3 ms·

2) You can't have power without responsibility. If you want money that can be 'fixed' for you by the authorities, well, that's what you'll get. They'll fix it

2) You can't have power without responsibility. If you want money that can be 'fixed' for you by the authorities, well, that's what you'll get. They'll fix it for you real good.

infotogivenm 4y ago
Correct answer here (no /s). Now unless youre a bitcoin maxi (props if you are), your coins are probably being fixed all the time by “authorities”, but I digress :) The problem is of course most people do forget things, and regrettably prefer usable systems. This is just to say, we are still far from a system I would call usable, although I would say interesting progress has been made: multisig, hardware wallets, etc. My only point in this thread is as follows: there is nothing “good” about this. It’s a failure of design and engineering for systems intended for humans. There is nothing to celebrate here, as the OP was oddly doing.
- MarkPNeyer 4y ago
  I'm a bitcoin maxi. > there is nothing “good” about this. There totally is, but the good is only apparent to people with the perspective of most of our ancestors. Nixon took us off the gold standard in 71', and yet he lied at the time and said it was 'temporary'. Why was that? We grew up in school being told that the gold standard was a janky old technology that failed leading to the great depression. If that's true, why did we stay on the gold standard until 1971 and why did Nixon lie when he took us off of it? All of history, property rights have been workable only with armies to enforce them. And what inevitably happens is that the armies will end up stealing from the people whose property rights they are ostensibly protecting. The existence of property that, in the hands of a skilled user, _cannot_ be stolen, is, indeed revolutionary. I agree that this system is far too complex for most people. Most people will probably just end up using federated chaumian mints. "All" they will get is the benefit of a currency that doesn't depreciate, year after year, and the resulting cultural shift that arises when people don't need to participate in complex mechanisms they don't understand, just to save for the future. I think we are likely to see the rise of a technobrahmin class that understands both crypography and ML, and uses this knowledge in the service of tiny micro-tribes of people they grew up with. Civilization has long required specialization, and i think we're about to see a migration of 'trusted information authorities' from places like the New York Times, all the way down the social hierarchy to, 'a guy i went to grade school with that i know is honest'.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Can you name one advantage of the gold standard?
    - MarkPNeyer 4y ago
      Long term price stability.

2) You can't have power without responsibility. If you want money that can be 'fixed' for you by the authorities, well, that's what you'll get. They'll fix it for you real good.

infotogivenm 4y ago

Correct answer here (no /s). Now unless youre a bitcoin maxi (props if you are), your coins are probably being fixed all the time by “authorities”, but I digress :) The problem is of course most people do forget things, and regrettably prefer usable systems. This is just to say, we are still far from a system I would call usable, although I would say interesting progress has been made: multisig, hardware wallets, etc. My only point in this thread is as follows: there is nothing “good” about this. It’s a failure of design and engineering for systems intended for humans. There is nothing to celebrate here, as the OP was oddly doing.

MarkPNeyer 4y ago
I'm a bitcoin maxi. > there is nothing “good” about this. There totally is, but the good is only apparent to people with the perspective of most of our ancestors. Nixon took us off the gold standard in 71', and yet he lied at the time and said it was 'temporary'. Why was that? We grew up in school being told that the gold standard was a janky old technology that failed leading to the great depression. If that's true, why did we stay on the gold standard until 1971 and why did Nixon lie when he took us off of it? All of history, property rights have been workable only with armies to enforce them. And what inevitably happens is that the armies will end up stealing from the people whose property rights they are ostensibly protecting. The existence of property that, in the hands of a skilled user, _cannot_ be stolen, is, indeed revolutionary. I agree that this system is far too complex for most people. Most people will probably just end up using federated chaumian mints. "All" they will get is the benefit of a currency that doesn't depreciate, year after year, and the resulting cultural shift that arises when people don't need to participate in complex mechanisms they don't understand, just to save for the future. I think we are likely to see the rise of a technobrahmin class that understands both crypography and ML, and uses this knowledge in the service of tiny micro-tribes of people they grew up with. Civilization has long required specialization, and i think we're about to see a migration of 'trusted information authorities' from places like the New York Times, all the way down the social hierarchy to, 'a guy i went to grade school with that i know is honest'.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Can you name one advantage of the gold standard?
  - MarkPNeyer 4y ago
    Long term price stability.