7 ms·

I was going to write a comment here, but instead you, the reader can simply extrapolate The Case Against The Case Against Crypto. TL;DR: don't use it then.

ThrustVectoring 5y ago
"Don't use it" is a bad argument in general. Gaining an option is not necessarily positive value, since other people can now attempt to coerce you into using it. I don't want there to be a straightforward irreversible way to send money to foreign cybercriminals; I want this to be impossible so that they don't attempt to extort these payments. Similar logic explains why selling your kidney is illegal and why voting systems are designed to make it impossible to prove who you voted for.
- throwaway55421 5y ago
  Cool. I don't want there to be a way for you to stop me from sending data, so I'm going to work on that. All I'm going to say is, good luck. You're fighting against your entire field.
levesque 5y ago
Here's your TL;DR: if the author is right, crypto will actually hurt society. Not saying I agree with him, but it wouldn't just be a matter of adopting it or not. Nothing wrong with public discourse on the matter, would be more productive to directly refute his arguments.
- Ygg2 5y ago
  Correction: Crypto has already hurt society. From inflating price of GPUs to spending enough energy to power Sweden, without any benefits.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    People should be free to spend their wealth on whatever they want, whether it's crypto, high-powered gaming computers, or abstract art. If the environmental costs of crypto mining are genuinely your concern, the best solution is to advocate an agnostic solution, like restricting CO2 generating sources of energy, or energy consumption for ALL non-essentials (e.g. tourism, video games, crypto, etc). Singling out crypto for its environmental costs, and calling for targeted restrictions on it that exempt other non-essential uses of energy, suggests a superficial basis for your position, like a negative emotional association, or dislike of crypto proponents.
    - Ygg2 5y ago
      > People should be free to spend their wealth on whatever they want So, you're saying I should run my unlicensed nuclear testing facilities? Regardless of any consequences and externalities I may cause. And I should have the right to sell whatever I discover to highest bidder (including terrorist organizations)? It's a hyperbole, but Bitcoin suffer from both of those: heavy externalities, and interfacing with black market.
      - throwaway55421 5y ago
        It is completely ludicrous to compare nuclear testing with doing maths on a computer.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>So, you're saying I should run my unlicensed nuclear testing facilities? That is not a voluntary interaction. Nuclear reactors pose an uncontrolled risk to all those in their vicinity. Yours is a hyperbolic analogy, and likely just a trope you wheel out whenever you encounter an opponent of your anti-libertarian "you only have the rights I agree you should have" ideology. >>It's a hyperbole, but Bitcoin suffer from both of those: heavy externalities, and interfacing with black market. I've already commented on how the externalities should be addressed. As for the "black market" angle, there is a fundamental difference between designs for weapons of mass destruction, and targeted restrictions on their dissemination, and dragnet controls over all financial interactions, in an attempt to preempt a host of crimes. The former targets a true threat, and takes proportionate measures to mitigate it. The latter rejects the first principles of a free and liberal society, in instituting warrantless mass-surveillance and centralized gatekeeping of practically all private economic interactions, in the name of preempting crime, and in doing so, creates a hyper-centralized power structure that is in itself a massive threat to humanity.
  - argvargc 5y ago
    Crypto has allowed citizens to circumvent oppressive and corrupt government financial abuse, as well as provided much cheaper, faster, more reliable and convenient means of transferring small - yet, life-changing - amounts of money cross-border. An example of the latter: A worker in one country sending half of her weekly paycheck back to her family overseas has two options presently: days of waiting (which means no food on the table for those days), uncertainty it will arrive at all (starvation, stress and pressure toward crime), and exorbitant fees taking anywhere from 15% - 50% of what she sends (shamelessly robbing the most vulnerable). By using the correct crypto alternatives, she can send the full amount, at a cost of fractions of a percent, and know with certainty if it has arrived - in seconds. There is a reason crypto adoption is huge in poor and oppressed countries such as Venezuela, parts of Mexico etc. There are other benefits, but this should be enough. Nothing else has been able to, nor likely could be able to have such an impact in any short space of time in these areas, and not without possessing many of precisely the same core principles shared by most crypto projects. This doesn't mean crypto is perfect or doesn't have problems. And it doesn't mean we should ignore those problems. But it does mean that the endlessly served-up misinformation that crypto "has no benefits", works toward harming less-fortunate people who've suffered more than anyone should have to.
    - otterley 5y ago
      Do you have any data showing how “huge” cryptocurrencies have been for facilitating legitimate international money transfers, compared to pre-existing alternatives?
      - throwaway55421 5y ago
        The OP is not talking about "legitimate" transfers.
        argvargc 5y ago
        Incorrect, making this not a "legitimate" comment.
      - argvargc 5y ago
- throwaway55421 5y ago
  What it essentially boils down to is him saying "this isn't useful for me, therefore it isn't useful for society, therefore it will hurt society because it has nonzero cost and no benefit". If I'm being too strict then we'll say he thinks the balance tips towards cost outweighing benefit. But not everyone subscribes to this sort of extreme collectivist mindset. You don't have to believe I derive value from it because I don't need you to believe it. It still works. There is nothing to refute. I mostly just find it amusing that these people think we care. They're just talking to themselves. It's a trap for people like me to even respond to this stuff, we could be out doing things instead of arguing the toss about whether sugar is tasty or not. Like yo, I like it and it works for me. I don't care whether the health service in aggregate likes me eating sugar.

