@csepp Though he raises some good concerns, I disagree with almost all of his points.

But most of my objection boils down to one argument: Bitcoin is the only instance of its kind, there's no alternative. So it being what it is, it's the best we've got until we've got something better.

Some more specific objections: (1) LN isn't debt brokering; (2) fractional reserve can't happen in a free market (in fiat, it is condoned because of government enforcement); [1/?]

@csepp (3) second layers enable small txs (no one ever paid for coffee in gold); (4) mining being done using govt-sponsored electricity is not a problem with mining, but with government overreach in the electricity sector; (5) the fact that ASICs can only be used for mining is an essential feature to make sure that miners have skin in the game of the long-term value of the network; (6) I know R&D goes slow, but alternative financial tools are being built every day, please pay attention

> government overreach in the electricity sector

So if I go to the North Pole in a swimming suit and freeze to death I can blame the cold?


@csepp I don't understand your question. But the answer is yes...

@stevenroose So I'm not at fault for willingly going to the North Pole without preparation?

@csepp That depends on if your objective was to survive or to die. But sure, if you head over to the North Pole in a swim suite, you should expect to die. I still don't understand the relevance of your question.

If you know that governments are going to abuse their powers, you have to factor that into your design. If the system you designed doesn't function in the real world, that's your fault for not anticipating the real world's problems.
Not a huge problem for a research project, but Bitcoin isn't treated like a research project.

@csepp That doesn't make sense. Governments are always going to abuse their power to stop anything that is post-national. Does that mean that any attempt to build a post-national society doesn't make sense?

is what it is and it can only work if mining is hard. And yes, of course there are always people that use violence to gain the ability to spend more resources than they otherwise could. That's not Bitcoin's problem. That's literally the problem it's trying to solve.

@stevenroose I'd rather spend my time on projects that work now. As I said, it's fine to design research projects for the future. But we aren't in the future.
A mutual aid network would do more good than any cryptocurrency.

@csepp does work now.. I don't really understand your problem. The amount of tax money getting into people's pockets unrightfully is huge. Bitcoin mining's share is negligible.

Bitcoin is a real innovation: a digital hard currency. And it solves a real problem: the merging of money and state. Adopting it globally would reduce corruption insanely. Governments would again have to earn taxpayer money instead of being able to print it.

@stevenroose Let's just say I agree with (most of) the goals, but I just don't really see how it (as in Bitcoin, not cryptocurrency or decentralized tech in general*) would solve corruption or other social problems on its own, or it being necessary to solve them.

@stevenroose One alternative to it that I'm actually somewhat hopeful about is Spritely's OCAP based finance.
But I'm no expert, maybe there are others.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
unidentified instance

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!