8 ms·

But, it doesn't, so it'll die! Which is the best possible outcome.

by Sebguer 4y ago

siftrics 4y ago
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - siftrics 4y ago
    How does self-custody hand control to someone else?
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      Someone else is still controlling the network updates and the "tokenomics", or even hard forks! See Ethereum DAO hack hard fork, for example: https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao
      - siftrics 4y ago
        There's no mathematical law that blockchains will survive forever or hard forks will retain the worth of the token. I never argued for that and I'm not arguing that that is the case.
    - halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
      Imagine thinking people actually want self-custody. Look around, people want centralization. The fringes who constantly parrot “not your wallet, not your coins” will forever be in the minority as mom and pop don’t trust themselves to any kind of cold storage. Crypto-obsessed will forever live in this fantasy world.
      - siftrics 4y ago
        Okay. People have successfully avoided fraud, theft, and the tyrannical seizure of their assets by arbitrary decisions of arbitrary government officials. Billions of dollars worth of assets are stored on blockchains. Unless you have a mathematical argument against the properties of a blockchain, I will continue to believe the properties are true.
        polygamous_bat 4y ago
        > Billions of dollars worth of assets are stored on blockchains. There is no mathematical proof that they will be worth billions of dollars tomorrow. I mean, I would wager if the original Satoshi wallets wake up and start selling Bitcoin this time tomorrow the total market cap can be counted in millions. Sure, maybe mathematically there will never be more than X tokens, but no one cares about that. Everyone at the end of the day cares about what they can trade one token for. Otherwise, it's worth less than monopoly money or Chuck-E-Cheese tokens.
        siftrics 4y ago
        I agree. What is your point?
        haimez 4y ago
        It’s a deflationary currency, which makes it a really bad fit for “fungible currency things”
        root_axis 4y ago
        > Billions of dollars worth of assets are stored on blockchains. Nah. As FTT and FTX shows, the marketcap for blockchain tokens means nothing.
        siftrics 4y ago
        I agree, some subset of tokens created on a permissionless blockchain are or will be worthless. In fact, I bet that subset is >99%. I don't see what your point is.
- bbddg 4y ago
  You think the government won't take your Bitcoin?
  - siftrics 4y ago
    Yes, I think the government absolutely will try and it's quite probable they will succeed. But why not offer human beings the _chance_ to flee tyranny with their livelihood? Consider jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Should they have been allowed to escape with their assets? Would the world be a better place had they been able to?
    - maxbond 4y ago
      How about we create better systems for refugees to gain access to safety and citizenship instead of consigning them to a rickety shadow financial system? Are you putting this much energy into, say, opposing border walls and supporting marginalized communities?
      - siftrics 4y ago
        Yes, I think borders violate basic human rights and needlessly destroy lives and families. Your argument that crypto is consuming too much opportunity cost is completely valid. But why fight against something that offers hope for the misfortunate?
        maxbond 4y ago
        What about people suffering brownouts because their electricity is being stolen for mining, or people losing their shirts in ponzi schemes? What about the people and companies being extorted by ransomware? Do you say to the people who've been harmed by cryptoassets, "sorry, this is for the greater good, there are hypothetical refugees who may find this useful?"
        siftrics 4y ago
        The utilitarian slant is interesting. I can understand why some people think crypto is a net negative at the moment. The set of businesses adjacent to true, on-chain applications is rife with fraud. Thousands of people have died, maybe even millions have lost life savings. But I ask you an analogous question: what do you say to the people suffering any crime that was aided by free, encrypted communications on the internet? I'm not using this as a fool-proof argument that the utility of crypto is positive. I do not know the true answer. I think it's positive but I acknowledge it very well could be negative. To me, blockchains enable the basic human right of having ultimate authority over your own assets. You can choose whether attempting to circumvent your government is worth it. In most cases, it's not. But I like giving all human beings that option.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Zpalmtree 4y ago

