6 ms·

> Unlike the things you pointed out, Bitcoin will never give dividends or have any assets sold at an auction. Crypto allowed me to transfer my wealth across bo

> Unlike the things you pointed out, Bitcoin will never give dividends or have any assets sold at an auction. Crypto allowed me to transfer my wealth across border and helped me survive while Visa blocked my cards and local banks harassed me with their KYC/AML requirements and creative nonsense based out of fear of the US and EU sanctions. The utility of that is much higher than any dividends. > Instead it's a pyramid scheme, easily replaceable by any other shitcoin out there, and the value of it should be close to $1 or less. Wow, shitcoins sound so much worse than pieces of paper that are propped up by a legal decree, which legitimacy rests solely on the monopoly on violence. Wait, does it actually sound worse?

boh 4y ago
Society is propped up by legal decree and violence. CryptoKitties didn't change that.
- taolegal 4y ago
  > Society is propped up by legal decree and violence and a currency whose value approaches zero as time grows. if bitcoin is bad, how is that much better?
  - imtringued 4y ago
    The former is actually being used to run businesses and as long as the currency is not a demurrage currency, you are going to have to accept inflation as the thing that keeps money in circulation.
    - taolegal 4y ago
      > The former is actually being used to run businesses run businesses? to say nothing about whether those businesses are sustainable or actually generating wealth & human prosperity. if you look at all the worst aspects of the economy, they're based in expansionary monetary policy and high time preference > inflation as the thing that keeps money in circulation it keeps people spending money on usually wasteful things and incentivizes the consumption of cheap goods, if you want an economy built on prosperity and enduring goods, you need to actually incentivize saving (not wasteful consumerism)
  - enaaem 4y ago
    Btc is only valuable if you can exchange it to fiat, since your liabilities are still in fiat. You need fiat to buy groceries, pay mortgage, buy energy for mining etc…
    - taolegal 4y ago
      > Btc is only valuable if you can exchange it to fiat surely people value things other than paying off liabilities?
  - boh 4y ago
    Are you actually using BTC as currency? Have you done anything but traded it? We all know the answer--that's why this meta commentary on money is pointless and pathetic.
    - taolegal 4y ago
      > meta commentary on money is pointless and pathetic why are you getting so defensive about the fact that fiat currency exponentially decreases in value
      - boh 4y ago
        An interesting read of the quoted text since the topic that is supposedly being defended isn't even mentioned. This is an attack on this whimsical philosophizing crypto-boosters use as a defense. No one cares about this "what is money" commentary. If you believe in your moon money so much why not just actually use it as money? Of course you'll have to lose those gainz but real money is just worthless paper right?
        taolegal 4y ago
        > If you believe in your moon money so much why not just actually use it as money I don't buy stuff with it though it's being used to facilitate transactions for people. I route around $40k a month.
snigacookie 4y ago
Why did visa and the banks question you? What were you really trying to do?
- speakfreely 4y ago
  Most likely leave Russia, Iran, or Venezuela.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Yes crypto has the evil property of bypassing KYC/AML to allow peaceful citizens to escape genocidal kleptocratic governments who seek to draft you to go into war with a WWI era Mosin a feminine hygiene product as a first aid kit and an oversized pair of rotten boots. Once again crypto proves to do nothing but aid and abet criminals such as those who refuse to invade their neighbors.
    - Zuiii 4y ago
      You are being downvoted but the point you make stands: there are a lot of people here who will jump at the opertunity to proclaim that crypto's only use is a ponzy scheme. That claim is not only objectively false, but they way they usually phrase it also preemptively shuts down any chance proponents of either side coming closer to seeing how this tech is actually used. Whether it be war, tyranny and unjust sanctions, crashing economies, or just avoiding the arbitrary and often unjust fees, rules, seizures, and bannings imposed by private payment networks and services like paypal or visa, humanity will always need way to exchange cash. I for one am glad crypto (as a means to transfer funds) exists, glad it will continue to exist, and will continue to support it in any way I can. To me, what it provides to humanity far outweighs the negatives.
      - TomSwirly 4y ago
        No, I think everyone agrees that "evading the law" is another feature of cryptocurrencies. We simply don't think this is a good feature. Trillions of dollars are stolen from the people by money laundering and tax evasion every year, and cryptocurrencies are one of the ways this is accomplished. Yes, some people live in countries where the law is hostile. However, your solution, "Let's evade all laws concerning money," is WORSE, not better.
nradov 4y ago
The monopoly on violence actually sounds better to me. I am a big fan of violence, when applied against certain types of anti-social people.
- cm42 4y ago
  My fetish is unnecessarily-superior firepower against people advocating for violence (and also their families)
  - TomSwirly 4y ago
    You are talking about shooting police officers, judges, law enforcement, and the people who support the law, as well as as their families. I'm not going to pretend to be surprised - many American conservatives have expressed the same sentiments to me. However, I am surprised you post it in a public forum.
    - MrMan 4y ago
      I think insurgent is the word, I grew up with conservatives and they are not like this
analog31 4y ago
I long suspected that "monopoly on violence" is a dog whistle. So I looked it up, and actually it's quite straightforward. If you think about the number of entities in a society that can legitimately control violence, the answer is either zero, one, or many. Zero is a pipe dream. Many is civil war. The only answer that makes sense is one. Thus "monopoly on violence" is just a scary sounding way of saying that a society has a government. In my view, society is propped up by future expectations. This includes the value of government money.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  Monopoly on violence is the defining property of the state according to Max Weber, one of the most famous sociologists. In what way is it a dog whistle?
  - TomSwirly 4y ago
    Because it's only used by people in a tiny little political segment today - far-right-wing libertarians. No one else denies this or doesn't believe it's true, I hasten to add. For most of us, we think that this is a good thing, but also such an obvious thing that it doesn't need to be mentioned. The people who keep mentioning it are people who think it's a bad, bad thing. They want everyone to have access to violence at all times. The sane majority does not.
    - enaaem 4y ago
      In the “jungle” you only own what you can protect. Even your life. Violence is natural. Non-violence, property rights and free trade is extremely unnatural, and requires a strong central authority to write the rules and impose them.
    - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
      Do you think it’s bad to put a teenager in jail for an abortion they did after they had been raped? Or is it also a good (well, it is certainly lawful) use of state monopoly on violence?
TomSwirly 4y ago
> local banks harassed me with their KYC/AML requirements So you use crypto to break the law, and you believe you are justified in doing that. Thing is, most of the people using crypto for crime are simply using it to not pay taxes. > Wow, shitcoins sound so much worse than pieces of paper that are propped up by a legal decree, which legitimacy rests solely on the monopoly on violence. Wait, does it actually sound worse? Yes, it absolutely does sound worse. On one side, we have the United States - the largest economy in the history of the world, backed by the government with the largest income of any government in history, a court system, the police and their "monopoly on violence". On the other side, you have a cryptocurrency backed by nothing, created by anonymous individuals, with no form of conflict resolution whatsoever. Cryptocurrencies have been around for almost as long as the smart phone. You would think one or two of you would have taken even a first year economics course during this time.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  > So you use crypto to break the law, and you believe you are justified in doing that. Thing is, most of the people using crypto for crime are simply using it to not pay taxes. Using it for crime? That just makes crypto even more similar to traditional finance. > Yes, it absolutely does sound worse. So you think all countries should switch their currencies to the US dollar? Do you think it is just as good for countries to give up their financial sovereignty as it is for common people? > Cryptocurrencies have been around for almost as long as the smart phone. You would think one or two of you would have taken even a first year economics course during this time. I was a teaching assistant for a graduate course in macroeconomics in a top 50 department during my PhD. Arrow-Debreu and all that.
Ayesh 4y ago
> transfer my wealth I don't think _anyone_ is against using cryptocurrencies as a way of transferring money. It doesn't make sense to transfer wealth via something that rapidly changes its value, right? Because means of transferring wealth requires preserving the value of the wealth. Bitcoin today does not preserve its value, as evident by the rapid decline in value in the past few days.

