4 ms·

You ignore the other big benefit which is impossibility of censorship. When was the last time you heard about people complaining that they can't do lawful and l

You ignore the other big benefit which is impossibility of censorship. When was the last time you heard about people complaining that they can't do lawful and legitimate business because Visa or MasterCard (basically a duopoly) don't like them? This problem is not trivial, and as far as I can see crypto is the only scalable solution to it outside of legislation that isn't ever going to happen. What about the privacy implications of having nearly every payment on the planet go through 2 megacorporations? And I can see the response now, while every crypto transaction is public, it's a lot harder to tie identities to wallet addresses than it is to tie a name to a credit card number.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> You ignore the other big benefit which is impossibility of censorship. That's a silly claim. Ethereum forked because of a hack and enough people wanting to undo it. Tether regularly freezes funds (https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/10/tether-freezes-46m-of-usdt-following-law-enforcement-request/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/10/tether-freezes-...). Ownership of a cryptocurrency can be made a crime. Developers can be sanctioned and arrested.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  A fork implies 2 diverging lines. Nobody's hand was forced in the ether versus ether classic fork. Tether is centralized and a scam (and arguably a scam because it is centralized) and irrelevant to the discussion. Anyone can make any token they want and run it according to whoever's rules; this logic would indict the entire internet based on the existence of badly moderated websites. And cryptography can be made a crime as well. Meanwhile, in the world we inhabit today rather than infinite hypothetical ones, no such thing is happening outside of totalitarian governments, and despite their effort, not one single crypto currency transaction has ever been successfully censored.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > A fork implies 2 diverging lines. Nobody's hand was forced in the ether versus ether classic fork. The two diverging lines were very much unequal. > Tether is centralized and a scam (and arguably a scam because it is centralized) and irrelevant to the discussion. Arguing Tether is irrelevant to the crypto space is absurd. (I agree it's a scam. That's a major problem for the whole ecosystem.) > And cryptography can be made a crime as well. Correct. You can censor cryptography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
    - Karunamon 4y ago
      Nobody said they were equal, the community as a whole decided to move to the new fork. The old one still exists and still has substantial value, but it's not where any of the mind share is. More to my point, nobody forced anyone to move. This was an organic action. What is your point? Surely you aren't arguing that the governance of one specific token in the broader crypto ecosystem invalidates the general uncensorability of crypto transactions? Because that would be pretty fucking disingenuous as a false equivalence.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> You ignore the other big benefit which is impossibility of censorship. That's a silly claim. Ethereum forked because of a hack and enough people wanting to undo it. Tether regularly freezes funds (https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/10/tether-freezes-46m-of-usdt-following-law-enforcement-request/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/10/tether-freezes-...). Ownership of a cryptocurrency can be made a crime. Developers can be sanctioned and arrested.

Karunamon 4y ago
A fork implies 2 diverging lines. Nobody's hand was forced in the ether versus ether classic fork. Tether is centralized and a scam (and arguably a scam because it is centralized) and irrelevant to the discussion. Anyone can make any token they want and run it according to whoever's rules; this logic would indict the entire internet based on the existence of badly moderated websites. And cryptography can be made a crime as well. Meanwhile, in the world we inhabit today rather than infinite hypothetical ones, no such thing is happening outside of totalitarian governments, and despite their effort, not one single crypto currency transaction has ever been successfully censored.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > A fork implies 2 diverging lines. Nobody's hand was forced in the ether versus ether classic fork. The two diverging lines were very much unequal. > Tether is centralized and a scam (and arguably a scam because it is centralized) and irrelevant to the discussion. Arguing Tether is irrelevant to the crypto space is absurd. (I agree it's a scam. That's a major problem for the whole ecosystem.) > And cryptography can be made a crime as well. Correct. You can censor cryptography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    Nobody said they were equal, the community as a whole decided to move to the new fork. The old one still exists and still has substantial value, but it's not where any of the mind share is. More to my point, nobody forced anyone to move. This was an organic action. What is your point? Surely you aren't arguing that the governance of one specific token in the broader crypto ecosystem invalidates the general uncensorability of crypto transactions? Because that would be pretty fucking disingenuous as a false equivalence.