The market for the digital items plummeted after their glory days in 2021 and 2022, and they’ve proven to be not only an artistic and aesthetic disaster, but a shortcut to financial ruin
Not absolutely everything in crypto is a scam, though 99% of it is, and I will definitely agree with you there. But there is 1% that is actually trying to do something useful, and you’ve got to be able to find that 1% and not throw it out with the bath water.
There are great uses for crypto, just like there were great uses for Ithica_hours. A place holder for goods and services without physical constraint is a useful idea.
But it wont work. Because people want to leverage that to make fiat. They don’t care about usefulness, actually earning it, or trading for it.
They want to get some, hold it, and sell it back for their fiat. Because of that exchanges came into being so they could capture some of the wealth in the process. And from then on it was never going to be useful. Just a way to hope the next sucker would buy what you had.
Having a currency not backed by a government or different currency is actually something the world could benefit from. Iranian currency was backed by USD, the US caused a shortage of USD there, and their currency value dropped to under 3% of it’s former value. 90 Million people.
That said, I think most of us have only ever used crypto to buy drugs off the internet.
To preface: I’m not a gold nut and I believe that it’s generally wiser for stable developed nations to use fiat currency to enable them to operate in a generally Keynesian approach with controlled inflation.
That said while I agree it’s unwise for nations unable to do that themselves to back their currency with a stable fiat currency from a different country, I don’t think crypto is the solution. Coinage is. And I’m talking old school coinage where the government isn’t backing it with metals, they’re making it out of them. Probably something like silver.
A backed currency is because a government can’t be trusted not to overinflate. If you want to bypass trust, the answer isn’t another currency in which all value is theoretical, it’s currency in which the value is in your hand and verifiable, with the government acting as the one setting units, assuring proper valuation, punishing devaluation, and publishing means for institutions and people to confirm valuation, such as physical properties, alloy percentages, and the easiest tests.
In case anybody sees this and doesn’t know the context, this is the note that was published in the Genesis block of the Bitcoin blockchain, Satoshi wanted to engrave forever the fact that at this time the chancellor was on the brink of second bailout for banks. It was a call-out against the fiat system, and it’s one of the best call-outs in history. and will be there forever more.
If you happen to have an original copy of this newspaper, it is a genuine artifact, and you can make absolute tons of money on it. No bullshit.
Based on this headline and the fact that Satoshi mentioned digital cash in the white paper as much as he did, you can clearly tell that he was frustrated with the fiat system and all the excesses that came with it and wanted to create a whole different system that was out of the hands of governments and corporations. He came close to succeeding but didn’t quite finish the job because he couldn’t figure out a way to add privacy into his ledger, which makes the entire thing completely transparent to law enforcement and government crooks.
However, on April 13th, 2014, the final puzzle piece was added with the launch of Monero, which has a fully private blockchain that does not have sender, receiver, or amounts being shown.
If you ever happen to read this comment, Satoshi, thank you for your great work. We will be forever in debt to you.
Oh, for sure. I saw another video somewhere yesterday that said you needed like seven pillars for a decentralized society. Decentralized communication, food, contracts, law, physical manufacturing, energy, and money. While I agree with that list, I think that an eighth one should be added, and that would be education. You might be able to fit education under communication, but I feel as though it doesn’t properly fit there.
Ethereum has the potential to carry real world assets on its chain. Why does an share of stock have to go through a clearing house when it could be an L2 on ethereum? A company having a total of 1 million shares is no different from a L2 coin having a total number of 1 million coins. They can even be fractional too.
There is no provable way to show that any claim of ownership on Ethereum is legitimate, unless that person has some real-world proof of ownership, in which case the Ethereum link adds no value. It’s just another step with another middleman.
In today’s world, we are moving from analog systems to digital systems, and therefore, physical proof of ownership supersedes electronic proof of ownership.
If a company is digital native and issues their shares on a blockchain without ever issuing any kind of analog shares, then the electronic proof would supersede the physical proof, no matter what happened.
Say Alice has a hair salon that’s called Alice’s hair salon, and she issues one million tokens on the Ethereum blockchain, and each token represents one one millionth of the company, Alice’s hair salon. Well, since she never issued any stock on the analog systems, the Ethereum system would be the final arbiter of who does and does not own any of those Alice’s hair salon tokens.
Literally every cryptocurrency supports this. But if the real world assets can be seized with a court order, then what’s the point of a blockchain and not just a legally compliant database?
Bitcoin doesn’t support this. It’s what is being mirrored, yes. But, Ethereum is kinda like the distributed operating system/network that could/would allow 24 hour trading without having a clearing-house middleman.
