221–230 of 930 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you say to the victims of these gangs?
This is just an intellectually lazy way to dismiss any criticism of policies. You can care deeply about victims and not believe in a surveillance state or arresting people simply because they look a certain way. History has shown it’s a slippery slope that ends up hurting everyone.
El Salvador to scale back Bitcoin dreams to seal $1.3B IMF deal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Around the time of SegWit, the “digital gold” camp won over the “digital money” camp — who moved on to ETH, SOL, etc.
Many of us in the BC is digital money camp argued the case that more transactions and a lower transaction fee could be most easily implemented, within the spirit of the founders intent, if we simply increased the size of the transaction buffer, mitigating an obvious bottleneck. We argued against the complexity of SegWit and Lightning Network. I think greed and politics won rather than engineering or economics good se…
The people who argued for increasing the block size were making a tradeoff between decentralization and "low" transaction fees. Increasing the block size makes the chain grow faster which causes several problems: the time to sync new blocks goes up, initial chain download time goes way up, and block verification takes more CPU.
The parameters were initially set so that anyone could run a full node for as many years as possible which is the most important part of the ecosystem by far. If you make it harder for the average person to run a node it doesn't matter how cheap the transactions are if ultimately a small group of people are capable of running it. You could argue that doubling or quadrupling the block size doesn't hurt decentralization, and maybe you're right, but that also doesn't move the needle much for transaction throughput either at least not enough to make a difference for adoption.
Bitcoin can and should be scaled in layers. The detractors are just impatient.
I hope they can recover from this failed experiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Despite that interference, from everything I’ve read though it’s hard to describe the bitcoin experiment as anything else than a massive failure…
Massive success actually for anyone holding. Did you forget the price is $100k?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human rights of victims of these criminals were being routinely trashed and ignored before Bukele's reforms, so that's just not a trump card. His progressive reforms have significantly improved society for the greater good and has stood up for human rights that were being trampled, it is also against the conservative status quo thinking of how to deal with crime, so it very much fits the dictionary definition of prog…
> it is also against the conservative status quo thinking of how to deal with crime How are tough on crime policies "against the conservative status quo"?
Firstly, they are adamant that "tough on crime" policies do not work, they were adamant that Buekele's reforms would not work. Now sure there are probably ways they may fail and situations where they don't apply, it has now been proven by counter-example that they are wrong. They still refuse to accept it.
They now address their little El Salvador embarrassment by claiming it has caused calamitous violations of "human rights". This is a sneaky tool they use to win a debate and end the conversation, but when you look behind the curtain, really they are the ones who defined what human rights are and what is important for society, and they make no attempt to really weigh any of the multitide of very complicated issues as a whole. They just pick some human rights and some classes of people and say they were violated and that's the end of it. They would have the poor people of El Salvador live with gangs running rampant and murder rates hundreds of times higher than the rich areas of the wealthy countries they live in, and it would be worth it if only it could prevent one accused criminal having their human rights violated. It's just absolutely ludicrous, especially when you see the outcomes of these policies and they're still raging against Bukele for them and refusing to admit they don't have all the answers.
That is why they are conservative. Again, not conservative in their definitions, but conservative according to the dictionary. They hold to their views and work to maintain the status quo in terms of social and governance theories and practices.
Again I don't disagree with having strong individual rights against the justice system, and "tough on crime" policies sure can be pushed where they are not effective for political gain. But it's not black and white, it is many shades and countless inter-related moving parts. Very limited powers of police and very strong rights for accused in a justice system is a wonderful thing to have. In a society stricken by violence and crime and ruled by gangs and on the brink of collapse, it is not always possible to have without violating more rights of more people.
And if El Salvador continues long enough and keeps making progress reducing crime and breaking gangs and lifting people out of generational crime, they will actually eventually would likely to be in a much better position to implement stronger individual rights against the justice system.
What is actually important in a society is how they choose to be governed, their right to self-determination, including what rights they decide should be important and how those should be weighed and traded off among one another. Not some fixed, rigid decrees by an elitist ruling class of mostly foreigners with their lists of rights developed decades ago by and for different countries, missing many rights, and no real framework to make adjustments or make value judgements between conflicting rights, they are just used as a hammer to shut down debate that is awkward for their conservative and outdated views.
IMF gave them 1.4 billion to abandon the “experiment”: > The IMF made this a condition for a loan of 1.4 billion US dollars (1.35 billion euros). In December of last year, the IMF reached an agreement with President Nayib Bukele’s government on the loan of the stated amount to strengthen the country’s “fiscal sustainability” and mitigate the “risks associated with Bitcoin,” as it was described. —- I dislike cryptocur…
If bitcoin was such a success then why did they need an enormous loan?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like a fair take to me. They are not forcing people to accept it anymore because it didn’t work. It was never supposed to work. Bitcoin tried for 15-20 years to find a use case but now it’s just an asset class like gold and nothing else, it will never be more than that.
The trouble is, it needs to be more than that if it is to survive. Since inception, mining has mostly been subsidized by new bitcoin, which is capped by design (and about 95% distributed). Satoshi’s paper assumed that transaction costs would make up for the exponentially declining subsidy, but that hasn’t really happened since it never lived up to his “digital cash” vision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Despite that interference, from everything I’ve read though it’s hard to describe the bitcoin experiment as anything else than a massive failure…
Massive success actually for anyone holding. Did you forget the price is $100k?