11 ms·

But this thing happened in the conventional financial system, which is not billed as having those properties, so no, it's not a legitimate criticism.

by SilasX 3y ago

maxbond 3y ago
The criticism is that cryptoassets do not, in practice, have the censorship resistance they are billed as having. Blaming "tradfi" is passing the buck - cryptoasset promoters signed a check they couldn't cash, and no one made them do that. There are myriad rebuttals you could make, but dismissing it entirely isn't one of them, imho. This is the libertarian equivalent of claiming that Soviet Russia wasn't real communism. Sure, in both cases, things weren't realized in the way they had been envisioned. If proponents want to be successful in the future, they need to reckon with that and not shirk it.
- SilasX 3y ago
  >The criticism is that cryptoassets do not, in practice, have the censorship resistance they are billed as having. Correct: when you have assets in the traditional financial system, you don't have censorship resistance, which everyone knew. This is not an argument that the cryptocurrency itself lacks censorship resistance. >There are myriad rebuttals you could make, but dismissing it entirely isn't one of them, imho. Which I didn't do. I correctly pointed out that if you interface between systems A and B, you inherit the problems of both A and B. Which everyone already knew, and didn't require the enlightened insight of you and almost_unusual to point out specific instances of. It's just that most people also don't equate this with the argument that "A always has B's problems". >This is the libertarian equivalent of claiming that Soviet Russia wasn't real communism. Sure, in both cases, things weren't realized in the way they had been envisioned. If proponents want to be successful in the future, they need to reckon with that and not shirk it. It would be more like saying, "if you're in a libertarian paradise, and then travel to Soviet Russia, your economic freedoms will be infringed. Checkmate libertarians!" No one was arguing that economic freedoms wouldn't be infringed outside of a libertarian country, just like no one claims that if you move assets off a crypto blockchain, they will still have all the properties of blockchain transactions. Whatever the problems of libertarianism/blockchain, this would be a bad argument. "If you put the wrong numbers in, do the right answers still come out?" No, they don't. And if you don't use the blockchain, you don't get the benefits of the blockchain (or the costs), and vice versa.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    > Which everyone already knew, and didn't require the enlightened insight of you and almost_unusual to point out specific instances of. Why do you have to be rude and personal like that? If we can't have a civil discussion, I'm going to get back to work. Take care.

But this thing happened in the conventional financial system, which is not billed as having those properties, so no, it's not a legitimate criticism.

by SilasX 3y ago

But this thing happened in the conventional financial system, which is not billed as having those properties, so no, it's not a legitimate criticism.

maxbond 3y ago

The criticism is that cryptoassets do not, in practice, have the censorship resistance they are billed as having. Blaming "tradfi" is passing the buck - cryptoasset promoters signed a check they couldn't cash, and no one made them do that. There are myriad rebuttals you could make, but dismissing it entirely isn't one of them, imho. This is the libertarian equivalent of claiming that Soviet Russia wasn't real communism. Sure, in both cases, things weren't realized in the way they had been envisioned. If proponents want to be successful in the future, they need to reckon with that and not shirk it.

SilasX 3y ago
>The criticism is that cryptoassets do not, in practice, have the censorship resistance they are billed as having. Correct: when you have assets in the traditional financial system, you don't have censorship resistance, which everyone knew. This is not an argument that the cryptocurrency itself lacks censorship resistance. >There are myriad rebuttals you could make, but dismissing it entirely isn't one of them, imho. Which I didn't do. I correctly pointed out that if you interface between systems A and B, you inherit the problems of both A and B. Which everyone already knew, and didn't require the enlightened insight of you and almost_unusual to point out specific instances of. It's just that most people also don't equate this with the argument that "A always has B's problems". >This is the libertarian equivalent of claiming that Soviet Russia wasn't real communism. Sure, in both cases, things weren't realized in the way they had been envisioned. If proponents want to be successful in the future, they need to reckon with that and not shirk it. It would be more like saying, "if you're in a libertarian paradise, and then travel to Soviet Russia, your economic freedoms will be infringed. Checkmate libertarians!" No one was arguing that economic freedoms wouldn't be infringed outside of a libertarian country, just like no one claims that if you move assets off a crypto blockchain, they will still have all the properties of blockchain transactions. Whatever the problems of libertarianism/blockchain, this would be a bad argument. "If you put the wrong numbers in, do the right answers still come out?" No, they don't. And if you don't use the blockchain, you don't get the benefits of the blockchain (or the costs), and vice versa.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > Which everyone already knew, and didn't require the enlightened insight of you and almost_unusual to point out specific instances of. Why do you have to be rude and personal like that? If we can't have a civil discussion, I'm going to get back to work. Take care.