←back to thread

I wasted years of my life in crypto

(twitter.com)
681 points Anon84 | 1 comments | 07 Dec 25 12:57 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
phplovesong ◴[08 Dec 25 10:07 UTC] No.46190528[source]▶
The original promise of crypto was lost a LONG time ago.

Instead of being a true rival to FIAT, it became a thing with a toxic-as-hell commumity, fraud, and basically its nothing more than a high risk stock. The risk is NOT only "will this go up or down" but you have a high risk of being robbed, as have happened to millions of people.

Maybe there will be a better alternative in the future, but right now bitcoin is not it.

replies(12): >>46190719 #>>46190744 #>>46191063 #>>46191119 #>>46191170 #>>46191423 #>>46191561 #>>46192340 #>>46194249 #>>46194661 #>>46194873 #>>46198308 #
amelius ◴[08 Dec 25 10:33 UTC] No.46190719[source]▶
To add to that, crypto is also a gift from heaven for criminals who need to receive ransoms.
replies(6): >>46190809 #>>46190916 #>>46190931 #>>46191569 #>>46191590 #>>46191788 #
Dilettante_ ◴[08 Dec 25 10:45 UTC] No.46190809[source]▶
"Freedom enables crime" is an entirely true argument, and a gift from heaven for The Powers That Be who need to justify the taking-away of Freedom.
replies(1): >>46190929 #
amelius ◴[08 Dec 25 11:03 UTC] No.46190929[source]▶
Freedom is never absolute. What gives one person freedom may limit another person's freedoms. Therefore you will have to weigh the pros and the cons of a technology that promises freedom.
replies(2): >>46191115 #>>46191134 #
Dilettante_ ◴[08 Dec 25 11:35 UTC] No.46191115[source]▶
There is a difference between "Freedom to do something" and "Freedom to not have something happen to you".

If we keep curtailing the former to serve the latter, we will end up perfectly safe from interruptions, doing nothing at all(aside from what the government dictates as 'serving the common good')

replies(2): >>46191217 #>>46191495 #
geysersam ◴[08 Dec 25 11:51 UTC] No.46191217{3}[source]▶
There's no difference. You can't formulate that distinction coherently.

What's the difference between having the freedom to walk the street and having the freedom to not be hindered from walking the street?

replies(6): >>46191343 #>>46191454 #>>46191952 #>>46192443 #>>46193573 #>>46193955 #
1. Propelloni ◴[08 Dec 25 14:15 UTC] No.46192443{4}[source]▶
Yes, you can, if you consider that liberty and freedom are functions of society and not nature. In this sense, dying from old age is not being unfree.

To stay with your example, one is bascically the absence of limitations (negative freedom), ie. the freedom to walk the street. The other is the presence of possibilities (positive freedom), ie. there needs to be a street to walk it.