The true libertarians and anarchists in the room would call out the fact that they are attempting to build a world where governments don’t run courts because governments don’t exist and that all courts would be arbitration courts and decentralized and run by the community. If I have a problem with you, I tell my arbitrator about it, and my arbitrator tells you that I have a problem with you. If you don’t like my arbitrator, then you choose your own arbitrator, and if I don’t like the arbitrator you choose, then the arbitrators choose a third party arbitrator that they both agree on, and we agree to be bound by what that arbitrator says.
Edit: If you are willing to watch a 22 minute video, this might be of interest to you.
If your organization is decentralized, then its assets can’t be seized by a court order. For example, darknet market admins (arbitrators) and their drug dealers don’t even know who each other are. They’ve had a polycentric legal system for years.
But corporate stock remains centralized. They have a known headquarters with a known board of trustees. Their assets aren’t carried on-chain; only some guy’s promise to those assets.
My point is that an anarchist economy needs to be built from the ground up, circumventing the state’s legal system. Slapping a blockchain on top of an already centralized system won’t make it decentralized and thus provides no benefit.
Oh, absolutely. But that’s because the way we’ve always done the stock market is through centralized systems. If a company were to be formed today and only ever issue their stock tokens on a decentralized system such as Ethereum, then the Ethereum system would be the final arbiter of who does and does not have shares in that company.
Let’s say I open a factory and issue shares on Ethereum. Then for whatever reason a judge orders the company to give up some shares. The shareholders, safely in cypherspace, ignore that court order. And then the state seizes the whole factory. In practice the original shares no longer mean anything.
What’s the point of an arbirator when there’s no means to enforce compliance with their decision? And what could that system actually be? Functionally, it’d be identical to a government.
I’m assuming you didn’t watch the video, because it did discuss that.
Alice, who is a subscriber of Dawn Defense, was murdered by Bill, who is a subscriber of Tanner Justice. Dawn Defense is pro-death penalty for murderers and Tanner Justice is not. Therefore, each company does a calculation to figure out how many users and how much revenue they will lose if their side is not upheld and the side that is likely to lose more pays the other side to stand down. In the case of the video, the assumption is that if Dawn Defense loses, they will lose one million currency units worth of customers, where if Tanner Justice loses, they will lose 500,000 currency units. So, Dawn Defense pays Tanner Justice 800,000 currency units to stand down, which is more than the 500,000 they would have lost, and less than the 1 million that Dawn would lose if they weren’t able to enforce the death penalty on Bill.
These stand-down arrangements would be known beforehand, and therefore, when Bill subscribes to Tanner Justice, he would be informed that if he murders a client of dawn defense, that he will not be protected from the death penalty.
The silver lining is that after the obligatory exploitation by grifters, every new technology of this caliber finally gets a more positive use in our lifes. Maybe somewhat naive, but I think we (ie. our societies) have payed ~50% of the tuition fee as far as crypto is concerned. So hopefully we’ll be able to absorb the tech in our collective lives soon.
Ps: Different topic, but using the same metaphor for AI, I’m afraid we’re just at the begin of its initial fallout.
I tried to make clear that I’m talking about tech with potentially significant impact, case in point: blockchain. Are you suggesting that a quirqy twowheeler is somehow on the same level?
Unless trolling is all you’re about, I can recommend refraining from such offhand dismissive remarks. Sarcasm has its use, but rin an anonymous online discussion it is easy to misunderstand. It does not contribute to a meaningful exchange of ideas.
I think the rise of Monero over Bitcoin is a very positive sign. Since it has privacy, the government absolutely cannot stand the fact that it exists, and therefore, institutions don’t want to touch it. This means the “number go up”, “to the moon”, and “compliance”, shmucks are all driven away in horror and you are left with the real core who want to see a better money in a digital world. If that sounds interesting, you might want to listen to “darknet Market Maximalism” a manifesto by xenu. You can listen to the audio version of it on YouTube.
Not absolutely everything in crypto is a scam, though 99% of it is, and I will definitely agree with you there. But there is 1% that is actually trying to do something useful, and you’ve got to be able to find that 1% and not throw it out with the bath water.
There are great uses for crypto, just like there were great uses for Ithica_hours. A place holder for goods and services without physical constraint is a useful idea.
But it wont work. Because people want to leverage that to make fiat. They don’t care about usefulness, actually earning it, or trading for it.
