5 ms·

Despite the click-bait title, the article makes valid points which are very often overlooked or downright ignored by hardcore bitcoiners. As someone who's been

by Mahn 12y ago

Despite the click-bait title, the article makes valid points which are very often overlooked or downright ignored by hardcore bitcoiners. As someone who's been watching bitcoin for the past few years, this is in my opinion the plain reality.

sida 12y ago
And in Bitcoinland, objections against Bitcoin are also often flagged as trolling, and dismissed immediately
- etchalon 12y ago
  There is definitely a pervasive culture within cryptos of people either "getting it" or "not". It's a bit disturbing.
  - valarauca1 12y ago
    This is true for the cultures surrounding most things I'd postulate. A large majority who support it, largely blindly but dismiss valid arguments against with suspicion, and a smaller minority who actually understand counter arguments, but believe, or hold a complex opinion.
    - philh 12y ago
      Often it goes both ways. Of the people who oppose it, most do so blindly and dismiss valid arguments in favor, while a minority understand the arguments well enough to reply to them. Ninety percent of opinions are crap.
  - lsadam0 12y ago
    I believe both sides of the aisle hold some responsibility for this disconnect. Detractors of cryptocurrency often like to cite the shady world of BitCoin securities, just like this article does. However, that's not a valid criticism. BTC functioned only as the method of payment. You can't criticize the future utility of a technology based upon how someone has misused it. If that were the case, we should ban the Internet.
    - etchalon 12y ago
      Generally though, the issue is mentioned in a broader context than just "someone did a bad thing with the internet", and more that the community behind Bitcoin, and the libertarian philosophies which guide it, give rise to the scams and dark market uses of the currency. When evaluating and discussing any technology, you're absolutely right: it is unfair to criticize it based on a few bad examples. However, it is fair to look at a technology and consider whether the "legal" outweigh the "illegal" ones, and if not, why. The author makes this point succinctly.
    - Retra 12y ago
      I think the bigger picture here is that there is a serious worry that bitcoin will benefit those who participate in illegal activities far more than those who do not -- that it offers an advantage that most legal activities don't require or value heavily.
      - lsadam0 12y ago
        I must give you credit, this is very well said. This is a legitimate concern. I feel as though this is what others have been attempting to say when using the "illegal activities" argument.
  - kordless 12y ago
    We are discussing trust. It's obvious that one trusts or not, so why is it surprising we see it mirrored in a group of people discussing trust? Answer: It's not.
- shillster 12y ago
  As jordon0day just wrote in an unrelated thread, "we have plenty of evidence that people are really bad at being suspicious of the often unreliable stuff they read on the internet" I think this is a group that is highly sensitive to face value of statements people make and when someone makes an uninformed remark, their entirely argument is cast aside. Dissent is welcomed, but it needs to be backed by a solid justification.
lsadam0 12y ago
The problem with that article is not that it makes 0 valid points, it's that it makes some terrible correlations as an attempt to prove cryptos won't be huge. What does a scammer selling unlicensed shares in porn production have anything to do with the success or failure of cryptocurrency? Bitcoin was simply the method of payment, nothing more. That example is immediately followed with the eBay + TicketMaster examples and the importance of centralized reputation/trust. The leap is then made to "...drug dealers establish reputation through their PGP key or BitCoin address". Ok, an objectively factual statement. The author proceeds to go off the rails with the assertion that only criminals value decentralized trust. Please. You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it. It's not about illegal use cases. It's about empowerment of the individual over seemingly insurmountable institutions. The author is having the wrong discussion.
- valarauca1 12y ago
  >You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it. This is a problem a trust-less system wouldn't solve, inherently. The real problem is ebay lacks competition. >It's not about illegal use cases. It's about empowerment of the individual over seemingly insurmountable institutions. Again competition. You want people to have the power to compete, and have options. >The author is having the wrong discussion. Yes you are. None of the problems you listed are solve by decentralized trustless systems. Their consumer service problems. Which any company, or system can have. :.:.: Ultimately you commit the same sins you argue the blog post commits.
- post- 12y ago
  > The problem with that article is not that it makes 0 valid points, it's that it makes some terrible correlations as an attempt to prove cryptos won't be huge. Actually, the article doesn't set out "to prove cryptos won't be huge," and ends on a crypto-positive note: > Bitcoin has shown us the promise of blockchain technologies despite its design shortcomings. > The future of the technology will probably evolve towards a model that more resembles real world needs, rather than the needs of “cyberpunks”. To diverge from the article a bit and respond to your final point, I don't know that the mantra of individual empowerment in the Bitcoin world amounts to anything other than solipsism. Bitcoin, as far as I can tell, ignores structural biases preventing people from accessing the cryptocurrency. We can see evidence of this in the "Bitcoin in Africa" startups, which on the surface seem benign and even benevolent, but are hiding an uninterrogated colonialism: their chief assumption, it seems to me, is that the developed world will always control more of Bitcoin's limited resources, and the value of spreading a small portion of those resources to the developing world comes from lock-in. It's a classic unfair trade agreement, and it doesn't take much thought to see how problematic this situation can become. eBay can bend you over with fees because they control the market; Bitcoin's limited resources are susceptible to the same kind of market control. That's the discussion I wish more people were having.
CyberDildonics 12y ago
It isn't really a valid point to say that income for miners must increase, since if miners aren't making money they will drop out and increase the profit for others.

