5 ms·

The crypto industry has basically done a speed run of the history of banking and finance over the last decade or so. But the safeguards and regulations that go

The crypto industry has basically done a speed run of the history of banking and finance over the last decade or so. But the safeguards and regulations that governments put in place for money are mostly absent for crypto. It should remain this way. I want to see how far crypto can go without government regulations and protections.

mschuster91 4y ago
> I want to see how far crypto can go without government regulations and protections. We have seen enough of that: one rug-pull and scam after the other. Governments are stepping in with crypto precisely because of all the scams.
- reedjosh 4y ago
  Boy that BTC rug pull really hurt. I'm still totally reeling from the XMR rug pull. Oh, wait... Just because many are scams, doesn't mean there are no principled crypto currencies. God forbid one should have to perform due diligence and actually think a bit about their currency.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Principles are irrelevant in this space. The only thing that matters is actual laws enforced by people with guns.
    - reedjosh 4y ago
      BTC and Monero were built to resist laws made by people with guns. There were other attempts at digital currency before BTC, but they were all taken down by people with guns. That's kinda the whole point. That's why BTC uses energy. It's a means of resistance to people with guns.
      - this_user 4y ago
        > That's why BTC uses energy. It's a means of resistance to people with guns. That logic makes about as much sense as using crypto currencies in general.
        reedjosh 4y ago
        You're not making any real argument here, so I can't exactly refute it. Proof of Work is a means of preventing any one actor from controlling bitcoin. Proof of Work is energy intensive, but the currency exists in a government resistant manner without the use of guns because of Proof of Work.
        kergonath 4y ago
        > Proof of Work is a means of preventing any one actor from controlling bitcoin. No. It does not prevent majority attacks. It has also been very effective as a mean to enforce an oligarchy of those who have the hardware and made billions, compared to those who did not and who were at the mercy of fluctuations. It makes sense from a perverse right-wing libertarian point of view, but it has nothing to do with democratisation or taking the power away from the government.
        reedjosh 4y ago
        Nobody has the majority. That's also the point. > those who have the hardware and made billions, compared to those who did not and who were at the mercy of fluctuations. I don't know what you could even mean. Having hardware just means you can mine BTC. Miners still deal with price fluctuations, and in no way have they been able to control or print BTC. > ...it has nothing to do with democratisation or taking the power away from the government. If the government couldn't take limitless loans from the Fed which creates debt from nothing -- a fancy way of saying print money -- if the government couldn't print money it would have to tax for it's expenditure and would be naturally constrained in it's power. I honestly can't understand any of your positions and can only believe you're incredibly uniformed about the reality of money, power, and the genisis of and technology behind many crypto currencies.
    - psychlops 4y ago
      A Hobbesian theory that people in power are happy that you believe.
      - nradov 4y ago
        Is there an alternative "theory" that actually works in the real world outside of idealist manifestos?
        psychlops 4y ago
        Effectively every transaction done today is done without guns or laws. I've certainly haven't had to threaten anyone with litigation to purchase a cup of coffee. To believe that there is chaos without both is a sad myth.
capableweb 4y ago
> The crypto industry has basically done a speed run of the history of banking and finance over the last decade or so. Does that mean it'll eventually eclipse and live in front of the current timeline of banking, so we'll see banking and finance following the crypto industry at one point, repeating the same mistake that happens in cryptocurrencies?
- smolder 4y ago
  I think not. Once crypto scammers have retried everything from the history of fiat currency they'll just be in the same boat. But it would be funny if banks started encrypting my files and demanding ransom.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Ah, it seems you're one of many who confuses "crypto" with cryptography and cryptocurrency. Cryptography is used for encrypting your files, not cryptocurrency. But it's a easy mistake to make so don't feel bad over it.
    - solumunus 4y ago
      They're referencing the fact that crypto is famously used as a payment mechanism by entities that hold people/companies to ransom by encrypting their data against their will.
    - dmoy 4y ago
      gp is not confusing crypto/cryptography/cryptocurrency They're making a jab at a large usage of cryptocurrency: payment for ransomware exploits
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Attackers who encrypt files and demand payment famously demanded cryptocurrency, in part because of the "transactions cannot be reversed" property and the (pseudo-)anonymity. As banking transactions can be reversed and are as opposite of anonymous as is practically possible, it would be (darkly) amusing if a traditional bank did that, precisely because the damage would be undone and the guilty parties trivially identified.

