7 ms·

I don't have a problem with surveillance. I have a problem with surveillance under the undemocratic, nightmerican system of goverence with non-existent to weak

I don't have a problem with surveillance. I have a problem with surveillance under the undemocratic, nightmerican system of goverence with non-existent to weak checks and balances across the entire polis and an outdated constitution. That said, Bitcoin is a state sponsored pyramid scheme, and only someone riding the coattails of early adoption and espousing permanent oligarch rule through its lack of taxation could ever speak highly of its poor design, replacing centralized banking with a centralized computing infrastructure arms race to the detriment of the world's resources. There, I said it.

kolanos 3y ago
> That said, Bitcoin is a state sponsored pyramid scheme, ... I would say the same about the Federal Reserve.
- sonicanatidae 3y ago
  And the stock market.
  - ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago
    I can't wait to start getting my social security checks 30 years from now.
    - sonicanatidae 3y ago
      You'll get them, but you'll have to be 91 to start collecting, and they will be worth less than it took to print them, because some "people" think that giving more tax breaks to those that need it the least is a better use of the money you've been forced to pay into the system.
  - sharemywin 3y ago
    of course without either of these every Americans incomes, wealth, etc would shift to the left by 1 if not 10 decimal places.
    - DANmode 3y ago
      The size and complexity of both of those has increased since the 50s, a time when "every American"¹ was far better off financially with their takehome. So, I'm not sure I follow your assumption. ¹with obvious regards to those of color
fakecontent000 3y ago
[dead]
survirtual 3y ago
First paragraph is on point. Sad about the second paragraph. That isn't a brave or impressive thing to say, it is a common and misinformed perspective. Regarding Bitcoin, it's important to recognize that it's fundamentally about decentralization of financial control, not necessarily decentralizing value hoarding (though it largely does that too). It uses a distributed ledger technology, where the minting process (mining) and transfers (transactions) are verified by a consensus mechanism across a global network. This eliminates the need for central banking authorities, theoretically reducing the points of failure and censorship. It's designed to be a deflationary currency to counteract inflationary fiat systems, with a predictable supply that's governed by math, not by policy changes. While concerns about energy consumption are valid, the network is increasingly moving towards renewable energy sources and more efficient mining practices. Moreover, innovations like the Lightning Network are addressing scalability and resource issues, aiming to make Bitcoin more sustainable and accessible. I think you should revisit your talking points / read the code / understand the thing you're talking about before having such a strong (false) statement.
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  > Regarding Bitcoin [...] the network is increasingly moving [...] more efficient mining practices Has Bitcoin changed its mining protocol?
  - tromp 3y ago
    It is and always will be Hashcash with SHA256d as hash function.
    - absinthe11 3y ago
      That's an example of sunk cost fallacy, where the miners have spent so much money (real dollars, not bitcoin) on otherwise useless ASICs that they obstruct any attempts at progress.
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
ur-whale 3y ago
> I don't have a problem with surveillance. Hard to continue reading you after that kind of statement. > That said, Bitcoin is a state sponsored pyramid scheme, And now damn near impossible.
DANmode 3y ago
> Bitcoin is a state sponsored pyramid scheme There's billions of USD of it owned by dozens of different countries. Which state are you implying to be sponsoring the "pyramid scheme"?
DANmode 3y ago
> I don't have a problem with surveillance. I have a problem with surveillance under the Also, just stop there!, because the rest of that sentence will change every 5, 10, 50 years, no matter what anyone does. Don't start any program within your home that you don't want your enemies to have access to use against you while they're in power.
- anonporridge 3y ago
  I don't get how people don't understand this. One of the reasons that the Nazis were especially effective at finding Jews in the Netherlands is because of their very detailed civil registry, that included religious affiliation. French authorities were also forced to help the Nazis locate Jews during their occupation, and this is one of the reasons the French today don't keep official records on people's race or religious affiliations. Just because you fully trust authorities today doesn't mean the guard won't turn over in the future for any number of reasons.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    The point is to put into place systems that will protect you from abuses no matter who comes into power. Those systems, and how well they function, can act as a bellwether indicating how tyrannical the authorities are becoming. If you're lucky exposed weaknesses in those systems can be patched up, and corrupt individuals ousted to shore up your freedoms before things slip too far, but if nothing else those early warning signs can tell you when it's time to get out while you still can. At the point where you've already been taken over by the new "Nazis" it doesn't much matter. They'll put into place the systems you fear anyway. You say the French today don't keep official records on people's race or religious affiliations, but corporations do, and so that data on the population already exists and could be obtained very quickly. The nice French government today won't touch that data, but New Hitler would. In the meantime, because France doesn't want to consider race in statistics, it's made documenting, understanding, and addressing the massive racial discrimination problems they have very difficult. For years there have been calls for the French government to start collecting ethnicity data in their statistics because blinding yourself to problems means you can't solve them. (https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol31/iss2/7/ https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_international_compar...) The policy to avoid that kind of data collection was well-meaning, but it turns out that not collecting that data doesn't adequately protect the people of France, and in fact it's actually hurting them.
alphanullmeric 3y ago
Cryptocurrencies have no value, what do you intend on taxing?
- hgomersall 3y ago
  I suspect you're aware that your rhetorical question rather neatly makes the point that taxing in crypto would immediately (and for crypto-bros, ironically) imbue them with value.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    What’s the point you’re trying to make? Do cryptocurrencies have value or not? It’s one or the other, you can’t claim they have value when you want to tax them and then claim they don’t when you want to regulate them.
    - hgomersall 3y ago
      That the process of taxation in a certain money is a sufficient condition to give that money value.
      - alphanullmeric 3y ago
        I’m not asking you to “give” my money value. I’m asking you to answer a simple yes or no question: does it currently have value or not? The way you’re trying to defend your obvious lack of consistency is purely circular. If it has value, you tax it. You can’t say that if you tax it then it’ll have value that justifies taxing it the first place.
        hgomersall 3y ago
        If you can use it to satisfy your tax liability, then it has value.
        3y ago

kolanos 3y ago

> That said, Bitcoin is a state sponsored pyramid scheme, ... I would say the same about the Federal Reserve.

