241–250 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the old encryption vs. monkey wrench scenario. Never forget the monkey wrench.
This is critical: clever math is not going to protect your assets from the organization that has a monopoly on violence.
Someone should start WebVanCoin.
It's funny you should mention Webvan. In 1999 grocery delivery was a hot market, then in 2002 it was completely and obviously stupid, now in 2017 it's hot again. Cryptocurrency is a bubble now, but will the world change such that it actually makes sense in 20 years?
It was never that. Yes Webvan failed, but Peapod didn't. Grocery chains also started their own delivery services which are still around today, and the industry slowly grew from there.
Judging an entire market by looking at the failure of one failed startup is not smart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept behind the tokens is that they take the value place of equity in a company. A person buying tokens is saying that they believe that the core product the company is providing is good enough that the tokens will increase in value in the future. Replace the word "token" with the word "equity" in the previous sentence and it would still be true.
They can't be equity by definition otherwise they are unregulated securities and then the SEC will step in and shut everything down or make you subscribed to the new equity crowdfunding rules. You want them interpreted at best as as in game currency or at worst as gift cards.
The only problem with the idea of tokens as "gift cards" or "in game currency" is that it restricts the conceptual range of possibilities of what a token can really do. It's an assumption to think they NEED to function that way, because they definitely don't have to. Better to think of the blockchain tech from first principles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Your comment genuinely horrifies me. I presume you're saying you want people who don't comply to be put behind bars, for extended lengths of time. And their crime, that you insist is harming the rest us, is to not comply with a plan that the majority imposed on them. You've justified it in your mind by arguing that these people accepted a bargain, and are now not holding up their end of it. If your desire is to go l…
> I mean, if you want the punishment to be rubbing your face in the dirt until you understand _why_ things are the way they are and why this is better than your idea now, I'm down for it. It's genuinely horrifying how much you seem to enjoy the thought of imprisoning or humiliating those who disagree with you. I suspect that this is a result of cognitive dissonance: you realise that you cannot rebut their arguments r…
It's genuinely hilarious how much you seem to take everything at face value. Better keep my gulag jokes then. To be completely fair, ideally, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. If we could have a perfectly functioning society, where everyone understands the value of collaborating, I would not want to have to do that. I really don't.
Unfortunately, privation of freedom, is in 99% of the cases the only thing that works with this kind of people. You could try explaining, in depth, the value of contributing to a greater purpose than just amassing wealth for you and your family, but in the end, you're very likely to just end up facing a brick wall. The choices are either waiting until they leave your society (which they won't, because they enjoy the benefits it brings while still wanting to not contribute), or making them respect the rules.
> I suspect that this is a result of cognitive dissonance: you realise that you cannot rebut their arguments rationally, and thus wish to 'rebut' them physically, by appeals to the majority.
I could suspect you're full of shit, but that doesn't get us very far. You seem to be believing that only your (or their) arguments are rational. Mine, however, are not because... it goes against your view of the world, I guess ?
>51% of the people can vote to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49%. That doesn't make it right.
Since you want to start making parallels, let's take these at face value too then. This implies that:
a) Only a 51% percent majority wishes our society to be this way. Which is blatantly false. b) You are part of this enlightened 49%. And dear God, if that isn't the mother of all cognitive dissonances.
When it comes to this subject, you are a minority. You are a blip on the radar. Worse yet, this is nefarious and actively harming society.
I impatiently await the inevitable "So it is okay to harm minorities as long as the majority wants it? What about slavery?" argument, which can be so easily refuted that it's not even fun.
I also impatiently await the "but rules are not fair right now, look at imprisonment of black people in the US" argument, which is already answered by the previous "Fix your damn system, don't burn it down" answer. Yes, it isn't fair. Yet people fought for things before. People fought against laws that were unjust. And when they were truly unjust, these people usually won. Do the same thing with your convictions. Maybe in fifteen years, you'll have won.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept behind the tokens is that they take the value place of equity in a company. A person buying tokens is saying that they believe that the core product the company is providing is good enough that the tokens will increase in value in the future. Replace the word "token" with the word "equity" in the previous sentence and it would still be true.
But when you own equity, you own a tangible piece of a company. I could say I believe in Amazon's core products and create an Amazon coin, but why should the value of my Amazon coin be correlated to the market cap of Amazon when it has no link to Amazon shares?
If Amazon were to decide to set up some kind of coin product it wouldn't really work unless it were backed by something internal. So it's perfectly feasible that some kind of blockchain product the guys at Amazon come up with necessitates a token and this coin would certainly be correlated to the future of that one product's success, but as a company because they've already had an IPO and trade publicly what's the incentive to adopt a coin for the whole pie?
It's definitely not a case of blockchain-all-the-things (although that can be almost impossible to see just by glancing into the ICO space).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is critical: clever math is not going to protect your assets from the organization that has a monopoly on violence.
It's not a monopoly that's important here, just willingness and ability. Jimmy-the-Stereotype is but one entrant in the free market of violence but he can still force you to liquidate your assets unless you have a grudge against your own kneecaps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a monopoly that's important here, just willingness and ability. Jimmy-the-Stereotype is but one entrant in the free market of violence but he can still force you to liquidate your assets unless you have a grudge against your own kneecaps.
You can hire Johnny-the-Mobster to protect you from Jimmy-the-Stereotype, but not against Uncle Sam or Grandpa Vladimir. State actors still have a disproportionate power.
I am amazed that in 2017, there is still people qualifying Bitcoin or Ethereum of ponzi schemes. Crypto currencies have a lot of problems (technical, economical, philosophical, ICO are insanes) but saying they are ponzi schemes is plain wrong. And it just takes 5 minutes of reading on Ponzi Schemes signs and basic knowledges of how those currencies work to understand why.
In many cases crying "ponzi" is likely an exclamation of "something wrong here" which your comment gives several examples. But cash, check and other instruments all have something wrong. I'll suggest that the difference isn't that people know the details of how for example checks clear, few non-experts learn all the details, BUT virtually everyone knows where to go if there is a problem (bank branch). Most non-expert…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I buy a house or a car with cryptocurrency that can be confiscated. If I live a lavish lifestyle while under a judgement I'm not paying, then the court can imprison me indefinitely under contempt of court. Courts have centuries of case law for how to deal with people that hide assets from judgements. They're not going to care whether your assets are in a shell company or a cryptocurrency.
You are correct, when it comes to protecting your assets from (minimally competent) authorities, cryptocurrencies aren't much better than a hole in the ground full of cash. Where they are much better than a hole in the ground is when it comes to moving your assets to a different jurisdiction . As long as you can physically get yourself from Somecountry to Othercountry, all your e-cash will be accessible in Othercount…