governments with unjust laws. Plucking one very obvious form of immoral criminality out of that gigantic pool of use cases is misleading at best. I think many people in the West forget how lucky they are that, on average, the correlation between the morality and legality of economic transactions is fairly decent.
    - n4r9 4y ago
      > the general problem of being able to transact freely across the globe with radically reduced risk of government interception is a legitimate problem for many individuals now and in the past, who live under governments with unjust laws I'm far from convinced that blockchain solves this. For a transaction system to be used in a serious and widespread manner, there must be recourse in case money is lost to fraud, hacking etc... . Currently this is typically provided by some goverment/state body regulating the system and prosecuting criminal abuse of it. I haven't seen any good arguments that cryptocurrencies can provide this kind of security without government involvement. Blockchain might provide a provisional workaround for people under unjust governments, but the long-term robust solution to me seems to be political and cultural progress, not technology.
      - gfodor 4y ago
        Technology leads norms, not the other way around. Technology doesn't dictate norms, but forces materialization of norms that otherwise wouldn't be necessary.
        n4r9 4y ago
        There are some situations where technology forces a reassessment of norms, yes. But this is beside the point, which is that blockchain does not properly solve the problem of secure global payments. It's a stopgap, and incentivises people to design a better solution.
    - lottin 4y ago
      Someone who lives under an oppressive government is not going to be less oppressed just because they gain the ability to send digital tokens around without government interference.
      - mypastself 4y ago
        If the person purchases goods or services with, or holds said token during a period in which a government devalues or confiscates their other stores of value to a greater degree, then I think it’s fair to say they are less oppressed.
        lottin 4y ago
        Can you give a concrete example (even a hypothetical one)? I'm a little lost.
        mypastself 4y ago
        A government might: block sending or receiving remittances; track or prohibit purchases of goods and services it considers immoral; devalue the official currency to a significant degree; easily confiscate gold, land or other traditional stores of value. Some or all of these could be considered opressive, depending on the context. A medium of exchange that can circumvent unjust laws could be said to decrease repression. Not sure how much better I can explain it.
        lottin 4y ago
        Literally all governments have capital controls and ban certain goods and services. Devaluation of a currency is not oppression either. Economic persecution is oppression. Let's say they fabricate a legal case against you and make you pay a big fine. How is bitcoin helping you being less oppressed in these circumstances? Feel free to come with another example, where bitcoin would help. I can't think of any. That's why I'm asking.
        4y ago
  - wuliwong 4y ago
    I think that is an unreasonable bar to set for a technology. It doesn't have to be the only way to do something to be viable. It might be the best solution for a problem but there still could exist other solutions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mypastself 4y ago
The article merely dismisses it out of hand, though, and the comment you’re responding to offers an alternative viewpoint.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

gfodor 4y ago

I read the article and do not see this point being made. Can you point it out?

lolinder 4y ago
> Someone, please show me an application where blockchain is essential. That is, a problem that could not have been solved without blockchain that can now be solved with it. (And “ransomware couldn’t exist because criminals are blocked from using the conventional financial networks, and cash payments aren’t feasible” does not count.) He's specifically calling out ransomware criminals as not counting, but I think he'd extend the logic to crime in general.
- gfodor 4y ago
  That's not refuting my argument. My argument is that the general problem of being able to transact freely across the globe with radically reduced risk of government interception is a legitimate problem for many individuals now and in the past, who live under governments with unjust laws. Plucking one very obvious form of immoral criminality out of that gigantic pool of use cases is misleading at best. I think many people in the West forget how lucky they are that, on average, the correlation between the morality and legality of economic transactions is fairly decent.
  - n4r9 4y ago
    > the general problem of being able to transact freely across the globe with radically reduced risk of government interception is a legitimate problem for many individuals now and in the past, who live under governments with unjust laws I'm far from convinced that blockchain solves this. For a transaction system to be used in a serious and widespread manner, there must be recourse in case money is lost to fraud, hacking etc... . Currently this is typically provided by some goverment/state body regulating the system and prosecuting criminal abuse of it. I haven't seen any good arguments that cryptocurrencies can provide this kind of security without government involvement. Blockchain might provide a provisional workaround for people under unjust governments, but the long-term robust solution to me seems to be political and cultural progress, not technology.
    - gfodor 4y ago
      Technology leads norms, not the other way around. Technology doesn't dictate norms, but forces materialization of norms that otherwise wouldn't be necessary.
      - n4r9 4y ago
        There are some situations where technology forces a reassessment of norms, yes. But this is beside the point, which is that blockchain does not properly solve the problem of secure global payments. It's a stopgap, and incentivises people to design a better solution.
  - lottin 4y ago
    Someone who lives under an oppressive government is not going to be less oppressed just because they gain the ability to send digital tokens around without government interference.
    - mypastself 4y ago
      If the person purchases goods or services with, or holds said token during a period in which a government devalues or confiscates their other stores of value to a greater degree, then I think it’s fair to say they are less oppressed.
      - lottin 4y ago
        Can you give a concrete example (even a hypothetical one)? I'm a little lost.
        mypastself 4y ago
        A government might: block sending or receiving remittances; track or prohibit purchases of goods and services it considers immoral; devalue the official currency to a significant degree; easily confiscate gold, land or other traditional stores of value. Some or all of these could be considered opressive, depending on the context. A medium of exchange that can circumvent unjust laws could be said to decrease repression. Not sure how much better I can explain it.
        lottin 4y ago
        Literally all governments have capital controls and ban certain goods and services. Devaluation of a currency is not oppression either. Economic persecution is oppression. Let's say they fabricate a legal case against you and make you pay a big fine. How is bitcoin helping you being less oppressed in these circumstances? Feel free to come with another example, where bitcoin would help. I can't think of any. That's why I'm asking.
        4y ago
- wuliwong 4y ago
  I think that is an unreasonable bar to set for a technology. It doesn't have to be the only way to do something to be viable. It might be the best solution for a problem but there still could exist other solutions.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mypastself 4y ago

The article merely dismisses it out of hand, though, and the comment you’re responding to offers an alternative viewpoint.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]