But, it doesn't, so it'll die! Which is the best possible outcome.

siftrics 4y ago

polygamous_bat 4y ago
[flagged]
- siftrics 4y ago
  How does self-custody hand control to someone else?
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    Someone else is still controlling the network updates and the "tokenomics", or even hard forks! See Ethereum DAO hack hard fork, for example: https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao
    - siftrics 4y ago
      There's no mathematical law that blockchains will survive forever or hard forks will retain the worth of the token. I never argued for that and I'm not arguing that that is the case.
  - halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
    Imagine thinking people actually want self-custody. Look around, people want centralization. The fringes who constantly parrot “not your wallet, not your coins” will forever be in the minority as mom and pop don’t trust themselves to any kind of cold storage. Crypto-obsessed will forever live in this fantasy world.
    - siftrics 4y ago
      Okay. People have successfully avoided fraud, theft, and the tyrannical seizure of their assets by arbitrary decisions of arbitrary government officials. Billions of dollars worth of assets are stored on blockchains. Unless you have a mathematical argument against the properties of a blockchain, I will continue to believe the properties are true.
      - polygamous_bat 4y ago
        > Billions of dollars worth of assets are stored on blockchains. There is no mathematical proof that they will be worth billions of dollars tomorrow. I mean, I would wager if the original Satoshi wallets wake up and start selling Bitcoin this time tomorrow the total market cap can be counted in millions. Sure, maybe mathematically there will never be more than X tokens, but no one cares about that. Everyone at the end of the day cares about what they can trade one token for. Otherwise, it's worth less than monopoly money or Chuck-E-Cheese tokens.
        siftrics 4y ago
        I agree. What is your point?
        haimez 4y ago
        It’s a deflationary currency, which makes it a really bad fit for “fungible currency things”
      - root_axis 4y ago
        > Billions of dollars worth of assets are stored on blockchains. Nah. As FTT and FTX shows, the marketcap for blockchain tokens means nothing.
        siftrics 4y ago
        I agree, some subset of tokens created on a permissionless blockchain are or will be worthless. In fact, I bet that subset is >99%. I don't see what your point is.
bbddg 4y ago
You think the government won't take your Bitcoin?
- siftrics 4y ago
  Yes, I think the government absolutely will try and it's quite probable they will succeed. But why not offer human beings the _chance_ to flee tyranny with their livelihood? Consider jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Should they have been allowed to escape with their assets? Would the world be a better place had they been able to?
  - maxbond 4y ago
    How about we create better systems for refugees to gain access to safety and citizenship instead of consigning them to a rickety shadow financial system? Are you putting this much energy into, say, opposing border walls and supporting marginalized communities?
    - siftrics 4y ago
      Yes, I think borders violate basic human rights and needlessly destroy lives and families. Your argument that crypto is consuming too much opportunity cost is completely valid. But why fight against something that offers hope for the misfortunate?
      - maxbond 4y ago
        What about people suffering brownouts because their electricity is being stolen for mining, or people losing their shirts in ponzi schemes? What about the people and companies being extorted by ransomware? Do you say to the people who've been harmed by cryptoassets, "sorry, this is for the greater good, there are hypothetical refugees who may find this useful?"
        siftrics 4y ago
        The utilitarian slant is interesting. I can understand why some people think crypto is a net negative at the moment. The set of businesses adjacent to true, on-chain applications is rife with fraud. Thousands of people have died, maybe even millions have lost life savings. But I ask you an analogous question: what do you say to the people suffering any crime that was aided by free, encrypted communications on the internet? I'm not using this as a fool-proof argument that the utility of crypto is positive. I do not know the true answer. I think it's positive but I acknowledge it very well could be negative. To me, blockchains enable the basic human right of having ultimate authority over your own assets. You can choose whether attempting to circumvent your government is worth it. In most cases, it's not. But I like giving all human beings that option.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Zpalmtree 4y ago