Jason Calacanis is Wrong: Bitcoin is Greatest Hope for Liberty • Hacker News Board

Re: Jason Calacanis is Wrong: Bitcoin is Greatest Hope for Liberty

#31

Post by mchusma » Mon, May 16, 2011, 7:08 PM UTC

jsprinkles wrote: post #17

mchusma wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be tough to enforce though...

Clearly you have never dealt with a government. You are hedging your entire startup on the government not getting involved and freezing your accounts, by the way. Smart move! (Clever promotion, might I add, especially with that little footer.)

Actually I went to West Point and served in the Army, so I've dealt with the government. Bitcoins would not likely be a big, significant part of any income anyway.

I would recommend taking a look at the pyramid again.

Re: Jason Calacanis is Wrong: Bitcoin is Greatest Hope for Liberty

#32

Post by tzs » Mon, May 16, 2011, 7:53 PM UTC

What exactly stops someone (even a government) from creating a Bitcoin2 that is similar to Bitcoin but uses different parameters? And then a Bitcoin3, and so on?

That turns Bitcoin into just one of several P2P currency-like commodities, with the government able to control the overall P2P currency supply just like they control the current currency supply.

Re: Jason Calacanis is Wrong: Bitcoin is Greatest Hope for Liberty

#33

Post by dablya » Tue, May 17, 2011, 12:27 PM UTC

aisalwaysa wrote: post #26

dablya wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm reading your comments and trying to figure out if you support freedom or not..." It's shit like this that makes it difficult to take libertarians seriously.

How can someone logically say they support freedom for some causes but not others... Sensationalism aside, you are not a supporter of freedom if you pick and choose which issues you think people should be free to choose for themselves. Even someone disagreeing and not wanting to use bitcoin should at least support other's freedom to use it.

None of this has anything to do with what OP was saying. This is the problem, taking an argument about anything and twisting yourself into a mental knot until you see it as an argument over FREEDOM.

"How can someone logically say they support freedom for some causes but not others..."

I'm against your having freedom to take my stuff. Are you saying I can't logically support other freedoms?