←back to thread

I wasted years of my life in crypto

(twitter.com)
681 points Anon84 | 4 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 #
amelius ◴[08 Dec 25 12:30 UTC] No.46191495{3}[source]▶
My freedom to put cameras in your home is your non-freedom to have privacy.

Sounds like not such a great idea now?

replies(1): >>46194090 #
Dilettante_ ◴[08 Dec 25 16:16 UTC] No.46194090{4}[source]▶
You would have the freedom to try to put cameras in my home, I would have the freedom to try and stop you or take them down again. Shock horror, personal agency instead of surrogate power via government!
replies(1): >>46195016 #
SigmundA ◴[08 Dec 25 17:26 UTC] No.46195016{5}[source]▶
Unless amelius is stronger than you, or has better weapons, or commands a gang that is bigger than your gang, then you can't stop them.

Its almost like you need some sort of power structure with the monopoly on violence to enforce agreed upon freedoms, they could be called the "government" which enforces "laws".

replies(1): >>46196027 #
1. Dilettante_ ◴[08 Dec 25 18:43 UTC] No.46196027{6}[source]▶
>stronger than you, or has better weapons, or commands a gang that is bigger than your gang, then you can't stop them

How do you not realize you're literally describing government?

replies(1): >>46197519 #
2. SigmundA ◴[08 Dec 25 20:52 UTC] No.46197519[source]▶
How can you not realize that’s the point? Monopoly on violence is just that, the definition of the state.

Anarchy is not a stable system, you have no property rights or freedoms without a way to enforce them.

You provide no alternative, a government will form from a power vacuum made up of whoever has the most physical power around you.

replies(2): >>46197647 #>>46206198 #
3. amelius ◴[08 Dec 25 21:06 UTC] No.46197647[source]▶
It can also be companies who put cameras in your home and abuse them.
4. Dilettante_ ◴[09 Dec 25 15:47 UTC] No.46206198[source]▶
>government will form from a power vacuum made up of whoever has the most physical power around you.

Yup! My issue with the current system is that The Powers That Be pretend to act in the interest of their subjects(or, actually my issue is that people believe it) instead of being a gang of thugs imposing their will.