ThrustVectoring 5y ago

"Don't use it" is a bad argument in general. Gaining an option is not necessarily positive value, since other people can now attempt to coerce you into using it. I don't want there to be a straightforward irreversible way to send money to foreign cybercriminals; I want this to be impossible so that they don't attempt to extort these payments. Similar logic explains why selling your kidney is illegal and why voting systems are designed to make it impossible to prove who you voted for.

throwaway55421 5y ago
Cool. I don't want there to be a way for you to stop me from sending data, so I'm going to work on that. All I'm going to say is, good luck. You're fighting against your entire field.

levesque 5y ago

Here's your TL;DR: if the author is right, crypto will actually hurt society. Not saying I agree with him, but it wouldn't just be a matter of adopting it or not. Nothing wrong with public discourse on the matter, would be more productive to directly refute his arguments.

Ygg2 5y ago
Correction: Crypto has already hurt society. From inflating price of GPUs to spending enough energy to power Sweden, without any benefits.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  People should be free to spend their wealth on whatever they want, whether it's crypto, high-powered gaming computers, or abstract art. If the environmental costs of crypto mining are genuinely your concern, the best solution is to advocate an agnostic solution, like restricting CO2 generating sources of energy, or energy consumption for ALL non-essentials (e.g. tourism, video games, crypto, etc). Singling out crypto for its environmental costs, and calling for targeted restrictions on it that exempt other non-essential uses of energy, suggests a superficial basis for your position, like a negative emotional association, or dislike of crypto proponents.
  - Ygg2 5y ago
    > People should be free to spend their wealth on whatever they want So, you're saying I should run my unlicensed nuclear testing facilities? Regardless of any consequences and externalities I may cause. And I should have the right to sell whatever I discover to highest bidder (including terrorist organizations)? It's a hyperbole, but Bitcoin suffer from both of those: heavy externalities, and interfacing with black market.
    - throwaway55421 5y ago
      It is completely ludicrous to compare nuclear testing with doing maths on a computer.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>So, you're saying I should run my unlicensed nuclear testing facilities? That is not a voluntary interaction. Nuclear reactors pose an uncontrolled risk to all those in their vicinity. Yours is a hyperbolic analogy, and likely just a trope you wheel out whenever you encounter an opponent of your anti-libertarian "you only have the rights I agree you should have" ideology. >>It's a hyperbole, but Bitcoin suffer from both of those: heavy externalities, and interfacing with black market. I've already commented on how the externalities should be addressed. As for the "black market" angle, there is a fundamental difference between designs for weapons of mass destruction, and targeted restrictions on their dissemination, and dragnet controls over all financial interactions, in an attempt to preempt a host of crimes. The former targets a true threat, and takes proportionate measures to mitigate it. The latter rejects the first principles of a free and liberal society, in instituting warrantless mass-surveillance and centralized gatekeeping of practically all private economic interactions, in the name of preempting crime, and in doing so, creates a hyper-centralized power structure that is in itself a massive threat to humanity.
- argvargc 5y ago
  Crypto has allowed citizens to circumvent oppressive and corrupt government financial abuse, as well as provided much cheaper, faster, more reliable and convenient means of transferring small - yet, life-changing - amounts of money cross-border. An example of the latter: A worker in one country sending half of her weekly paycheck back to her family overseas has two options presently: days of waiting (which means no food on the table for those days), uncertainty it will arrive at all (starvation, stress and pressure toward crime), and exorbitant fees taking anywhere from 15% - 50% of what she sends (shamelessly robbing the most vulnerable). By using the correct crypto alternatives, she can send the full amount, at a cost of fractions of a percent, and know with certainty if it has arrived - in seconds. There is a reason crypto adoption is huge in poor and oppressed countries such as Venezuela, parts of Mexico etc. There are other benefits, but this should be enough. Nothing else has been able to, nor likely could be able to have such an impact in any short space of time in these areas, and not without possessing many of precisely the same core principles shared by most crypto projects. This doesn't mean crypto is perfect or doesn't have problems. And it doesn't mean we should ignore those problems. But it does mean that the endlessly served-up misinformation that crypto "has no benefits", works toward harming less-fortunate people who've suffered more than anyone should have to.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Do you have any data showing how “huge” cryptocurrencies have been for facilitating legitimate international money transfers, compared to pre-existing alternatives?
    - throwaway55421 5y ago
      The OP is not talking about "legitimate" transfers.
      - argvargc 5y ago
        Incorrect, making this not a "legitimate" comment.
    - argvargc 5y ago
throwaway55421 5y ago
What it essentially boils down to is him saying "this isn't useful for me, therefore it isn't useful for society, therefore it will hurt society because it has nonzero cost and no benefit". If I'm being too strict then we'll say he thinks the balance tips towards cost outweighing benefit. But not everyone subscribes to this sort of extreme collectivist mindset. You don't have to believe I derive value from it because I don't need you to believe it. It still works. There is nothing to refute. I mostly just find it amusing that these people think we care. They're just talking to themselves. It's a trap for people like me to even respond to this stuff, we could be out doing things instead of arguing the toss about whether sugar is tasty or not. Like yo, I like it and it works for me. I don't care whether the health service in aggregate likes me eating sugar.