4 ms·

Your argument here appears to be "crypto is no better than fiat, because you can build the same systems on top of them." What you put on top is not the core va

Your argument here appears to be "crypto is no better than fiat, because you can build the same systems on top of them." What you put on top is not the core value proposition of cryptocurrencies? It's what's underneath that's different, that was always the point. Fiat currency is built on a foundation of gov't control, whether it's the physical currency or the money in your bank account. Cryptocurrencies, fundamentally, are under no such control. If you're stupid enough to go get a 5mil loan in bitcoin from a bank who is only holding 1.7mil, and the delivery of said bitcoin is a slip of paper saying "iou btc lol" that's not the currency failing you, it's you acting stupidly.

user34283 11mo ago
The financial system being under government control is the only proposition consistent with reality. We, the people, make the rules. Replacing our democratic processes with finance controlled by the one with the most computing power, control of the software, or having horded the most of the tokens, is in no way desirable or realistic. Even if the proposition wasn't borderline idiotic in the first place, there is no clear explanation how such a system should reward early adopters and allow them to cash out at a profit many times exceeding inflation. It's all a scam.
- Dilettante_ 11mo ago
  I'm gonna first of all disagree with the notion that our entire democracy rests on control of the financial system, secondly point out that you seem to make some wild leaps about how decentralized currencies work, and thirdly ask how the hell you're getting the idea that early adopters would need to be "cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation"(Participation in the new system is the point of adopting it, how is this unclear). Finally: We, the people, make the rules. If you truly believe that, you are (and I realize this is not the level of discourse I should strive for on HN) beyond redemption.
  - user34283 11mo ago
    I said the financial system must be controlled by our democratic system, not that democracy rests on control of the financial system. No idea where I'm supposedly making "wild leaps" here. You on the other hand... And guess where "the hell" I am getting the idea that early adopters would need to be cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation: reality. As cashing out at a large profit is exactly what has been happening for over a decade. It is the sole reason for virtually all participants joining the scheme in the first place.
- dns_snek 11mo ago
  > We, the people, make the rules. Since when? We merely vote for politicians who promise to enact laws and regulations that are beneficial for us but they almost universally fail to do that, succumbing to self-interests and corruption. If a government implements authoritarian measures that curb our freedom in an unpopular manner, "we the people" can't do anything about it. In a few years we may or may not vote them out, and the people who replace them may (or may not) do what we, the people, want.
  - user34283 11mo ago
    That's a bleak view on the state of democracy. Whatever your feelings on the topic may be, we will not be giving up government control of the financial system in favor of a blockchain and profits for crypto-bros.
    - dns_snek 11mo ago
      Bleak but realistic, unfortunately. There needs to be a viable alternative as long as our elected representatives have the power to abuse the financial system as a means of authoritarian control, like freezing the bank accounts of protestors. A truly democratic leadership with stringent limitations on how they can meddle with financial transactions would be preferable, but that's just a dream at this point.
      - user34283 11mo ago
        A viable alternative to the financial system is also just a dream. If we take from the government the ability to freeze bank accounts of protestors, we can't just also remove the ability to freeze the accounts of criminals, enemies, or even terrorists. It seems like a clear non-starter, yet many proponents of crypto seem to think it would be an obvious improvement.
        Dilettante_ 11mo ago
        >If we take from the government the ability to freeze bank accounts of protestors, we can't just also remove the ability to freeze the accounts of criminals That's really the crux of the issue here: Having to choose one over the other, would you rather some criminals go free, or some innocents be imprisoned? I suspect anyone's position to this depends heavily on which sides they've been on more on their lives: Victimized by criminals or unjustly punished.
- FabHK 11mo ago
  You might have formulated things a bit unclearly, but I fundamentally agree that money, like everything else, should be under democratic control of the people. Not controlled by some crypto bros that are happy to interfere with the protocol if it suits them (The DAO hack, two 20+ block rollbacks of Bitcoin), but not if massive crime happens on it.
  - user34283 11mo ago
    I guess so, although crypto proponents will anyway tell you that you don't understand how crypto works as soon as you say anything negative about their scheme. I believe what I said is a fairly accurate summary of Proof of work / Proof of stake mechanisms and Core developer's influence on the protocol.
danaris 11mo ago
No; the argument is much closer to "if you don't make cryptocurrency basically the same as fiat, by building the same systems on top of it, it's useless to the vast majority of people."
- dns_snek 11mo ago
  That is just an observation, not an argument against building, improving, and using crypto. Cryptocurrency doesn't need to do everything for everyone at all times to be a useful thing to have in the world. It only needs to be helpful to a subset of people, in a subset of situations, some of the time. I'm happy paying by card for ~100% of my daily transactions, but I want cryptocurrency to exist should the need arise. The rise of authoritarian governments and policies across the world should've made that obvious by now. What's legal and perfectly moral today can become a crime tomorrow.
  - danaris 11mo ago
    But cryptocurrency enables more abuse, more victimization, today. And the problems with authoritarian governments a) cannot actually be solved by introducing cryptocurrency; that only enables some people to work around them; and b) cannot even be worked around with cryptocurrency for the majority of people: only those who are already relatively wealthy have access to the systems that enable that.
  - FabHK 11mo ago
    You don't solve the issue of authoritarian governments with crypto, though. I haven't seen China collapsing exactly since 2009. Instead, you give criminals a tool for crime. And gamblers a new casino.