mschuster91 4y ago

> I want to see how far crypto can go without government regulations and protections. We have seen enough of that: one rug-pull and scam after the other. Governments are stepping in with crypto precisely because of all the scams.

reedjosh 4y ago
Boy that BTC rug pull really hurt. I'm still totally reeling from the XMR rug pull. Oh, wait... Just because many are scams, doesn't mean there are no principled crypto currencies. God forbid one should have to perform due diligence and actually think a bit about their currency.
- nradov 4y ago
  Principles are irrelevant in this space. The only thing that matters is actual laws enforced by people with guns.
  - reedjosh 4y ago
    BTC and Monero were built to resist laws made by people with guns. There were other attempts at digital currency before BTC, but they were all taken down by people with guns. That's kinda the whole point. That's why BTC uses energy. It's a means of resistance to people with guns.
    - this_user 4y ago
      > That's why BTC uses energy. It's a means of resistance to people with guns. That logic makes about as much sense as using crypto currencies in general.
      - reedjosh 4y ago
        You're not making any real argument here, so I can't exactly refute it. Proof of Work is a means of preventing any one actor from controlling bitcoin. Proof of Work is energy intensive, but the currency exists in a government resistant manner without the use of guns because of Proof of Work.
        kergonath 4y ago
        > Proof of Work is a means of preventing any one actor from controlling bitcoin. No. It does not prevent majority attacks. It has also been very effective as a mean to enforce an oligarchy of those who have the hardware and made billions, compared to those who did not and who were at the mercy of fluctuations. It makes sense from a perverse right-wing libertarian point of view, but it has nothing to do with democratisation or taking the power away from the government.
        reedjosh 4y ago
        Nobody has the majority. That's also the point. > those who have the hardware and made billions, compared to those who did not and who were at the mercy of fluctuations. I don't know what you could even mean. Having hardware just means you can mine BTC. Miners still deal with price fluctuations, and in no way have they been able to control or print BTC. > ...it has nothing to do with democratisation or taking the power away from the government. If the government couldn't take limitless loans from the Fed which creates debt from nothing -- a fancy way of saying print money -- if the government couldn't print money it would have to tax for it's expenditure and would be naturally constrained in it's power. I honestly can't understand any of your positions and can only believe you're incredibly uniformed about the reality of money, power, and the genisis of and technology behind many crypto currencies.
  - psychlops 4y ago
    A Hobbesian theory that people in power are happy that you believe.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Is there an alternative "theory" that actually works in the real world outside of idealist manifestos?
      - psychlops 4y ago
        Effectively every transaction done today is done without guns or laws. I've certainly haven't had to threaten anyone with litigation to purchase a cup of coffee. To believe that there is chaos without both is a sad myth.

capableweb 4y ago

> The crypto industry has basically done a speed run of the history of banking and finance over the last decade or so. Does that mean it'll eventually eclipse and live in front of the current timeline of banking, so we'll see banking and finance following the crypto industry at one point, repeating the same mistake that happens in cryptocurrencies?

smolder 4y ago
I think not. Once crypto scammers have retried everything from the history of fiat currency they'll just be in the same boat. But it would be funny if banks started encrypting my files and demanding ransom.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Ah, it seems you're one of many who confuses "crypto" with cryptography and cryptocurrency. Cryptography is used for encrypting your files, not cryptocurrency. But it's a easy mistake to make so don't feel bad over it.
  - solumunus 4y ago
    They're referencing the fact that crypto is famously used as a payment mechanism by entities that hold people/companies to ransom by encrypting their data against their will.
  - dmoy 4y ago
    gp is not confusing crypto/cryptography/cryptocurrency They're making a jab at a large usage of cryptocurrency: payment for ransomware exploits
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Attackers who encrypt files and demand payment famously demanded cryptocurrency, in part because of the "transactions cannot be reversed" property and the (pseudo-)anonymity. As banking transactions can be reversed and are as opposite of anonymous as is practically possible, it would be (darkly) amusing if a traditional bank did that, precisely because the damage would be undone and the guilty parties trivially identified.