5 ms·

Not if your country is under tyrannical or authoritarian rule and disallows access to basic financial services for some arbitrary reason.

drunkenmagician 4y ago
In that instance their smartphone access and traffic is almost certainly monitored too making the point somewhat moot.
- siftrics 4y ago
  "The oppressor has the upper hand so we shouldn't try to help the oppressed!" It's about giving people slightly better odds of escaping abuse. It's about helping humanity.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    This seems disingenuous. If this system wasn't making money for the people developing it, they wouldn't care at all about 'unbanked' people. Because it does, they can use that as a 'but think of the poor oppressed people' as a lever to shut up critics. It reminds me too much of 'think of the children' that gets used whenever someone criticizes a 'we want to own all the decryption keys' system or similar.
    - siftrics 4y ago
      > If this system wasn't making money for the people developing it, they wouldn't care at all about 'unbanked' people. No, THAT seems disingenuous. I am working on crypto because I want to help these oppressed, unlucky people who are born into terrible regimes that are very hard to escape. I literally work on open source, gratis projects that do not generate any money for me.
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        Can you blame people for being cynical about that, though?
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > It's about giving people slightly better odds of escaping abuse. It's about helping humanity. Save pontification for investors. Crypto is a first-world solution to mostly non-existent problems. "The poor unwashed and huddled masses of unbanked in authoritarian regimes will surely be helped by a system that requires smartphones, always-on internet, and trips to limited offline currency exchanges (heavily monitored in authoritarian regimes) to get any value out of fictional tokens" isn't a solution you want to make others believe it is.
    - siftrics 4y ago
      False. It doesn't require smart phones. False. It doesn't require always-on internet. False. It doesn't require offline currency exchanges. Try fleeing Brazil or Russia with significant amounts of cash. Either you cannot do it through legacy banking systems, or you cannot do it in real life with cash, or you have to pay an extortionist bribe in real life.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        "Not if your country is under tyrannical or authoritarian rule and disallows access to basic financial services for some arbitrary reason." became "flee Brazil or Russia with financial assets". Why is it that "we're providing basic financial services to the unwashed and huddled poor masses of the unbanked" always becomes "move large amounts of money from one jurisdiction to another without any government control look Russia Brazil" (but in reality international monetary fraud).
        siftrics 4y ago
        Moving large amounts of money IS basic financial services. Would you argue Jews should leave all their money behind in Nazi Germany when fleeing? By your logic, Nazi Germany should have the right to inspect and disallow the transfer. Just because it is a government making an arbitrary decision, that doesn't make it morally right.
        4y ago

drunkenmagician 4y ago

In that instance their smartphone access and traffic is almost certainly monitored too making the point somewhat moot.

siftrics 4y ago
"The oppressor has the upper hand so we shouldn't try to help the oppressed!" It's about giving people slightly better odds of escaping abuse. It's about helping humanity.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  This seems disingenuous. If this system wasn't making money for the people developing it, they wouldn't care at all about 'unbanked' people. Because it does, they can use that as a 'but think of the poor oppressed people' as a lever to shut up critics. It reminds me too much of 'think of the children' that gets used whenever someone criticizes a 'we want to own all the decryption keys' system or similar.
  - siftrics 4y ago
    > If this system wasn't making money for the people developing it, they wouldn't care at all about 'unbanked' people. No, THAT seems disingenuous. I am working on crypto because I want to help these oppressed, unlucky people who are born into terrible regimes that are very hard to escape. I literally work on open source, gratis projects that do not generate any money for me.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      Can you blame people for being cynical about that, though?
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > It's about giving people slightly better odds of escaping abuse. It's about helping humanity. Save pontification for investors. Crypto is a first-world solution to mostly non-existent problems. "The poor unwashed and huddled masses of unbanked in authoritarian regimes will surely be helped by a system that requires smartphones, always-on internet, and trips to limited offline currency exchanges (heavily monitored in authoritarian regimes) to get any value out of fictional tokens" isn't a solution you want to make others believe it is.
  - siftrics 4y ago
    False. It doesn't require smart phones. False. It doesn't require always-on internet. False. It doesn't require offline currency exchanges. Try fleeing Brazil or Russia with significant amounts of cash. Either you cannot do it through legacy banking systems, or you cannot do it in real life with cash, or you have to pay an extortionist bribe in real life.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      "Not if your country is under tyrannical or authoritarian rule and disallows access to basic financial services for some arbitrary reason." became "flee Brazil or Russia with financial assets". Why is it that "we're providing basic financial services to the unwashed and huddled poor masses of the unbanked" always becomes "move large amounts of money from one jurisdiction to another without any government control look Russia Brazil" (but in reality international monetary fraud).
      - siftrics 4y ago
        Moving large amounts of money IS basic financial services. Would you argue Jews should leave all their money behind in Nazi Germany when fleeing? By your logic, Nazi Germany should have the right to inspect and disallow the transfer. Just because it is a government making an arbitrary decision, that doesn't make it morally right.
        4y ago