user34283 11mo ago

The financial system being under government control is the only proposition consistent with reality. We, the people, make the rules. Replacing our democratic processes with finance controlled by the one with the most computing power, control of the software, or having horded the most of the tokens, is in no way desirable or realistic. Even if the proposition wasn't borderline idiotic in the first place, there is no clear explanation how such a system should reward early adopters and allow them to cash out at a profit many times exceeding inflation. It's all a scam.

Dilettante_ 11mo ago
I'm gonna first of all disagree with the notion that our entire democracy rests on control of the financial system, secondly point out that you seem to make some wild leaps about how decentralized currencies work, and thirdly ask how the hell you're getting the idea that early adopters would need to be "cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation"(Participation in the new system is the point of adopting it, how is this unclear). Finally: We, the people, make the rules. If you truly believe that, you are (and I realize this is not the level of discourse I should strive for on HN) beyond redemption.
- user34283 11mo ago
  I said the financial system must be controlled by our democratic system, not that democracy rests on control of the financial system. No idea where I'm supposedly making "wild leaps" here. You on the other hand... And guess where "the hell" I am getting the idea that early adopters would need to be cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation: reality. As cashing out at a large profit is exactly what has been happening for over a decade. It is the sole reason for virtually all participants joining the scheme in the first place.
dns_snek 11mo ago
> We, the people, make the rules. Since when? We merely vote for politicians who promise to enact laws and regulations that are beneficial for us but they almost universally fail to do that, succumbing to self-interests and corruption. If a government implements authoritarian measures that curb our freedom in an unpopular manner, "we the people" can't do anything about it. In a few years we may or may not vote them out, and the people who replace them may (or may not) do what we, the people, want.
- user34283 11mo ago
  That's a bleak view on the state of democracy. Whatever your feelings on the topic may be, we will not be giving up government control of the financial system in favor of a blockchain and profits for crypto-bros.
  - dns_snek 11mo ago
    Bleak but realistic, unfortunately. There needs to be a viable alternative as long as our elected representatives have the power to abuse the financial system as a means of authoritarian control, like freezing the bank accounts of protestors. A truly democratic leadership with stringent limitations on how they can meddle with financial transactions would be preferable, but that's just a dream at this point.
    - user34283 11mo ago
      A viable alternative to the financial system is also just a dream. If we take from the government the ability to freeze bank accounts of protestors, we can't just also remove the ability to freeze the accounts of criminals, enemies, or even terrorists. It seems like a clear non-starter, yet many proponents of crypto seem to think it would be an obvious improvement.
      - Dilettante_ 11mo ago
        >If we take from the government the ability to freeze bank accounts of protestors, we can't just also remove the ability to freeze the accounts of criminals That's really the crux of the issue here: Having to choose one over the other, would you rather some criminals go free, or some innocents be imprisoned? I suspect anyone's position to this depends heavily on which sides they've been on more on their lives: Victimized by criminals or unjustly punished.
FabHK 11mo ago
You might have formulated things a bit unclearly, but I fundamentally agree that money, like everything else, should be under democratic control of the people. Not controlled by some crypto bros that are happy to interfere with the protocol if it suits them (The DAO hack, two 20+ block rollbacks of Bitcoin), but not if massive crime happens on it.
- user34283 11mo ago
  I guess so, although crypto proponents will anyway tell you that you don't understand how crypto works as soon as you say anything negative about their scheme. I believe what I said is a fairly accurate summary of Proof of work / Proof of stake mechanisms and Core developer's influence on the protocol.

danaris 11mo ago

No; the argument is much closer to "if you don't make cryptocurrency basically the same as fiat, by building the same systems on top of it, it's useless to the vast majority of people."

dns_snek 11mo ago
That is just an observation, not an argument against building, improving, and using crypto. Cryptocurrency doesn't need to do everything for everyone at all times to be a useful thing to have in the world. It only needs to be helpful to a subset of people, in a subset of situations, some of the time. I'm happy paying by card for ~100% of my daily transactions, but I want cryptocurrency to exist should the need arise. The rise of authoritarian governments and policies across the world should've made that obvious by now. What's legal and perfectly moral today can become a crime tomorrow.
- danaris 11mo ago
  But cryptocurrency enables more abuse, more victimization, today. And the problems with authoritarian governments a) cannot actually be solved by introducing cryptocurrency; that only enables some people to work around them; and b) cannot even be worked around with cryptocurrency for the majority of people: only those who are already relatively wealthy have access to the systems that enable that.
- FabHK 11mo ago
  You don't solve the issue of authoritarian governments with crypto, though. I haven't seen China collapsing exactly since 2009. Instead, you give criminals a tool for crime. And gamblers a new casino.