3 ms·

Simple example is that if governments control finance you can't coordinate if the government is your opposition. If you start sharing resources as a means of co

by DirkH 3y ago

Simple example is that if governments control finance you can't coordinate if the government is your opposition. If you start sharing resources as a means of coordinating, governments can always just compel the banks to shut down your account. Governments can't shut down crypto nearly as easily due to its decentralized nature.

JohnFen 3y ago
I don't find this argument compelling at all, because I can't think of a historical example where fiat currency prevented coordination of antigovernment people. I also find it interesting that the pro-cryptocurrency argument centers around being antigovernment. So it's a political thing, not a practical thing. That automatically means cryptocurrency has no chance of mainstream adoption. People who don't agree with the politics of it will avoid it because they don't want to be associated with those politics.
- DirkH 3y ago
  OK, read this: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infinitely-hostile https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infin... Many clear examples of it being used to coordinate in opposition to fiat because the governments can't be trusted. And it's working far as I can tell. We just don't hear about it in the first world because our culture is so apathetic about anything happening in poverty oppressed nations. Worth adding I'm not pro-crypto or anti-government. For transparency I have less than $10 grand in crypto which is no big deal for me to lose overnight. I think there is a good enough case to invest but not enough to make it large part of my portfolio. I don't believe the hype but also think throwing it out with the bathwater is likewise unnecessarily absolutist. "People who don't agree with the politics of it will avoid it because they don't want to be associated with those politics" Tell that from the majority of crypto users who reside in the third world and derive actual value from it. They are not politically homogenous (leftists and rightists use crypto on the third world) and most probably don't care much for decentralization as a means of political action. They just want something that works and is less corrupt than the incumbent system.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  This might be a political stance, but it's not exactly a radical one: > Tech that mediates a relationship between two users should not give special powers to a third party. It's not anti-government, it's anti-tampering. I'm most concerned with government tampering, but that's just me. I can exchange tokens with somebody who is concerned with alien tampering (something I don't worry about in the slightest) and we can all disagree about the "why" while still agreeing on the "what". Maybe there's a subset of users that would prefer to have some authority they can appeal to when something goes wrong. That's fine, crypto isn't for them right now. But I suspect that those authorities will eventually abuse their position of trust. When it happens, I hope crypto is a nice enough place for them to turn to. As it stands there's a lot of work to do for that to be the case.

by DirkH 3y ago

JohnFen 3y ago

I don't find this argument compelling at all, because I can't think of a historical example where fiat currency prevented coordination of antigovernment people. I also find it interesting that the pro-cryptocurrency argument centers around being antigovernment. So it's a political thing, not a practical thing. That automatically means cryptocurrency has no chance of mainstream adoption. People who don't agree with the politics of it will avoid it because they don't want to be associated with those politics.

DirkH 3y ago
OK, read this: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infinitely-hostile https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infin... Many clear examples of it being used to coordinate in opposition to fiat because the governments can't be trusted. And it's working far as I can tell. We just don't hear about it in the first world because our culture is so apathetic about anything happening in poverty oppressed nations. Worth adding I'm not pro-crypto or anti-government. For transparency I have less than $10 grand in crypto which is no big deal for me to lose overnight. I think there is a good enough case to invest but not enough to make it large part of my portfolio. I don't believe the hype but also think throwing it out with the bathwater is likewise unnecessarily absolutist. "People who don't agree with the politics of it will avoid it because they don't want to be associated with those politics" Tell that from the majority of crypto users who reside in the third world and derive actual value from it. They are not politically homogenous (leftists and rightists use crypto on the third world) and most probably don't care much for decentralization as a means of political action. They just want something that works and is less corrupt than the incumbent system.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
This might be a political stance, but it's not exactly a radical one: > Tech that mediates a relationship between two users should not give special powers to a third party. It's not anti-government, it's anti-tampering. I'm most concerned with government tampering, but that's just me. I can exchange tokens with somebody who is concerned with alien tampering (something I don't worry about in the slightest) and we can all disagree about the "why" while still agreeing on the "what". Maybe there's a subset of users that would prefer to have some authority they can appeal to when something goes wrong. That's fine, crypto isn't for them right now. But I suspect that those authorities will eventually abuse their position of trust. When it happens, I hope crypto is a nice enough place for them to turn to. As it stands there's a lot of work to do for that to be the case.