sonicanatidae 3y ago
And the stock market.
- ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago
  I can't wait to start getting my social security checks 30 years from now.
  - sonicanatidae 3y ago
    You'll get them, but you'll have to be 91 to start collecting, and they will be worth less than it took to print them, because some "people" think that giving more tax breaks to those that need it the least is a better use of the money you've been forced to pay into the system.
- sharemywin 3y ago
  of course without either of these every Americans incomes, wealth, etc would shift to the left by 1 if not 10 decimal places.
  - DANmode 3y ago
    The size and complexity of both of those has increased since the 50s, a time when "every American"¹ was far better off financially with their takehome. So, I'm not sure I follow your assumption. ¹with obvious regards to those of color

fakecontent000 3y ago

[dead]

survirtual 3y ago

First paragraph is on point. Sad about the second paragraph. That isn't a brave or impressive thing to say, it is a common and misinformed perspective. Regarding Bitcoin, it's important to recognize that it's fundamentally about decentralization of financial control, not necessarily decentralizing value hoarding (though it largely does that too). It uses a distributed ledger technology, where the minting process (mining) and transfers (transactions) are verified by a consensus mechanism across a global network. This eliminates the need for central banking authorities, theoretically reducing the points of failure and censorship. It's designed to be a deflationary currency to counteract inflationary fiat systems, with a predictable supply that's governed by math, not by policy changes. While concerns about energy consumption are valid, the network is increasingly moving towards renewable energy sources and more efficient mining practices. Moreover, innovations like the Lightning Network are addressing scalability and resource issues, aiming to make Bitcoin more sustainable and accessible. I think you should revisit your talking points / read the code / understand the thing you're talking about before having such a strong (false) statement.

warkdarrior 3y ago
> Regarding Bitcoin [...] the network is increasingly moving [...] more efficient mining practices Has Bitcoin changed its mining protocol?
- tromp 3y ago
  It is and always will be Hashcash with SHA256d as hash function.
  - absinthe11 3y ago
    That's an example of sunk cost fallacy, where the miners have spent so much money (real dollars, not bitcoin) on otherwise useless ASICs that they obstruct any attempts at progress.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago

ur-whale 3y ago

> I don't have a problem with surveillance. Hard to continue reading you after that kind of statement. > That said, Bitcoin is a state sponsored pyramid scheme, And now damn near impossible.

DANmode 3y ago

> Bitcoin is a state sponsored pyramid scheme There's billions of USD of it owned by dozens of different countries. Which state are you implying to be sponsoring the "pyramid scheme"?

DANmode 3y ago

> I don't have a problem with surveillance. I have a problem with surveillance under the Also, just stop there!, because the rest of that sentence will change every 5, 10, 50 years, no matter what anyone does. Don't start any program within your home that you don't want your enemies to have access to use against you while they're in power.

anonporridge 3y ago
I don't get how people don't understand this. One of the reasons that the Nazis were especially effective at finding Jews in the Netherlands is because of their very detailed civil registry, that included religious affiliation. French authorities were also forced to help the Nazis locate Jews during their occupation, and this is one of the reasons the French today don't keep official records on people's race or religious affiliations. Just because you fully trust authorities today doesn't mean the guard won't turn over in the future for any number of reasons.
- autoexec 3y ago
  The point is to put into place systems that will protect you from abuses no matter who comes into power. Those systems, and how well they function, can act as a bellwether indicating how tyrannical the authorities are becoming. If you're lucky exposed weaknesses in those systems can be patched up, and corrupt individuals ousted to shore up your freedoms before things slip too far, but if nothing else those early warning signs can tell you when it's time to get out while you still can. At the point where you've already been taken over by the new "Nazis" it doesn't much matter. They'll put into place the systems you fear anyway. You say the French today don't keep official records on people's race or religious affiliations, but corporations do, and so that data on the population already exists and could be obtained very quickly. The nice French government today won't touch that data, but New Hitler would. In the meantime, because France doesn't want to consider race in statistics, it's made documenting, understanding, and addressing the massive racial discrimination problems they have very difficult. For years there have been calls for the French government to start collecting ethnicity data in their statistics because blinding yourself to problems means you can't solve them. (https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol31/iss2/7/ https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_international_compar...) The policy to avoid that kind of data collection was well-meaning, but it turns out that not collecting that data doesn't adequately protect the people of France, and in fact it's actually hurting them.

alphanullmeric 3y ago

Cryptocurrencies have no value, what do you intend on taxing?

hgomersall 3y ago
I suspect you're aware that your rhetorical question rather neatly makes the point that taxing in crypto would immediately (and for crypto-bros, ironically) imbue them with value.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  What’s the point you’re trying to make? Do cryptocurrencies have value or not? It’s one or the other, you can’t claim they have value when you want to tax them and then claim they don’t when you want to regulate them.
  - hgomersall 3y ago
    That the process of taxation in a certain money is a sufficient condition to give that money value.
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      I’m not asking you to “give” my money value. I’m asking you to answer a simple yes or no question: does it currently have value or not? The way you’re trying to defend your obvious lack of consistency is purely circular. If it has value, you tax it. You can’t say that if you tax it then it’ll have value that justifies taxing it the first place.
      - hgomersall 3y ago
        If you can use it to satisfy your tax liability, then it has value.
        3y ago