boh 4y ago

Society is propped up by legal decree and violence. CryptoKitties didn't change that.

taolegal 4y ago
> Society is propped up by legal decree and violence and a currency whose value approaches zero as time grows. if bitcoin is bad, how is that much better?
- imtringued 4y ago
  The former is actually being used to run businesses and as long as the currency is not a demurrage currency, you are going to have to accept inflation as the thing that keeps money in circulation.
  - taolegal 4y ago
    > The former is actually being used to run businesses run businesses? to say nothing about whether those businesses are sustainable or actually generating wealth & human prosperity. if you look at all the worst aspects of the economy, they're based in expansionary monetary policy and high time preference > inflation as the thing that keeps money in circulation it keeps people spending money on usually wasteful things and incentivizes the consumption of cheap goods, if you want an economy built on prosperity and enduring goods, you need to actually incentivize saving (not wasteful consumerism)
- enaaem 4y ago
  Btc is only valuable if you can exchange it to fiat, since your liabilities are still in fiat. You need fiat to buy groceries, pay mortgage, buy energy for mining etc…
  - taolegal 4y ago
    > Btc is only valuable if you can exchange it to fiat surely people value things other than paying off liabilities?
- boh 4y ago
  Are you actually using BTC as currency? Have you done anything but traded it? We all know the answer--that's why this meta commentary on money is pointless and pathetic.
  - taolegal 4y ago
    > meta commentary on money is pointless and pathetic why are you getting so defensive about the fact that fiat currency exponentially decreases in value
    - boh 4y ago
      An interesting read of the quoted text since the topic that is supposedly being defended isn't even mentioned. This is an attack on this whimsical philosophizing crypto-boosters use as a defense. No one cares about this "what is money" commentary. If you believe in your moon money so much why not just actually use it as money? Of course you'll have to lose those gainz but real money is just worthless paper right?
      - taolegal 4y ago
        > If you believe in your moon money so much why not just actually use it as money I don't buy stuff with it though it's being used to facilitate transactions for people. I route around $40k a month.

snigacookie 4y ago

Why did visa and the banks question you? What were you really trying to do?

