4 ms·

Cryptocurrency as alternative to capitalist, for-profit privately owned networks

2 points by EGreg 4y ago

smoldesu 4y ago
Cryptocurrency inherently cannot oppose capitalism, because any good, distributed currency cannot control the distribution of wealth.
- EGreg 4y ago
  Capitalism extracts rents beyond cryptocurrency. There is an investor class. It is like the difference between Disney Dollars (utility tokens) and shares in Disney Inc. The latter introduces a third “parasite” class of people into the economic system, besides customers and vendors.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    There's nothing that prevents an investor class from existing in cryptocurrency, too. I could give someone a loan of 100 $ETH to go start a corrupt Bitcoin tumbler, or convince a few venture capitalists to invest in a wash trading exchange. Cryptocurrency has no safeguards against that behavior, because it is administratively trustless and and judicially blind. That's a good idea for some purposes, but as a reliable store of value it's a snipe chase. Parasites will always exist as long as there's money to be made, and much like you revealed in your previous comment, starting a cryptocurrency is exceptionally lucrative if you can convince people it will be worth something. Frankly, I'd rather have a parasite class than a class that relies on thievery, scamming and miscommunication to make their money. Parasites extract money from businesses. Crypto totalitarians extract money from the working class.
    - EGreg 4y ago
      Yes, "in cryptocurrency" in general it can exist. But in a particular project, such as Ethereum or Bitcoin, it doesn't because the initial people can only sell their tokens once. They don't also exert additional disproportionate influence after they've sold all their tokens, unless they also have shares. And the whole point is to move to 100% tokens and 0% shares.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        What I'm trying to say is that your point is moot. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and every currency made in their likeness still have predatory classes of users. Value is easy to extract, the users are largely oblivious and the transaction process is complicated and new. Scammers, hucksters and VC alike is already in this market segment, you won't fool anyone. Plus, Bitcoin's creator still has a non-insignificant amount of Bitcoin set aside for them. If they're alive today, then they totally exert a disproportionate amount of influence over their own currency.
EGreg 4y ago
The debate shouldn’t be between capitalism vs socialism. That’s a false dichotomy. UBI + Gift Economies may be a far better system, wherein participants have disposable time that they can use to collaborate on stuff they like (wikipedia, science, open source software and drugs, creative commons and more)
dmitriid 4y ago
This bullcrap can be easily displeed by the simple fact that all currencies are designed to be limited in supply and deflationary. It means that if I get as much as a single coin now, it will be many magnitudes more valuable than fractions of a fraction of a coin available to anyone born 50 years from now. This alone is significantly worse than whatever capitalism we have now.
- EGreg 4y ago
  Not all. Just the ones that want to act as a store of value. There is nothing inherently about smart contracts that necessitates this. However, people DO want to prevent the possibility of a small group of people suddenly inflating or dumping huge amounts of the token.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > Just the ones that want to act as a store of value. No. It's all of them. > There is nothing inherently about smart contracts that necessitates this What do "smart" "contracts" have to do with this? There's a simple fact of life: every cryptocurrency has a limited supply. So, the people who got to it first will get significantly more than anyone in the future.
    - EGreg 4y ago
      Smart contracts are what powers most tokens. That's what it has to do with it. You can put any rules you want, but typically you want to prevent a small group from inflating or dumping the coins. How you do that is up to each designer.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        It still wouldn't matter. There's not a single cryptocurrency on the planet that will deliver us from capitalism until it's market cap surpasses the USD (hint: as long as the IMF exists, this will never happen). Until then, the US government still dictates how capital moves. Furthermore, even if crypto wasn't a second or third-class currency, there's no fair system of governance or administration that could assure that capital is being distributed equitably. You're suggesting a system that is ripe for abuse, and then denying that anything bad will happen because you haven't put forth any concrete solutions. You can wax philosophical about decentralized network and fighting "the man" all day, but this kind of armchair debate is why nothing ever gets done in the crypto space. The advocates refuse to let their actions speak louder than their words.