by Mahn 12y ago

sida 12y ago

And in Bitcoinland, objections against Bitcoin are also often flagged as trolling, and dismissed immediately

etchalon 12y ago
There is definitely a pervasive culture within cryptos of people either "getting it" or "not". It's a bit disturbing.
- valarauca1 12y ago
  This is true for the cultures surrounding most things I'd postulate. A large majority who support it, largely blindly but dismiss valid arguments against with suspicion, and a smaller minority who actually understand counter arguments, but believe, or hold a complex opinion.
  - philh 12y ago
    Often it goes both ways. Of the people who oppose it, most do so blindly and dismiss valid arguments in favor, while a minority understand the arguments well enough to reply to them. Ninety percent of opinions are crap.
- lsadam0 12y ago
  I believe both sides of the aisle hold some responsibility for this disconnect. Detractors of cryptocurrency often like to cite the shady world of BitCoin securities, just like this article does. However, that's not a valid criticism. BTC functioned only as the method of payment. You can't criticize the future utility of a technology based upon how someone has misused it. If that were the case, we should ban the Internet.
  - etchalon 12y ago
    Generally though, the issue is mentioned in a broader context than just "someone did a bad thing with the internet", and more that the community behind Bitcoin, and the libertarian philosophies which guide it, give rise to the scams and dark market uses of the currency. When evaluating and discussing any technology, you're absolutely right: it is unfair to criticize it based on a few bad examples. However, it is fair to look at a technology and consider whether the "legal" outweigh the "illegal" ones, and if not, why. The author makes this point succinctly.
  - Retra 12y ago
    I think the bigger picture here is that there is a serious worry that bitcoin will benefit those who participate in illegal activities far more than those who do not -- that it offers an advantage that most legal activities don't require or value heavily.
    - lsadam0 12y ago
      I must give you credit, this is very well said. This is a legitimate concern. I feel as though this is what others have been attempting to say when using the "illegal activities" argument.
- kordless 12y ago
  We are discussing trust. It's obvious that one trusts or not, so why is it surprising we see it mirrored in a group of people discussing trust? Answer: It's not.
shillster 12y ago
As jordon0day just wrote in an unrelated thread, "we have plenty of evidence that people are really bad at being suspicious of the often unreliable stuff they read on the internet" I think this is a group that is highly sensitive to face value of statements people make and when someone makes an uninformed remark, their entirely argument is cast aside. Dissent is welcomed, but it needs to be backed by a solid justification.

lsadam0 12y ago

The problem with that article is not that it makes 0 valid points, it's that it makes some terrible correlations as an attempt to prove cryptos won't be huge. What does a scammer selling unlicensed shares in porn production have anything to do with the success or failure of cryptocurrency? Bitcoin was simply the method of payment, nothing more. That example is immediately followed with the eBay + TicketMaster examples and the importance of centralized reputation/trust. The leap is then made to "...drug dealers establish reputation through their PGP key or BitCoin address". Ok, an objectively factual statement. The author proceeds to go off the rails with the assertion that only criminals value decentralized trust. Please. You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it. It's not about illegal use cases. It's about empowerment of the individual over seemingly insurmountable institutions. The author is having the wrong discussion.

valarauca1 12y ago
>You know why I would prefer a decentralized trustful solution like OpenBazaar? Because eBay bends me over with fees. In fact, they double dip. And there's nothing I can do about it. This is a problem a trust-less system wouldn't solve, inherently. The real problem is ebay lacks competition. >It's not about illegal use cases. It's about empowerment of the individual over seemingly insurmountable institutions. Again competition. You want people to have the power to compete, and have options. >The author is having the wrong discussion. Yes you are. None of the problems you listed are solve by decentralized trustless systems. Their consumer service problems. Which any company, or system can have. :.:.: Ultimately you commit the same sins you argue the blog post commits.
post- 12y ago
> The problem with that article is not that it makes 0 valid points, it's that it makes some terrible correlations as an attempt to prove cryptos won't be huge. Actually, the article doesn't set out "to prove cryptos won't be huge," and ends on a crypto-positive note: > Bitcoin has shown us the promise of blockchain technologies despite its design shortcomings. > The future of the technology will probably evolve towards a model that more resembles real world needs, rather than the needs of “cyberpunks”. To diverge from the article a bit and respond to your final point, I don't know that the mantra of individual empowerment in the Bitcoin world amounts to anything other than solipsism. Bitcoin, as far as I can tell, ignores structural biases preventing people from accessing the cryptocurrency. We can see evidence of this in the "Bitcoin in Africa" startups, which on the surface seem benign and even benevolent, but are hiding an uninterrogated colonialism: their chief assumption, it seems to me, is that the developed world will always control more of Bitcoin's limited resources, and the value of spreading a small portion of those resources to the developing world comes from lock-in. It's a classic unfair trade agreement, and it doesn't take much thought to see how problematic this situation can become. eBay can bend you over with fees because they control the market; Bitcoin's limited resources are susceptible to the same kind of market control. That's the discussion I wish more people were having.

CyberDildonics 12y ago

It isn't really a valid point to say that income for miners must increase, since if miners aren't making money they will drop out and increase the profit for others.