I used to be one of the people firmly on the “someone can decide legitimate interactions are harmful, thus they should not ever exist” side of the argument, and I think this is certainly a good way of putting it.
For a lot of people heavily into crypto, they see the drawbacks of the existing system, but instead of pushing for reform and legal changes, they try technological abolition of the entire mechanism altogether, without then realizing the tradeoffs that brings (e.g. how a lot of people will go “it’s instant! Sellers don’t have to worry about chargebacks! Nobody can take away your money from you!” yet don’t think about how that also means a scammer taking your money is a permanent loss you can never reverse. (or if they do think about it, will argue that risk can be reduced to a point it is less harmful than the alternative, centralized companies)
I don’t deny crypto can be useful sometimes, or even be more beneficial when the centralized companies do eventually do something bad and people need an alternative payment mechanism, but I think a lot of people into crypto overestimate how beneficial it truly is compared to the tradeoffs.
Etherium Classic exists because somebody hacked an extremely valuable wallet and funneled 13% of all eth into their wallet. The people who control the mining pools, (rich assholes) wanted that transaction reversed, so they hard forked. Classic is the main fork that didn’t reverse that transaction. It’s much less popular, despite being run by people who are demonstrably more principled.
Paraphrased from Dan Olson’s video “line goes up” about crypto’s history and affect on the world. Spoiler: it’s a scam, and a tool for the wealthy to get even richer. Computing power can be bought with dollars.
Technically true, but chains nowadays aren’t really vulnerable to that same kind of attack just due to their sheer scale and diversification of controlling stakes compared to what they used to be, so I wouldn’t consider it a particularly relevant issue today.
I trust completely in the central bank to fight fascism. It is necessary. The central bank fights for the laborer, not the capitalist. The central bank fights for freedom, not authoritarianism. The central bank ensures democracy, not an oligarchy. Without a central bank, our entire society would be doomed to fall to fascism. A centralized currency is a major facet between a free society and one with a corrupt dictator surrounded by crooked cronies where the wealthy have all the power and the common man is reduced to crumbs.
Yeah it’s a personal level of comfort sort of thing. Some people value one side of the equation while some people value the other side. Strong case for vendors accepting both cards and crypto instead of just one.
Ah, the regulations that judges can just deem not legal? You do understand that checks and balances, right now, are pretty much gone? I’m not for a decentralized currency, I am just against irrationally worshiping centralization with zero concerns. Regulation capitalism is putting a band aid over a gaping wound, the real cure is socialism and socialism isn’t regulations, it’s a complete and total change of the system. If you think regulation is how we achieve socialism, you are wrong. Money shouldn’t even exist, IMO, so I don’t really care for the ‘centralized’ argument of something I fundamentally don’t want to exist. Unless you can tell me how centralized banks are going to bring about socialism, I’m not sure what you’re arguing in favor of if not capitalism. I’m sure there are ways of achieving gift economies and the like without centralized authorities and the possibility of unchecked executive power.
uhhh… so the logic here is that if regulation isn’t even an option then… what exactly? What’s better, wearing a helmet so your head doesn’t get broken in, but leave your arms and legs uncovered, or just not wearing any protection at all?
Nah man, you have to want fiat currency! Fiat currency is necessary, man! It’s the only way for a safe and civil society! You want a gift economy? Who the fuck wants to give away shit haha. If I have money, I can keep my community safe by blasting away people who want to take it. In a gift economy or any other kind of anti-capitalist economy people would be incentivized to care for one another, which is unrealistic. We just have to regulate the people who want to kill over their money in a way that they can only kill for their money in socially acceptable ways like through cops and the criminal justice system. People need to know that money is deadly but we don’t need to let them see the blood on the streets. As long as we get to say some people are criminals, people are happy that they got their money in a safe and legal way and followed all the regulations.
Untrustworthy/Compromised controlling stakes in that escrow, whether they be people or autonomous systems
False reversal claims made against the escrow
It has the same possible issues for your financial sovereignty as a regular, centralized financial institution, plus technical issues with the way the underlying infrastructure is built.
Benefits of centralization: Someone can counteract harmful interactions.
Drawbacks of centralization: Someone can decide legitimate interactions are harmful.
It does suck when the “harmful interaction management system” goes haywire. But I’m not sure it sucks enough that I’d rather simply not have one.
I used to be one of the people firmly on the “someone can decide legitimate interactions are harmful, thus they should not ever exist” side of the argument, and I think this is certainly a good way of putting it.