2 points by EGreg 4y ago

Cryptocurrency inherently cannot oppose capitalism, because any good, distributed currency cannot control the distribution of wealth.

EGreg 4y ago
Capitalism extracts rents beyond cryptocurrency. There is an investor class. It is like the difference between Disney Dollars (utility tokens) and shares in Disney Inc. The latter introduces a third “parasite” class of people into the economic system, besides customers and vendors.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  There's nothing that prevents an investor class from existing in cryptocurrency, too. I could give someone a loan of 100 $ETH to go start a corrupt Bitcoin tumbler, or convince a few venture capitalists to invest in a wash trading exchange. Cryptocurrency has no safeguards against that behavior, because it is administratively trustless and and judicially blind. That's a good idea for some purposes, but as a reliable store of value it's a snipe chase. Parasites will always exist as long as there's money to be made, and much like you revealed in your previous comment, starting a cryptocurrency is exceptionally lucrative if you can convince people it will be worth something. Frankly, I'd rather have a parasite class than a class that relies on thievery, scamming and miscommunication to make their money. Parasites extract money from businesses. Crypto totalitarians extract money from the working class.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    Yes, "in cryptocurrency" in general it can exist. But in a particular project, such as Ethereum or Bitcoin, it doesn't because the initial people can only sell their tokens once. They don't also exert additional disproportionate influence after they've sold all their tokens, unless they also have shares. And the whole point is to move to 100% tokens and 0% shares.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      What I'm trying to say is that your point is moot. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and every currency made in their likeness still have predatory classes of users. Value is easy to extract, the users are largely oblivious and the transaction process is complicated and new. Scammers, hucksters and VC alike is already in this market segment, you won't fool anyone. Plus, Bitcoin's creator still has a non-insignificant amount of Bitcoin set aside for them. If they're alive today, then they totally exert a disproportionate amount of influence over their own currency.

EGreg 4y ago

The debate shouldn’t be between capitalism vs socialism. That’s a false dichotomy. UBI + Gift Economies may be a far better system, wherein participants have disposable time that they can use to collaborate on stuff they like (wikipedia, science, open source software and drugs, creative commons and more)

dmitriid 4y ago

This bullcrap can be easily displeed by the simple fact that all currencies are designed to be limited in supply and deflationary. It means that if I get as much as a single coin now, it will be many magnitudes more valuable than fractions of a fraction of a coin available to anyone born 50 years from now. This alone is significantly worse than whatever capitalism we have now.

EGreg 4y ago
Not all. Just the ones that want to act as a store of value. There is nothing inherently about smart contracts that necessitates this. However, people DO want to prevent the possibility of a small group of people suddenly inflating or dumping huge amounts of the token.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > Just the ones that want to act as a store of value. No. It's all of them. > There is nothing inherently about smart contracts that necessitates this What do "smart" "contracts" have to do with this? There's a simple fact of life: every cryptocurrency has a limited supply. So, the people who got to it first will get significantly more than anyone in the future.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    Smart contracts are what powers most tokens. That's what it has to do with it. You can put any rules you want, but typically you want to prevent a small group from inflating or dumping the coins. How you do that is up to each designer.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      It still wouldn't matter. There's not a single cryptocurrency on the planet that will deliver us from capitalism until it's market cap surpasses the USD (hint: as long as the IMF exists, this will never happen). Until then, the US government still dictates how capital moves. Furthermore, even if crypto wasn't a second or third-class currency, there's no fair system of governance or administration that could assure that capital is being distributed equitably. You're suggesting a system that is ripe for abuse, and then denying that anything bad will happen because you haven't put forth any concrete solutions. You can wax philosophical about decentralized network and fighting "the man" all day, but this kind of armchair debate is why nothing ever gets done in the crypto space. The advocates refuse to let their actions speak louder than their words.