3 ms·

Just like cyberspace in the 90s where Napster thought they were untouchable because they added computers to things, people often confuse "uncensorable digital t

Just like cyberspace in the 90s where Napster thought they were untouchable because they added computers to things, people often confuse "uncensorable digital technology" with "nobody just gives a shit, yet". When people start giving a shit, it all goes to hell very quickly.

api 4y ago
People also thought it would be a new age of transparency in media. It took the typical propagandists and spin doctors about five years to figure out how to completely subvert online discourse. The "firehose of falsehood" technique was also discovered as a way to herd people back to traditional media by DOSing the digital public square.
- warkdarrior 4y ago
  This was a completely foreseeable outcome. The primary function of the Internet is to accelerate and broaden communications. Somehow people thought that it would accelerate good communications (for whatever definition of 'good' you prefer)!!! But it turns out that bad actors also know how to use the Internet to accelerate their bad communications. Surprise, surprise!
  - gerikson 4y ago
    It's basically Gresham's law for information.
gfodor 4y ago
I don't think this is the same thing. There are technologies now within crypto that are outside of the ability of the US government to nuke from orbit, like the Bitcoin blockchain. The frontiers of DeFi and DAOs however still have not hit the same level of 'escape velocity' to survive this kind of direct hit. If the US Treasury sanctioned Bitcoin, yes, it would be a significant event, but I don't think it's feasible to think such a thing would destroy Bitcoin at this point. The question really boils down to how extendible this dynamic is to other downstream applications of blockchains and subsequent technologies adjacent to blockchains.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Yes, and this is not fundamentally different from companies that run servers in jurisdictions outside of the US's control. I would agree - bitcoin will likely continue even if sanctioned by the US, but I'd not be willing to bet all that much on it. If there is no on-ramp for new US dollars... I don't see it faring well. The market will likely collapse back to the only genuine use case: dark market exchanges.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > outside of the ability of the US government to nuke from orbit, like the Bitcoin blockchain At least the threshold is shifting. This was once said about DeFi. Bitcoin is nukable. Banning would go far on its own. Yes, some people would still use it. But if a computer search or errand text resulted in criminal charges, the network effect would reverse. Total annihilation would involve committing to mounting attacks on the chain, buying up or even building massive mining rigs to sow chaos on the chain.
  - gfodor 4y ago
    You have to keep running that thought experiment. If a computer search or errand text resulted in criminal charges, then there would be an opposing counterforce to that. I don't know how it ultimately would sift out, but I don't think there's any future where a significant % of global transactions isn't occuring on Bitcoin or some direct descendant.
    - zaphar 4y ago
      If a computer search or errand text resulted in criminal charges, then there would be an opposing counterforce to that. Why? You gave no supporting evidence for this statement. You just stated it as if it were indisputable fact.
      - 4y ago

api 4y ago

People also thought it would be a new age of transparency in media. It took the typical propagandists and spin doctors about five years to figure out how to completely subvert online discourse. The "firehose of falsehood" technique was also discovered as a way to herd people back to traditional media by DOSing the digital public square.

warkdarrior 4y ago
This was a completely foreseeable outcome. The primary function of the Internet is to accelerate and broaden communications. Somehow people thought that it would accelerate good communications (for whatever definition of 'good' you prefer)!!! But it turns out that bad actors also know how to use the Internet to accelerate their bad communications. Surprise, surprise!
- gerikson 4y ago
  It's basically Gresham's law for information.

gfodor 4y ago

I don't think this is the same thing. There are technologies now within crypto that are outside of the ability of the US government to nuke from orbit, like the Bitcoin blockchain. The frontiers of DeFi and DAOs however still have not hit the same level of 'escape velocity' to survive this kind of direct hit. If the US Treasury sanctioned Bitcoin, yes, it would be a significant event, but I don't think it's feasible to think such a thing would destroy Bitcoin at this point. The question really boils down to how extendible this dynamic is to other downstream applications of blockchains and subsequent technologies adjacent to blockchains.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
horsawlarway 4y ago
Yes, and this is not fundamentally different from companies that run servers in jurisdictions outside of the US's control. I would agree - bitcoin will likely continue even if sanctioned by the US, but I'd not be willing to bet all that much on it. If there is no on-ramp for new US dollars... I don't see it faring well. The market will likely collapse back to the only genuine use case: dark market exchanges.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> outside of the ability of the US government to nuke from orbit, like the Bitcoin blockchain At least the threshold is shifting. This was once said about DeFi. Bitcoin is nukable. Banning would go far on its own. Yes, some people would still use it. But if a computer search or errand text resulted in criminal charges, the network effect would reverse. Total annihilation would involve committing to mounting attacks on the chain, buying up or even building massive mining rigs to sow chaos on the chain.
- gfodor 4y ago
  You have to keep running that thought experiment. If a computer search or errand text resulted in criminal charges, then there would be an opposing counterforce to that. I don't know how it ultimately would sift out, but I don't think there's any future where a significant % of global transactions isn't occuring on Bitcoin or some direct descendant.
  - zaphar 4y ago
    If a computer search or errand text resulted in criminal charges, then there would be an opposing counterforce to that. Why? You gave no supporting evidence for this statement. You just stated it as if it were indisputable fact.
    - 4y ago