What happens when coinbros buy a ship to build a libertarian utopia?
If you ever wondered that, well, here's your answer:
Spoiler warning: it didn't work out.
It's fascinating to me how libertarian coinbros are trying to remove both trust and regulation from society.
Seems to me regulation usually kicks in where trust can not be relied on -- history shows I cannot just *trust* food vendors not to poison me, so they need to be regulated.
And conversely, regulation is not necessary (it's detrimental, even) where trust works well.
Trying to do away with both is a pretty sociopathic idea, I'd say.
@rysiek I could see that spoiler in double in that toot and I'm not currently having double vision symptoms!
@rysiek Cryptotechbros starting a new society, find out they neither understand technology nor society
Personally, I don't see any motives behind zealot cryptocurrency advocacy other than speculative profits of insiders. Amway from 90's comes to mind. Transaction volumes are needed for money laundering and ransomware collections, so you add a bit of libertarian bullshit and a crowd of fellow travellers does the job for you.
Large parts of stocks market, certainly yes. Everything with high price/earning ratios is probably undistinguishable from Bitcoin, minus the ransomware factor. Significant part of the stocks market however still does the thing it was originally invented for - provide private funding for companies that actually do something useful.
Far from me to side with the wacky coinbros, but you are confusing removing trust (bad) with removing the need of trust (good).
@federico3 why would you need to remove the need of trust if you had actual trust?
You wouldn't. Trust is powerful. And there is really no way to replace it, only to somewhat manage the consequences when it's gone.
Coinbros peddling blockchain to "remove the need of trust" are no different from VPN marketing talking about "hiding your IP": the VPN doesn't hide your IP, it changes who can see it. Blockchain does not remove the need for trust, it just shifts whom you need to trust.
You're not going to read every line of code, you're not going to verify every smart contract, you're not going to check that all the assumptions hold.
And the way I know this is because things like the DAO debacle keep happening. Latest:
My point is: it's not "trustless" in any sense of the word.
That's well and good for buy-a-coffee or buy-a-laptop size transactions, but it works just as well for corrupt-politician-moving-ill-goten-gains-out-of-a-failed-state level of transactions.
That's a problem.
Investigating cross-border corruption is already hard and time-consuming, even with the current banking system and legal systems.
Monero will make it effectively impossible.
Thing is, nobody will ever use Monero for coffee-or-laptop size transactions once the people who need to move huge amounts of currency across borders without those pesky financial disclosure forms jump on that bandwagon.
The same argument *does not* apply to cash - you can see why if you imagine moving, say, 200mln USD in cash across a border inconspicuously.
Create a privacy-preserving cryptocurrency that has a similar kind of friction gradient (friction rising with the transaction amount) as cash, and I'll be the first on-board.
The "hurting others" is where I have a problem with enabling high-rollers to evade financial transparency regulations. Money in large amounts is power, and power needs to be kept in check.
But we won't understand each other, so we might as well call it a day with this thread.
@lighthousehermit @federico3 well, the current system is bad and very difficult to work with, as far as investigating cross-border corruption etc. is concerned, but having worked for 5 years with people doing just that I know from personal experience that:
1. it is currently possible, even if hard, to shine some light on it; consider Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, and other similar investigative projects.
2. Monero will make it way, way harder, if adopted for such things.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!