7 ms·

> We have banking laws for a reason: people need to trust that the money they entrust to others will be there when they want it back. If we trust the system th

> We have banking laws for a reason: people need to trust that the money they entrust to others will be there when they want it back. If we trust the system that pulls the wool over our eyes, should we really trust it? Have a listen to TAL: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/536/the-secret-recordings-of-carmen-segarra http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/536/t... The problem with the creation of law in the USA is that it unequally favors those who can pay to finance elected officials campaigns and thus non-elected governing bodies. A transparent financial blockchain is the core difference in philosophy between backroom decisions made on our behalf supposedly with our best intentions in mind by non-elected appointed people and a mathematical equation that we can all see and test. Math we can all trust because it is true at it's core, can we do the same for people? Yes some payment processors can be shady, but so can some fed officials who are incharge with our entire financial system.

srdev 11y ago
> If we trust the system that pulls the wool over our eyes, should we really trust it? Blanket statements don't really help to determine if a given set of regulation is useful or not. The system has a lot of bad parts and regulatory capture is a thing, but that does not imply that literally all regulation is poor and need to be ignored. If one wants to make a statement with regards to any set of regulation, it needs to be specific and fact-based; simply issuing blanket statements is useless at best and dishonest at worst. > A transparent financial blockchain is the core difference in philosophy between backroom decisions made on our behalf supposedly with our best intentions in mind by non-elected appointed people and a mathematical equation that we can all see and test. Math we can all trust because it is true at it's core, can we do the same for people? This is pretty much nonsense. The statements you are making here are so abstract and broad that they defy any sort of reasonable analysis. You can consider the Bitcoin algorithm as a mathmatical equation, but that says nothing about whether you can trust the individual entities utilizing Bitcoin. You can't reduce all interactions between people to algorithms, so at some point you're going to have to have rules and norms in place, which will ultimately be decided on by people in some manner. Furthermore, whether the system is encoded as an algorithm (what you're calling math here) is orthogonal to whether it is doing the correct or optimal thing. The "trust in math" line espoused by Bitcoin advocates does not have the effect they think; it simply makes them appear dogmatic and cultish. Saying that something is math and therefor trustable and unassailable is rather short-sighted. > Yes some payment processors can be shady, but so can some fed officials who are incharge with our entire financial system. The existence of shady fed officials has no bearing whatsoever on whether a specific set of rules are good or necessary from a societal standpoint. Its a completely separate discussion. On the other hand, the fact that some payment processors are shady is relevant to the discussion of whether the rules are necessary. Ultimately, your entire argument is an emotional appeal here. You'd do better to set aside the rhetoric.
exelius 11y ago
I actually agree with you about all of this. And I think that we'll see the blockchain get incorporated into the mainstream banking system eventually because it's got some big audibility benefits that both the banks and the fed would be interested in. But anonymity is not one of those; in fact the blockchain makes the money supply much more traceable. But the existence of corrupt bankers or government officials doesn't mean that the system doesn't work. It does work for the vast majority of people who are able to deposit money and withdraw it later. Sure, it's broken in ways that allow a select few to ignore the laws and gain an unfair advantage, but that has always been the case with any system of wealth distribution and it's certainly better than it has been in the past. The idea that there can be a single algorithm that controls a large part of our financial system is a dangerous one. One, it presupposes that the people who built said algorithm have no ulterior motives. Two, it (like any other economic model) assumes that markets are rational. Markets are rational most of the time and then irrational for brief periods of instability -- which is when you need human judgement to identify the cause of irrationality and address it. Third, an algorithm like Bitcoin is unable to adapt to the geopolitics around money supply -- the way that the Yuan and the Dollar are connected can't be described by pure math; and any solution to problems between the two economies are likely to be political or military in nature. Is the Fed perfect? No; it's not by any means. But judging by our track record against other economies, I would say the Fed is doing something right. It's our Congress that fucks it all up.

srdev 11y ago

> If we trust the system that pulls the wool over our eyes, should we really trust it? Blanket statements don't really help to determine if a given set of regulation is useful or not. The system has a lot of bad parts and regulatory capture is a thing, but that does not imply that literally all regulation is poor and need to be ignored. If one wants to make a statement with regards to any set of regulation, it needs to be specific and fact-based; simply issuing blanket statements is useless at best and dishonest at worst. > A transparent financial blockchain is the core difference in philosophy between backroom decisions made on our behalf supposedly with our best intentions in mind by non-elected appointed people and a mathematical equation that we can all see and test. Math we can all trust because it is true at it's core, can we do the same for people? This is pretty much nonsense. The statements you are making here are so abstract and broad that they defy any sort of reasonable analysis. You can consider the Bitcoin algorithm as a mathmatical equation, but that says nothing about whether you can trust the individual entities utilizing Bitcoin. You can't reduce all interactions between people to algorithms, so at some point you're going to have to have rules and norms in place, which will ultimately be decided on by people in some manner. Furthermore, whether the system is encoded as an algorithm (what you're calling math here) is orthogonal to whether it is doing the correct or optimal thing. The "trust in math" line espoused by Bitcoin advocates does not have the effect they think; it simply makes them appear dogmatic and cultish. Saying that something is math and therefor trustable and unassailable is rather short-sighted. > Yes some payment processors can be shady, but so can some fed officials who are incharge with our entire financial system. The existence of shady fed officials has no bearing whatsoever on whether a specific set of rules are good or necessary from a societal standpoint. Its a completely separate discussion. On the other hand, the fact that some payment processors are shady is relevant to the discussion of whether the rules are necessary. Ultimately, your entire argument is an emotional appeal here. You'd do better to set aside the rhetoric.

exelius 11y ago

I actually agree with you about all of this. And I think that we'll see the blockchain get incorporated into the mainstream banking system eventually because it's got some big audibility benefits that both the banks and the fed would be interested in. But anonymity is not one of those; in fact the blockchain makes the money supply much more traceable. But the existence of corrupt bankers or government officials doesn't mean that the system doesn't work. It does work for the vast majority of people who are able to deposit money and withdraw it later. Sure, it's broken in ways that allow a select few to ignore the laws and gain an unfair advantage, but that has always been the case with any system of wealth distribution and it's certainly better than it has been in the past. The idea that there can be a single algorithm that controls a large part of our financial system is a dangerous one. One, it presupposes that the people who built said algorithm have no ulterior motives. Two, it (like any other economic model) assumes that markets are rational. Markets are rational most of the time and then irrational for brief periods of instability -- which is when you need human judgement to identify the cause of irrationality and address it. Third, an algorithm like Bitcoin is unable to adapt to the geopolitics around money supply -- the way that the Yuan and the Dollar are connected can't be described by pure math; and any solution to problems between the two economies are likely to be political or military in nature. Is the Fed perfect? No; it's not by any means. But judging by our track record against other economies, I would say the Fed is doing something right. It's our Congress that fucks it all up.