5 ms·

All of the other comments are missing the point: using blockchain technology is a means to bypass regulation. That's it. That's always been the point of cryptoc

by j2kun 1y ago

All of the other comments are missing the point: using blockchain technology is a means to bypass regulation. That's it. That's always been the point of cryptocurrency.

insane_dreamer 1y ago
Incorrect; it's to bypass the middlemen that create the links of trust between two parties exchanging money. That was the point of Bitcoin from the start. (The many other crypto coins since then are mostly BS freud.)
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  I'm not sure there's much of a distinction; the reason there are so many middlemen is regulatory.
- j2kun 1y ago
  In this case, Stripe is adding themselves as a middleman. Whether or not it was the point of Bitcoin from the start, "removing the middlemen" is bullshit because you still need exchanges, wallet providers, people running nodes, etc. Cryptocurrency in practice just transfers power from traditional middlemen to new technically-advantaged middlemen.
  - bravoetch 1y ago
    The middleman that bitcoin is cleaved from is banks (that have control over all balances and transactions), and payment processors (same controls). Previously these were required unless you handed physical cash to someone. Now electronic transactions are free of those controls and the associated risk. Exchanges are not bitcoin, you can transact freely without them. Wallet providers are not bitcoin, they are 100% optional. Nodes don't act as middlemen, they are fabric.
    - mbesto 1y ago
      > middleman that bitcoin is cleaved from is banks (that have control over all balances and transactions), and payment processors (same controls) Miners now replace this since there is a network fee required to transact. I'm not sure what the current state of affair is, but ETH gas fees were egregious last time I transacted ETH.
    - j2kun 1y ago
      And people could just do all their business in cash to avoid banks. But that's not practical just like avoiding exchanges and not using wallet providers is impractical. Normal people cannot function in a cryptocurrency ecosystem without these new tech middlemen. This is exactly what I mean when I say _in practice_. Average people are still left to the whims of cryptocurrency corporations that are worse than banks because they're unregulated, much greedier, and much less risk averse.
  - insane_dreamer 1y ago
    > you still need exchanges, wallet providers, people running nodes, etc you don't need exchanges or wallet providers, or any other intermediary, to exchange Bitcoin -- those add layers of convenience (conversion, storage), but they do _not_ strengthen the web of trust and do not provide the same function as intermediary banks and clearing houses do yes, you do need people running nodes, but they're not intermediate layers, and you can run a node yourself to benefit from the system (though in practice it's no longer profitable due to bitcoin farms)
  - dmak 1y ago
    If the banking system was compromised from war, Bitcoin still functions without them
    - troupo 1y ago
      Because during war you're guaranteed to have electricity and internet for Bitcoin to function
      - CamperBob2 1y ago
        That was one of the key motivations behind the creation of the Internet, yes.
idiotsecant 1y ago
You say tomato I say removing the levers of power from world governments who have proven time and time again that they can't help but pull them to help themselves
- munificent 1y ago
  > removing the levers of power from world governments A lever of power is never removed unless the act itself can no longer be performed. All you can do is take someone's hand off the lever and hope that whoever grabs it next is better than the last hand that had it. I find it very unlikely that wresting power away from government—which at least has some level of citizen participation—will end up with it in better hands. The most likely scenario is that some billionaire will end up owning it.
  - idiotsecant 1y ago
    No, it's possible. Imagine, for example, that you are concerned about growing political control of the central bank in your country and you want to remove the ability of central banks to set an inflation rate for the currency you use. That's quite easily achieved if ownership of the currency system is distributed among all users of that currency.
    - munificent 1y ago
      > is distributed among all users of that currency. Right. What you propose is that you take government's hand off the lever and a million users will all equally get to gently rest their pinky on it and distribute the power equally. I have never seen anything in the history of the world or my understanding of sociology to indicate that such a power structure has any stability. If you give out power in a free-for-all, what tends to happen is: 1. All of the participants already have some unequal distribution of power going in. 2. Those who have more are able to use that to claim a little more of the new resource. 3. Once they do they, they are able to use the increased inequality to claim even more. 4. Go to 2. The natural tendency is towards increasing inequality. It takes a ton of work to build and maintain structures that encourage any level of egalitarianism.
risyachka 1y ago
yeah bad regulations must be bypassed. There is a case for banks that hold your hand as if you are 90yo and there must be a case for banking where I know what I do and I take responsibility for my actions. If i send my coins to the wrong address its on me. But if I want to send 10k to someone - no one should ask me to wait 3 days, to do 100 verifications if I am not being forced or scammed. I'd want that protection for my mom, sure. But I want to remove all that crap for me. I don't have time and energy for it
- LunaSea 1y ago
  Let's check how people use credit cards and buy-now-pay-layer schemes (Klarna & co) responsibly in America. It clearly demonstrates that people do not have the capacity to make critical judgments and have to be somewhat protected from themselves. That's als what regulations are for.
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    there should be a pathway where we can opt out of being protected from ourselves and crypto is it.
    - LunaSea 1y ago
      Yes, it should be opt-in, but this is not one of them since it's opt-out by default.

by j2kun 1y ago

All of the other comments are missing the point: using blockchain technology is a means to bypass regulation. That's it. That's always been the point of cryptocurrency.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

Incorrect; it's to bypass the middlemen that create the links of trust between two parties exchanging money. That was the point of Bitcoin from the start. (The many other crypto coins since then are mostly BS freud.)

