←back to thread

681 points Anon84 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
alphazard ◴[] No.46194268[source]
It's good to know everyone here is weary of crypto scams, but I don't see anyone accurately describing the significance of these technologies.

Bitcoin failed as a currency, and as that became realized, institutional investors pivoted to the "digital gold" scam, to keep people long, while they divest or hedge. The two reasons why it failed as a currency are transaction latency, and lack of fungibility. Transaction privacy is necessary for fungibility. Both of those are just technical problems; I predict that a distributed ledger currency with private transactions like Monero, but a faster consensus algorithm like Avalanche or Hedera will become popular in the next decade. It's likely to be an Ethereum L2.

That is just the currency aspect of distributed ledgers. It's just one use case that we don't yet have the technology to properly address. The exciting thing that distributed ledgers enable is cryptographic institutions. These technologies allow us to solve coordination problems more easily than ever before. Democracies, businesses, communities, projects can all be coordinated better and more honestly using distributed ledgers. It's not an overstatement to say that distributed ledgers are as big of an advancement for human coordination as democracy was.

If you've been soured on these technologies because most of the currencies built with them are scams, I would encourage you to learn about them as if they were just incredibly robust databases that even governments would struggle to take down. Surely you can think of something cool to build with that, which doesn't involve money.

replies(11): >>46194408 #>>46194850 #>>46195189 #>>46195257 #>>46195322 #>>46195428 #>>46195432 #>>46195697 #>>46196021 #>>46196135 #>>46203163 #
1. lokar ◴[] No.46195432[source]
IME, these discussions always reduce down to one set of irreconcilable differences:

Does a government have the legitimate right to impose taxes on its people, and to sanction criminals (and criminal activity) via control of the Financial system?

Anti-crypto people say yes (and in fact the government has a responsibility to fight tax evasion).

Pro-crypto people seem (I’m not one of them) to say no, that people have the right to access to technology to evade these government functions.

replies(1): >>46195611 #
2. alphazard ◴[] No.46195611[source]
I think this is a huge misconception. I certainly don't view this issue as grounded in 'rights' or what governments should or should not do.

It's entirely an issue of what people can and cannot do with this technology. It's a game with sides, and the concern should be that the technology has made playing for one side much easier than playing for the other.

The technology has unlocked total freedom of association, and I don't see a way to reign that in, other than restricting access to computation and the network for the entire population. As long as the average voter wants personal computing to continue, I don't see a way that a government could get the necessary control to shutdown one of these systems.

replies(1): >>46195913 #
3. lokar ◴[] No.46195913[source]
The government has never been able to enforce all laws even close to 100% of the time. Internet copyright violations never went to zero, and never can. But there is a ceiling on how far any large, organized profit-seeking group can go with it.

In the case crypto, there are lots of things they could do to limit the impact. They can forbid government regulated banks (or any corporation) from engaging with it. They can limit all the points where could you, in volume, convert in and out of the normal currency system.

So, obviously, the use of crypto can't be forced to zero, but that's not really an interesting point.

The question is, does crypto have, on balance, a legitimate use in developed liberal democracies? Or should these states suppress it?