speakfreely 4y ago
Most likely leave Russia, Iran, or Venezuela.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Yes crypto has the evil property of bypassing KYC/AML to allow peaceful citizens to escape genocidal kleptocratic governments who seek to draft you to go into war with a WWI era Mosin a feminine hygiene product as a first aid kit and an oversized pair of rotten boots. Once again crypto proves to do nothing but aid and abet criminals such as those who refuse to invade their neighbors.
  - Zuiii 4y ago
    You are being downvoted but the point you make stands: there are a lot of people here who will jump at the opertunity to proclaim that crypto's only use is a ponzy scheme. That claim is not only objectively false, but they way they usually phrase it also preemptively shuts down any chance proponents of either side coming closer to seeing how this tech is actually used. Whether it be war, tyranny and unjust sanctions, crashing economies, or just avoiding the arbitrary and often unjust fees, rules, seizures, and bannings imposed by private payment networks and services like paypal or visa, humanity will always need way to exchange cash. I for one am glad crypto (as a means to transfer funds) exists, glad it will continue to exist, and will continue to support it in any way I can. To me, what it provides to humanity far outweighs the negatives.
    - TomSwirly 4y ago
      No, I think everyone agrees that "evading the law" is another feature of cryptocurrencies. We simply don't think this is a good feature. Trillions of dollars are stolen from the people by money laundering and tax evasion every year, and cryptocurrencies are one of the ways this is accomplished. Yes, some people live in countries where the law is hostile. However, your solution, "Let's evade all laws concerning money," is WORSE, not better.

nradov 4y ago

The monopoly on violence actually sounds better to me. I am a big fan of violence, when applied against certain types of anti-social people.

cm42 4y ago
My fetish is unnecessarily-superior firepower against people advocating for violence (and also their families)
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  You are talking about shooting police officers, judges, law enforcement, and the people who support the law, as well as as their families. I'm not going to pretend to be surprised - many American conservatives have expressed the same sentiments to me. However, I am surprised you post it in a public forum.
  - MrMan 4y ago
    I think insurgent is the word, I grew up with conservatives and they are not like this

analog31 4y ago

I long suspected that "monopoly on violence" is a dog whistle. So I looked it up, and actually it's quite straightforward. If you think about the number of entities in a society that can legitimately control violence, the answer is either zero, one, or many. Zero is a pipe dream. Many is civil war. The only answer that makes sense is one. Thus "monopoly on violence" is just a scary sounding way of saying that a society has a government. In my view, society is propped up by future expectations. This includes the value of government money.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago
Monopoly on violence is the defining property of the state according to Max Weber, one of the most famous sociologists. In what way is it a dog whistle?
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  Because it's only used by people in a tiny little political segment today - far-right-wing libertarians. No one else denies this or doesn't believe it's true, I hasten to add. For most of us, we think that this is a good thing, but also such an obvious thing that it doesn't need to be mentioned. The people who keep mentioning it are people who think it's a bad, bad thing. They want everyone to have access to violence at all times. The sane majority does not.
  - enaaem 4y ago
    In the “jungle” you only own what you can protect. Even your life. Violence is natural. Non-violence, property rights and free trade is extremely unnatural, and requires a strong central authority to write the rules and impose them.
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    Do you think it’s bad to put a teenager in jail for an abortion they did after they had been raped? Or is it also a good (well, it is certainly lawful) use of state monopoly on violence?

TomSwirly 4y ago

> local banks harassed me with their KYC/AML requirements So you use crypto to break the law, and you believe you are justified in doing that. Thing is, most of the people using crypto for crime are simply using it to not pay taxes. > Wow, shitcoins sound so much worse than pieces of paper that are propped up by a legal decree, which legitimacy rests solely on the monopoly on violence. Wait, does it actually sound worse? Yes, it absolutely does sound worse. On one side, we have the United States - the largest economy in the history of the world, backed by the government with the largest income of any government in history, a court system, the police and their "monopoly on violence". On the other side, you have a cryptocurrency backed by nothing, created by anonymous individuals, with no form of conflict resolution whatsoever. Cryptocurrencies have been around for almost as long as the smart phone. You would think one or two of you would have taken even a first year economics course during this time.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago
> So you use crypto to break the law, and you believe you are justified in doing that. Thing is, most of the people using crypto for crime are simply using it to not pay taxes. Using it for crime? That just makes crypto even more similar to traditional finance. > Yes, it absolutely does sound worse. So you think all countries should switch their currencies to the US dollar? Do you think it is just as good for countries to give up their financial sovereignty as it is for common people? > Cryptocurrencies have been around for almost as long as the smart phone. You would think one or two of you would have taken even a first year economics course during this time. I was a teaching assistant for a graduate course in macroeconomics in a top 50 department during my PhD. Arrow-Debreu and all that.

Ayesh 4y ago

> transfer my wealth I don't think _anyone_ is against using cryptocurrencies as a way of transferring money. It doesn't make sense to transfer wealth via something that rapidly changes its value, right? Because means of transferring wealth requires preserving the value of the wealth. Bitcoin today does not preserve its value, as evident by the rapid decline in value in the past few days.