They want to get some, hold it, and sell it back for their fiat. Because of that exchanges came into being so they could capture some of the wealth in the process. And from then on it was never going to be useful. Just a way to hope the next sucker would buy what you had.
yeah, the cryptoleftists community has found some decent actual use
Link please! I’m very skeptical but hope to be wrong.
https://bread.coop/
I’d wager even the 1% is the stereotypical “solution in search of a problem”. Seems to be a reoccurring theme as of late in the tech industry.
Having a currency not backed by a government or different currency is actually something the world could benefit from. Iranian currency was backed by USD, the US caused a shortage of USD there, and their currency value dropped to under 3% of it’s former value. 90 Million people.
That said, I think most of us have only ever used crypto to buy drugs off the internet.
To preface: I’m not a gold nut and I believe that it’s generally wiser for stable developed nations to use fiat currency to enable them to operate in a generally Keynesian approach with controlled inflation.
That said while I agree it’s unwise for nations unable to do that themselves to back their currency with a stable fiat currency from a different country, I don’t think crypto is the solution. Coinage is. And I’m talking old school coinage where the government isn’t backing it with metals, they’re making it out of them. Probably something like silver.
A backed currency is because a government can’t be trusted not to overinflate. If you want to bypass trust, the answer isn’t another currency in which all value is theoretical, it’s currency in which the value is in your hand and verifiable, with the government acting as the one setting units, assuring proper valuation, punishing devaluation, and publishing means for institutions and people to confirm valuation, such as physical properties, alloy percentages, and the easiest tests.
Yeah, but a currency practically needs a military and an economy to back it.
Who is going to stop me from fucking with the bitcoin supply if I own the US economy?
That’s the point of crypto - unless you can alter 51% of the blockchain, you can’t.
the 1% is the people who say “well, sure, 99% is a scam, but theres a legit 1% thats totally real!”
Thre might be a recognizable item of food in a turd, but I’m still not going to eat it.
The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.
In case anybody sees this and doesn’t know the context, this is the note that was published in the Genesis block of the Bitcoin blockchain, Satoshi wanted to engrave forever the fact that at this time the chancellor was on the brink of second bailout for banks. It was a call-out against the fiat system, and it’s one of the best call-outs in history. and will be there forever more.
If you happen to have an original copy of this newspaper, it is a genuine artifact, and you can make absolute tons of money on it. No bullshit.
Based on this headline and the fact that Satoshi mentioned digital cash in the white paper as much as he did, you can clearly tell that he was frustrated with the fiat system and all the excesses that came with it and wanted to create a whole different system that was out of the hands of governments and corporations. He came close to succeeding but didn’t quite finish the job because he couldn’t figure out a way to add privacy into his ledger, which makes the entire thing completely transparent to law enforcement and government crooks.
However, on April 13th, 2014, the final puzzle piece was added with the launch of Monero, which has a fully private blockchain that does not have sender, receiver, or amounts being shown.
If you ever happen to read this comment, Satoshi, thank you for your great work. We will be forever in debt to you.
The fact that there is corruption in the financial system doesn’t automatically mean that every other system is honest.
Oh, for sure. I saw another video somewhere yesterday that said you needed like seven pillars for a decentralized society. Decentralized communication, food, contracts, law, physical manufacturing, energy, and money. While I agree with that list, I think that an eighth one should be added, and that would be education. You might be able to fit education under communication, but I feel as though it doesn’t properly fit there.
What do you mean by honest in this context? Both Bitcoin and Monero prevent bailouts, they’re FOSS, and they’ve been working smoothly for years.
Ethereum has the potential to carry real world assets on its chain. Why does an share of stock have to go through a clearing house when it could be an L2 on ethereum? A company having a total of 1 million shares is no different from a L2 coin having a total number of 1 million coins. They can even be fractional too.
There is no provable way to show that any claim of ownership on Ethereum is legitimate, unless that person has some real-world proof of ownership, in which case the Ethereum link adds no value. It’s just another step with another middleman.
In today’s world, we are moving from analog systems to digital systems, and therefore, physical proof of ownership supersedes electronic proof of ownership.
If a company is digital native and issues their shares on a blockchain without ever issuing any kind of analog shares, then the electronic proof would supersede the physical proof, no matter what happened.
Say Alice has a hair salon that’s called Alice’s hair salon, and she issues one million tokens on the Ethereum blockchain, and each token represents one one millionth of the company, Alice’s hair salon. Well, since she never issued any stock on the analog systems, the Ethereum system would be the final arbiter of who does and does not own any of those Alice’s hair salon tokens.
Literally every cryptocurrency supports this. But if the real world assets can be seized with a court order, then what’s the point of a blockchain and not just a legally compliant database?
