💾 Archived View for gemini.ctrl-c.club › ~stack › gemlog › 2022-02-26.crypto.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 03:18:24. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-03-01)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Left Adjoint makes some good point in the referenced article. And makes some curious (what I consider) blunders.
gemini://inconsistentuniverse.space/gemlog/2022-02-25-defi.gmi
Let's start with bitcoin's finite supply. Only an inflationist capitalist could consider that a problem! That's one of the very few good things about bitcoin. The cap on the supply guarantees that your holdings will not be inflated away. We are too used to inflation, but it is _not a good thing_!
And yes, it rewarded early adopters greatly, and perhaps unfairly. But you too could've bought bitcoin for 0.0001 cent - it was not a great secret, and you could've traded a lot of bitcoin for a slice of pizza. But you said it was bullshit, like I did, and ignored it. So it goes.
The problem with cryptocurrencies is that the once bitcoin came into existence, there is absolutely zero need for any other cryptocurrency. Once an immutable distributed ledger exists, you can do everything else - transactions, contracts, digital notary, sidechains with private or public tokens... The world simply does not need a slew of shitcoin (other crypto) - only a fool would play hot potato with a pre-mined cryptocurrency that some guy forked from bitcoin and changed a couple of things. Sure you are making money, but the music _will_ stop.
I am completely dismissing etherium - they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will absolutely reverse transactions they don't like. And the talk of proof-of-steak just means the filthy-rich guys will make the rules. What else is new? Why would anyone want to play in this cesspool?
Now bitcoin is a terrible thing in so many ways that I can't even enumerate them. But one thing it does well is trustless transactions. Left Adjoint says it does not work, but the problem is with people and their dependence on the man with a gun to come and solve their issues of trust.
We are so dependent on third parties to transact for us and reverse the transactions that the idea of a contract is not really mutual agreement - it's more of a trial period, and if it doesn't work, the one with most money wins the legal battle. The system is absurd, but the gunman enforcing it is powerful enough that most people don't even misbehave. Anyone can charge your credit card account (absurd, isn't it?), and you can call AmEx and have them undo the charge. Since it's difficult to obtain a merchant account, and rates go up with chargebacks, and there is prison for obvious fraud, so most people behave.
The price we pay is that the man with the gun must know everything about everyone, and every transaction must be overseen by said gunman. The gunman wants a big cut for the 'protection'. In some places a part of the cut is used to improve people's lives. In others it is spent on bigger guns. Most is spent on the gunmen themselves, and their rich friends, palaces and yachts in which gunmen meet and take bribes from the rich who want them to look away while they pillage.
In a trustless world without a fake economy enforced by an all-knowing gunman, _you_ are responsible for your actions. When you send money to someone (and yes, _you_ send it, and no one can charge you without _you_ pressing that 'send' button) -- the transaction is complete and not reversible.
If such a transaction is a payment for goods or services, it is up to you to make sure that you get what you ordered prior to or at the time of the transaction. Afterwards you paid, they delivered, and it's done.
I will go so far as to say that if you give money to someone under false pretenses, it is your fucking problem. You should do the due diligence, and if you are fooled, do not make the rest of the society pay for your mistakes. It sounds harsh, but that is the price of freedom - you have to not give your magic beans to the townspeople -- mommy is not holding your hand.
It sounds harsh, but it is really not if you think about it. If you walk into a casino and lose money, that is your decision. If you invest into a company that flops, too bad. If you buy a fake rolex, how is that different? Why should the entire society be structured to reward you for being a greedy moron, who new it was too good to be true? Clearly someone else is better with money than you are. And what kind of a fuck are you for buying rolex anyway?
Now it is a bit of a pain that you have to do due diligence yourself. But again, put on your big-boy pants and look around. Your neighbourhood store will probably not cheat you. Without a gunman, financial markets are filled with highwaymen, and yes, stay the fuck out. If you put your money into an 'exchange' trying to double it or whatever, expect it to be 'hacked' and your money gone -- the fate of every fucking 'exchange'. Hey, you gave it to them. Where is your _collateral_, you greedy ignorant idiot?
Maybe it's time to rethink this whole inflationary scam we live in. Maybe it does not mesh with the idea of money that cannot be taken from you. Maybe we don't need money in the first place, and the idea of an excess to be exchanged for some other excess is just flawed. Maybe the modern debt-based financial system is just a crumbling pile of shit, and a different mechanism needs to take its place.