4 ms·

>As people, we should want to have the freedom to decide our own fate, not put it in the hands of an alien entity. This is what I don't understand about your a

by Xdes 13y ago

>As people, we should want to have the freedom to decide our own fate, not put it in the hands of an alien entity. This is what I don't understand about your argument: the governance of cryptocurrencies is the same democracy you're advocating elsewhere. The difference is replacing the fallible human element with a set of mathematical rules. Noone is saying the rules cannot change (or altcoins would not exist). The entire purpose of the cryptocurrency experiment is to find rules that everyone will like and aren't based promises from politicians, corporatists, or plutocrats.

pron 13y ago
Altcoins precisely prove that finding rules everyone would like is impossible (or close enough). So suppose you'll settle for a majority. How will you persuade people? If there's a lot at stake, and the system is complex enough, you can't expect everyone to be well versed in the details, so you'll need professional politicians and a representative democracy. I think you're reading too much into what cryptocurrency is. It is simply a somewhat-elegant solution to the problem of building a decentralized, digital cash. That's it. It doesn't try to find new ways to run the economy, although some of its supporters do because that's their politics. It doesn't even prove that this is, indeed, a serious practical problem, but that's what some of its supporters believe. What you call fallible, others might call "free". For example, I would like to give the government the freedom to quickly devalue the currency in a time of a job crisis. What you're proposing either takes away that freedom altogether, or places a serious bureaucratic burden on the process, so that it might not be feasible. You're basically suggesting a system with an unbreakable bureaucracy which is just about the only thing worse than the current situation. There will be no one to talk to – hey, it's just the algorithm – other than somehow convince a majority of anonymous account holders, with whom you can't bargain because they're unlikely to reveal their true interests. The difference between us, I think, is this: we both don't like politicians plutocrats and corporations. But you believe that they can be eliminated through some elusive algorithm, while I think society contains within it endless cycles of many concurrent power struggles, and each of us must find their place in it, and fight for the values they believe in, knowing full well that the fight is never truly over.
- Xdes 13y ago
  Yes our viewpoints do diverge greatly. I believe that people should be free to choose which society to contribute towards not based on arbitrary geographical bounds. However, this will never be possible if there is no separation of government and society (which there is no concept in mainstream politics). To that end mainstream cryptocurrency adoption is the next step to this goal.
  - pron 13y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. "Government" simply means the system by which a society is governed. If there's no government, there's no governing. Now, I wouldn't mind anarchy, but we must adopt it, if we choose to, with our eyes open: it does mean an end to collectively putting our resources together towards common goals (and you can't say that you can collectively organize without government because that's an oxymoron, as government means the way in which a society chooses to organize). I do think, though, that almost any imaginable form of society has been thought of at one point or another, and I would suggest that you learn about those atecedents and how they played out. A "society... not based on arbitrary geographical bounds" was the slogan of communism, a beautiful ideal that didn't quite live up to expectations. Also, I would suggest that if you have revolution in mind, get out more and learn what people really want. I'm not saying that you'll change your mind, but that's how revolutions happen: by organizing lots and lots (and lots) of people. Please, please learn more about the system you're trying to topple and how it came to be this way (trace the whole process). Not that that would mean success, necessarily. When the communists wanted to established their own world order, not based on national borders, they actually thought about this problem a lot: how the world came to be this way. They even came up with the right answer: all human conflict is a result of an unequal distribution of resources. The only thing they missed (which turned out to be crucial), is that humans, by virtue of their evolutionary wiring, probably, like it that way. So conflict is a result of inequality, but we want inequality. Illogical, but that's what we are. Also, conflict, while brutal, does tend to bring out the creativity in people, which is another thing they missed. As an observer, I'd love to see a revolution take place ('cause that's cool), but I'd hate it to bring about something worse. So please, think it through, preferably with the help of some history.

by Xdes 13y ago

pron 13y ago

Altcoins precisely prove that finding rules everyone would like is impossible (or close enough). So suppose you'll settle for a majority. How will you persuade people? If there's a lot at stake, and the system is complex enough, you can't expect everyone to be well versed in the details, so you'll need professional politicians and a representative democracy. I think you're reading too much into what cryptocurrency is. It is simply a somewhat-elegant solution to the problem of building a decentralized, digital cash. That's it. It doesn't try to find new ways to run the economy, although some of its supporters do because that's their politics. It doesn't even prove that this is, indeed, a serious practical problem, but that's what some of its supporters believe. What you call fallible, others might call "free". For example, I would like to give the government the freedom to quickly devalue the currency in a time of a job crisis. What you're proposing either takes away that freedom altogether, or places a serious bureaucratic burden on the process, so that it might not be feasible. You're basically suggesting a system with an unbreakable bureaucracy which is just about the only thing worse than the current situation. There will be no one to talk to – hey, it's just the algorithm – other than somehow convince a majority of anonymous account holders, with whom you can't bargain because they're unlikely to reveal their true interests. The difference between us, I think, is this: we both don't like politicians plutocrats and corporations. But you believe that they can be eliminated through some elusive algorithm, while I think society contains within it endless cycles of many concurrent power struggles, and each of us must find their place in it, and fight for the values they believe in, knowing full well that the fight is never truly over.

Xdes 13y ago
Yes our viewpoints do diverge greatly. I believe that people should be free to choose which society to contribute towards not based on arbitrary geographical bounds. However, this will never be possible if there is no separation of government and society (which there is no concept in mainstream politics). To that end mainstream cryptocurrency adoption is the next step to this goal.
- pron 13y ago
  I don't understand what you mean. "Government" simply means the system by which a society is governed. If there's no government, there's no governing. Now, I wouldn't mind anarchy, but we must adopt it, if we choose to, with our eyes open: it does mean an end to collectively putting our resources together towards common goals (and you can't say that you can collectively organize without government because that's an oxymoron, as government means the way in which a society chooses to organize). I do think, though, that almost any imaginable form of society has been thought of at one point or another, and I would suggest that you learn about those atecedents and how they played out. A "society... not based on arbitrary geographical bounds" was the slogan of communism, a beautiful ideal that didn't quite live up to expectations. Also, I would suggest that if you have revolution in mind, get out more and learn what people really want. I'm not saying that you'll change your mind, but that's how revolutions happen: by organizing lots and lots (and lots) of people. Please, please learn more about the system you're trying to topple and how it came to be this way (trace the whole process). Not that that would mean success, necessarily. When the communists wanted to established their own world order, not based on national borders, they actually thought about this problem a lot: how the world came to be this way. They even came up with the right answer: all human conflict is a result of an unequal distribution of resources. The only thing they missed (which turned out to be crucial), is that humans, by virtue of their evolutionary wiring, probably, like it that way. So conflict is a result of inequality, but we want inequality. Illogical, but that's what we are. Also, conflict, while brutal, does tend to bring out the creativity in people, which is another thing they missed. As an observer, I'd love to see a revolution take place ('cause that's cool), but I'd hate it to bring about something worse. So please, think it through, preferably with the help of some history.