Blcokchains aren’t even worth a shit as implementations of a distributed ledger.
but like, man, like… its totally new, like, and like, totally amazing man. you just, like, cant comprehend, man!
Bitcoin doesn’t support this. It’s what is being mirrored, yes. But, Ethereum is kinda like the distributed operating system/network that could/would allow 24 hour trading without having a clearing-house middleman.
You’re talking about real-world assets carried on-chain, right? Bitcoin has supported this for a very very long time.
The true libertarians and anarchists in the room would call out the fact that they are attempting to build a world where governments don’t run courts because governments don’t exist and that all courts would be arbitration courts and decentralized and run by the community. If I have a problem with you, I tell my arbitrator about it, and my arbitrator tells you that I have a problem with you. If you don’t like my arbitrator, then you choose your own arbitrator, and if I don’t like the arbitrator you choose, then the arbitrators choose a third party arbitrator that they both agree on, and we agree to be bound by what that arbitrator says.
Edit: If you are willing to watch a 22 minute video, this might be of interest to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ0Qkhnt6bQ
If your organization is decentralized, then its assets can’t be seized by a court order. For example, darknet market admins (arbitrators) and their drug dealers don’t even know who each other are. They’ve had a polycentric legal system for years.
But corporate stock remains centralized. They have a known headquarters with a known board of trustees. Their assets aren’t carried on-chain; only some guy’s promise to those assets.
My point is that an anarchist economy needs to be built from the ground up, circumventing the state’s legal system. Slapping a blockchain on top of an already centralized system won’t make it decentralized and thus provides no benefit.
Oh, absolutely. But that’s because the way we’ve always done the stock market is through centralized systems. If a company were to be formed today and only ever issue their stock tokens on a decentralized system such as Ethereum, then the Ethereum system would be the final arbiter of who does and does not have shares in that company.
Let’s say I open a factory and issue shares on Ethereum. Then for whatever reason a judge orders the company to give up some shares. The shareholders, safely in cypherspace, ignore that court order. And then the state seizes the whole factory. In practice the original shares no longer mean anything.
What’s the point of an arbirator when there’s no means to enforce compliance with their decision? And what could that system actually be? Functionally, it’d be identical to a government.
I’m assuming you didn’t watch the video, because it did discuss that.
Alice, who is a subscriber of Dawn Defense, was murdered by Bill, who is a subscriber of Tanner Justice. Dawn Defense is pro-death penalty for murderers and Tanner Justice is not. Therefore, each company does a calculation to figure out how many users and how much revenue they will lose if their side is not upheld and the side that is likely to lose more pays the other side to stand down. In the case of the video, the assumption is that if Dawn Defense loses, they will lose one million currency units worth of customers, where if Tanner Justice loses, they will lose 500,000 currency units. So, Dawn Defense pays Tanner Justice 800,000 currency units to stand down, which is more than the 500,000 they would have lost, and less than the 1 million that Dawn would lose if they weren’t able to enforce the death penalty on Bill.
These stand-down arrangements would be known beforehand, and therefore, when Bill subscribes to Tanner Justice, he would be informed that if he murders a client of dawn defense, that he will not be protected from the death penalty.
The silver lining is that after the obligatory exploitation by grifters, every new technology of this caliber finally gets a more positive use in our lifes. Maybe somewhat naive, but I think we (ie. our societies) have payed ~50% of the tuition fee as far as crypto is concerned. So hopefully we’ll be able to absorb the tech in our collective lives soon.
Ps: Different topic, but using the same metaphor for AI, I’m afraid we’re just at the begin of its initial fallout.
Yeah, sure, that’s why we’re all riding Segways.
The reality is that quite a lot of new technologies have no significant real-life use case and vanish without a trace.
I tried to make clear that I’m talking about tech with potentially significant impact, case in point: blockchain. Are you suggesting that a quirqy twowheeler is somehow on the same level?
Unless trolling is all you’re about, I can recommend refraining from such offhand dismissive remarks. Sarcasm has its use, but rin an anonymous online discussion it is easy to misunderstand. It does not contribute to a meaningful exchange of ideas.
I think the rise of Monero over Bitcoin is a very positive sign. Since it has privacy, the government absolutely cannot stand the fact that it exists, and therefore, institutions don’t want to touch it. This means the “number go up”, “to the moon”, and “compliance”, shmucks are all driven away in horror and you are left with the real core who want to see a better money in a digital world. If that sounds interesting, you might want to listen to “darknet Market Maximalism” a manifesto by xenu. You can listen to the audio version of it on YouTube.
Edit: I’ll save you the trouble. Here’s the link directly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ogNg20rGTU