MangoToupe 1y ago
I'm not sure there's much of a distinction; the reason there are so many middlemen is regulatory.
j2kun 1y ago
In this case, Stripe is adding themselves as a middleman. Whether or not it was the point of Bitcoin from the start, "removing the middlemen" is bullshit because you still need exchanges, wallet providers, people running nodes, etc. Cryptocurrency in practice just transfers power from traditional middlemen to new technically-advantaged middlemen.
- bravoetch 1y ago
  The middleman that bitcoin is cleaved from is banks (that have control over all balances and transactions), and payment processors (same controls). Previously these were required unless you handed physical cash to someone. Now electronic transactions are free of those controls and the associated risk. Exchanges are not bitcoin, you can transact freely without them. Wallet providers are not bitcoin, they are 100% optional. Nodes don't act as middlemen, they are fabric.
  - mbesto 1y ago
    > middleman that bitcoin is cleaved from is banks (that have control over all balances and transactions), and payment processors (same controls) Miners now replace this since there is a network fee required to transact. I'm not sure what the current state of affair is, but ETH gas fees were egregious last time I transacted ETH.
  - j2kun 1y ago
    And people could just do all their business in cash to avoid banks. But that's not practical just like avoiding exchanges and not using wallet providers is impractical. Normal people cannot function in a cryptocurrency ecosystem without these new tech middlemen. This is exactly what I mean when I say _in practice_. Average people are still left to the whims of cryptocurrency corporations that are worse than banks because they're unregulated, much greedier, and much less risk averse.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  > you still need exchanges, wallet providers, people running nodes, etc you don't need exchanges or wallet providers, or any other intermediary, to exchange Bitcoin -- those add layers of convenience (conversion, storage), but they do _not_ strengthen the web of trust and do not provide the same function as intermediary banks and clearing houses do yes, you do need people running nodes, but they're not intermediate layers, and you can run a node yourself to benefit from the system (though in practice it's no longer profitable due to bitcoin farms)
- dmak 1y ago
  If the banking system was compromised from war, Bitcoin still functions without them
  - troupo 1y ago
    Because during war you're guaranteed to have electricity and internet for Bitcoin to function
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      That was one of the key motivations behind the creation of the Internet, yes.

idiotsecant 1y ago

You say tomato I say removing the levers of power from world governments who have proven time and time again that they can't help but pull them to help themselves

munificent 1y ago
> removing the levers of power from world governments A lever of power is never removed unless the act itself can no longer be performed. All you can do is take someone's hand off the lever and hope that whoever grabs it next is better than the last hand that had it. I find it very unlikely that wresting power away from government—which at least has some level of citizen participation—will end up with it in better hands. The most likely scenario is that some billionaire will end up owning it.
- idiotsecant 1y ago
  No, it's possible. Imagine, for example, that you are concerned about growing political control of the central bank in your country and you want to remove the ability of central banks to set an inflation rate for the currency you use. That's quite easily achieved if ownership of the currency system is distributed among all users of that currency.
  - munificent 1y ago
    > is distributed among all users of that currency. Right. What you propose is that you take government's hand off the lever and a million users will all equally get to gently rest their pinky on it and distribute the power equally. I have never seen anything in the history of the world or my understanding of sociology to indicate that such a power structure has any stability. If you give out power in a free-for-all, what tends to happen is: 1. All of the participants already have some unequal distribution of power going in. 2. Those who have more are able to use that to claim a little more of the new resource. 3. Once they do they, they are able to use the increased inequality to claim even more. 4. Go to 2. The natural tendency is towards increasing inequality. It takes a ton of work to build and maintain structures that encourage any level of egalitarianism.

risyachka 1y ago

yeah bad regulations must be bypassed. There is a case for banks that hold your hand as if you are 90yo and there must be a case for banking where I know what I do and I take responsibility for my actions. If i send my coins to the wrong address its on me. But if I want to send 10k to someone - no one should ask me to wait 3 days, to do 100 verifications if I am not being forced or scammed. I'd want that protection for my mom, sure. But I want to remove all that crap for me. I don't have time and energy for it

LunaSea 1y ago
Let's check how people use credit cards and buy-now-pay-layer schemes (Klarna & co) responsibly in America. It clearly demonstrates that people do not have the capacity to make critical judgments and have to be somewhat protected from themselves. That's als what regulations are for.
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  there should be a pathway where we can opt out of being protected from ourselves and crypto is it.
  - LunaSea 1y ago
    Yes, it should be opt-in, but this is not one of them since it's opt-out by default.