For a lot of people heavily into crypto, they see the drawbacks of the existing system, but instead of pushing for reform and legal changes, they try technological abolition of the entire mechanism altogether, without then realizing the tradeoffs that brings (e.g. how a lot of people will go “it’s instant! Sellers don’t have to worry about chargebacks! Nobody can take away your money from you!” yet don’t think about how that also means a scammer taking your money is a permanent loss you can never reverse. (or if they do think about it, will argue that risk can be reduced to a point it is less harmful than the alternative, centralized companies)
I don’t deny crypto can be useful sometimes, or even be more beneficial when the centralized companies do eventually do something bad and people need an alternative payment mechanism, but I think a lot of people into crypto overestimate how beneficial it truly is compared to the tradeoffs.
About the “nobody can take your money” part.
Etherium Classic exists because somebody hacked an extremely valuable wallet and funneled 13% of all eth into their wallet. The people who control the mining pools, (rich assholes) wanted that transaction reversed, so they hard forked. Classic is the main fork that didn’t reverse that transaction. It’s much less popular, despite being run by people who are demonstrably more principled.
Paraphrased from Dan Olson’s video “line goes up” about crypto’s history and affect on the world. Spoiler: it’s a scam, and a tool for the wealthy to get even richer. Computing power can be bought with dollars.
Technically true, but chains nowadays aren’t really vulnerable to that same kind of attack just due to their sheer scale and diversification of controlling stakes compared to what they used to be, so I wouldn’t consider it a particularly relevant issue today.
The relevant part isn’t which mistake happened, but that the fact that no mistake can be reversed.
Fixing one mistake is great and all, but it’s still a method of accounting whose ledger — by design — cannot be revised.
Yeah. They do such a good job of stopping nazis and csam.
I trust completely in the central bank to fight fascism. It is necessary. The central bank fights for the laborer, not the capitalist. The central bank fights for freedom, not authoritarianism. The central bank ensures democracy, not an oligarchy. Without a central bank, our entire society would be doomed to fall to fascism. A centralized currency is a major facet between a free society and one with a corrupt dictator surrounded by crooked cronies where the wealthy have all the power and the common man is reduced to crumbs.
The central bank is divine and good.
Yeah it’s a personal level of comfort sort of thing. Some people value one side of the equation while some people value the other side. Strong case for vendors accepting both cards and crypto instead of just one.
“someone can decide you have zero dollars”
free speech until your bank account goes away
Regulation prevents that. You can’t regulate decentralized currencies, meaning you have zero protection 100% of the time.
Ah, the regulations that judges can just deem not legal? You do understand that checks and balances, right now, are pretty much gone? I’m not for a decentralized currency, I am just against irrationally worshiping centralization with zero concerns. Regulation capitalism is putting a band aid over a gaping wound, the real cure is socialism and socialism isn’t regulations, it’s a complete and total change of the system. If you think regulation is how we achieve socialism, you are wrong. Money shouldn’t even exist, IMO, so I don’t really care for the ‘centralized’ argument of something I fundamentally don’t want to exist. Unless you can tell me how centralized banks are going to bring about socialism, I’m not sure what you’re arguing in favor of if not capitalism. I’m sure there are ways of achieving gift economies and the like without centralized authorities and the possibility of unchecked executive power.
yes, however the regulations will always have some corruption
Same for unregulated systems, only without transparency, limits or recourse
uhhh… so the logic here is that if regulation isn’t even an option then… what exactly? What’s better, wearing a helmet so your head doesn’t get broken in, but leave your arms and legs uncovered, or just not wearing any protection at all?
Communism. Start small, connect networks.
Nah man, you have to want fiat currency! Fiat currency is necessary, man! It’s the only way for a safe and civil society! You want a gift economy? Who the fuck wants to give away shit haha. If I have money, I can keep my community safe by blasting away people who want to take it. In a gift economy or any other kind of anti-capitalist economy people would be incentivized to care for one another, which is unrealistic. We just have to regulate the people who want to kill over their money in a way that they can only kill for their money in socially acceptable ways like through cops and the criminal justice system. People need to know that money is deadly but we don’t need to let them see the blood on the streets. As long as we get to say some people are criminals, people are happy that they got their money in a safe and legal way and followed all the regulations.
Also the trump admin did abolish finality of payments.
you can prevent getting scammed with crypto by using something like escrow
Oh honey…
Doesn’t protect against:
It has the same possible issues for your financial sovereignty as a regular, centralized financial institution, plus technical issues with the way the underlying infrastructure is built.
valid points. i see the problem with that