←back to thread

631 points cratermoon | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
moritzwarhier ◴[] No.44462055[source]
Cool post, but:

> And the only real hope I have here is that someday, maybe, Bitcoin will be a currency, and circulating money around won’t be the exclusive purview of Froot Loops. Christ

PLEASE NO. The only thing this will lead to is people who didn't get rich with this scheme funding the returns of people who bought in early.

Whatever BTC becomes, everyone who advocates for funneling public money of people who actually work for their salary into Bitcoin is a fraud.

I don't think the blog author actually wants this, but vaguely calling for Bitcoin to become "real money" indirectly will contribute to this bailout.

And yes, I'm well aware that funneling pension funds money etc into this pyramid scheme is already underway. Any politician or bank who supports this should be sued if you ask me.

replies(3): >>44463051 #>>44463532 #>>44463948 #
amiga386 ◴[] No.44463948[source]
But can't you see what he actually wants?

He wants normal banking and money transfer... but just to anybody, and for any reason. As an example, he'd like people to be able to pay him to draw bespoke furry porn for them. Or as another example, why can't a US citizen pay an Iranian citizen to do some work for them? (e.g. write a computer program)

That is totally possible. The only thing that stands in his way, and drives him into the arms of the cryptocurrency frauds, are moralising and realpolitiking governments that intentionally use their control of banks to control what bank customers can do with their money.

In an ideal world, government would only regulate banks on fiscal propriety and fair-dealing, and would not get in the way of consenting adults exchanging money for goods and services. But because government does fuck with banks, and sometimes the banks just do the fuckery anyway and government doesn't compel them to offer services to all (e.g. Visa/Mastercard refuse to allow porn merchants?), normal people start listening to the libertarians, the sovereign citizens, and the pump-and-dump fraudsters hyping cryptocurrencies.

He wants decentralised digital cash. How can it be done, if not Bitcoin et al?

replies(2): >>44464966 #>>44474878 #
moritzwarhier ◴[] No.44464966[source]
Use the a similar protocol with better properties (less energy consumption, better transaction usability) and start from zero.

Also, I'm not sure if a radical lack of regulation / full decentralization is a good thing when we are talking about money.

In my opinion, money should be regulated by governments.

But this discussion tends to escalate and the arguments have been made ad nauseam, so I'm tuning out here, sorry.

replies(1): >>44495153 #
amiga386 ◴[] No.44495153[source]
> money should be regulated by governments

It should, but nobody can quite agree on exactly what should and shouldn't be allowed. Fraud, everyone agrees no. Porn, drugs, guns, gambling, foreign work, etc. everyone has a different opinion; governments abuse their power to prohibit transacting "harmless" goods/services, the people who transact those things reject the prohubition and turn to grey and black markets, then suffer from the lack of strong regulation therein.

replies(1): >>44526309 #
1. moritzwarhier ◴[] No.44526309[source]
My point was not primarily money from illegal activities. While you are probably right about most of the liquidity in BTC coming from illegal activities (with the type of illegality often being secondary, by means of being almost universally agreed on).

I was getting at the valuation and the value extraction that is derived solely from the sigmoid-like climb of value in cryptocurrency, which is driven by speculation on BTC as an asset, not just by increasing adoption for regular economic transactions backed by external value.

Sure, the more traction and trust this system gains, the last part of my sentence (BTC backing "real value") might increasingly become true, making my argument moot. But the almost feudalistic problems of "initial" allocation are not unimportant, in my view.