[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1709794576467.png (773.86 KB, 1080x1465, 216:293, Screenshot_20240307-014124.png) ImgOps Google

Do you have any thoughts on crypto politics?  A crypto super PAC campaigned against Katie Porter and claims that her defeat was due in part to her opposition to crypto.

Personally, I'd like to get rid of AML/KYC regulations (both for crypto and for traditional fiat banks) and slap down the SEC from claiming that basically every new crypto token is a security.  Also there should be a better way of doing capital gains tax.  People who get rich from buying low and selling high should still pay their fair share of capital gains tax, but requiring ordinary folks to itemize each transaction where they buy a product/service with crypto is unwieldy.


All currency, whether invented by techbros, the government, or ancient civilizations, is a sham.

It's natural to want everyone in the tribe to contribute equally to its success.  To this end, people started assigning value to tasks and goods, recording them in a ledger.  And eventually this gave rise to coins and bills representing your contributions to society.

But even a basic ledger is open to manipulation and corruption, and the more layers you add on to the monetary system, the more corrupt it becomes.  Each new layer a new ploy from con artists to manipulate people.  To trick them into thinking they've contributed something to the tribe.

Society would be better off without crypto, the stock market, or even gambling.  Banning any of them would be ultimately worthless and easily circumvented, but any measures we can take as a society to limit their impact would be for the best.  The way to start is just educating people to recognize whether someone is actually contributing to society or not or whether they're just leeching money from others without providing anything in return.  Society needs to realize that money isn't real and doesn't reliably represent a person's value.  Anyone who says otherwise is in on the scam.


Huh?  That doesn't seem very practical or logistically sound.  Currency is much more efficient than bartering.



Is it?  In what ways?  And is it even good for it to be more efficient?


The big advantage our current monetary system has over crypto to me, is that it's standardized.
I do my work, I get a paycheck at the end of the month and I have somewhat an idea what is on that paycheck.
With that paycheck I can go to any store that offers goods/services that I desire and I can know about whatever those things cost and can budget for them.

The problem with crypto is that it offers an alternative that for now has always been extremely volatile and for which there's never been any proper application.
I can own millions in bitcoin, but if I can only spend it to buy XTC at the dark web, I am not going to feed myself or keep a roof above my head.
On top of that, crypto has become such a clownshow with so many new scammers popping up creating their own coin that is so much better than all the others and promising a little economy where that coin would be useful (built on useless crap most of the time) that never even gets delivered on.

If there's some crypto token that gets standardized enough to be as useful and as widespread as classic currency built on some stable crypto paradigm, then perhaps it could be worth it.
But note, at that point it's very important that a unique cryptocurrency gets standardized and we should absolutely not live in a sort of free market flooded with 100s of alternative tokens.


On the flipside, there's this moneyless society sort of deal.
Current model of currency ensures that I always have value to someone else in the form of money that I give out, no matter where that money comes from.
I don't think you can rely on individuals to accurately assign value to someone and provide services based on that value, because no one in a larger society even knows what the majority of individuals contribute.
And I don't think it's a good idea to let people trade only within small tribes disjoint from the rest. Our society as is, is large enough so that we can provide services with way greater reach. I can get surgery even in another country for a certain illness if needed and that is gone if I only know Jeff the grocery store owner and Mike who knows how to work computers.

The one way, I can imagine this "work", perhaps, is in this sort of communist-like setting, where everyone gets stripped of their properties and all the services / goods / resources are pooled together and divyed up among everyone.
Every family gets assigned a living quarters, food and goods are rationed and sent to everyone.
Jobs are not done for any kind of monetary incentive, but are just assigned to you based on the skills and use you're assessed for.
This somehow has to be overseen by a sort of committee and somehow some checks and balances should be in place to prevent anyone from playing the system.

This is probably pretty problematic on its own. But it should also be implemented almost globally, as we currently require international trades and such as well, so they also should be incentivised to give up goods without any immediate compensation.



Hm... looks like Elizabeth Warren introduced the "Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act" into Congress because she wants to stop the bad guys from using crypto (coindesk, 2024/02/28).

Opponents say the bill is going about it the wrong way - that the bill she introduced would render the innovative technological benefits of cryptocurrency useless (coindesk, 2023/05/18). The Blockchain Association is also against it (blockchain).

Sadly, this appears to be yet another case of a politician not understanding the technology behind the thing they want to regulate. This is why we need to elect more scientists and engineers.

Works Cited:





>Sadly, this appears to be yet another case of a politician not understanding the technology behind the thing they want to regulate.
Why do you say that?


American politicians are notorious for not understanding tech that they want to regulate or ban.  Video very related.

What probability would you give for Senator Warren understanding decentralized distributed ledgers, Merkle trees, elliptic-curve digital signatures, and proof of work vs proof of stake?  I'd bet she doesn't even understand cryptographic hash functions!


> if I can only spend it to buy XTC at the dark web, I am not going to feed myself or keep a roof above my head.
It's kinda a chicken-and-egg problem.  Few people buy normal goods and services with cryptocurrency because few sellers offer the option to pay with crypto.  And few sellers offer the option to pay with crypto because few potential buyers seek to pay with crypto.
There's also the issue of transaction fees.  Each block in the blockchain holds a limited number of transactions (and this is necessary for efficient processing), preventing the number of on-chain transactions from scaling up.  Lightning Network and other "layer 2" networks can mitigate this problem, but they have their own issues.


So... you don't have any actual particular reason to assume she doesn't understand it?



Good observation. I didn't offer enough research to support my conclusion. Instead, I relied on my own personal meta-cognition because I wanted to reply to this thread in a scholarly manner, yet I also knew that finding additional supporting articles might take a while and require wading through political articles and videos, which I didn't want to do.


It is, however, my hypothesis that she doesn't understand it, because it is my assumption that someone who understood it wouldn't want to restrict it in the same way as other traditional forms of finance. My understanding of the technical aspects of cryptocurrency, however, is limited. So, I would refer further research to people interested in politics as well as people who have a better understanding of cryptocurrency than myself. Even so, I do have enough confidence in my hypothesis to have posted it here.


The reason is: Base rates, combined with lack of any evidence that she knows anything about crypto.


Suppose 0.8% of women who get mammograms have breast cancer. In 90% of women with breast cancer, the mammogram will correctly detect it. However, among women without breast cancer, 7% will get a false positive reading on the mammogram. If you randomly pick a woman who gets a mammogram, and she gets a positive mammogram result, what is the probability that she has breast cancer?


>it is my assumption that someone who understood it wouldn't want to restrict it in the same way as other traditional forms of finance
But why? What if experts agree?
I'm not anywhere near knowledgable about it either, but why trust the blockchain association over her?

Okay, then you probably know just as little about crypto as she does. Probabilistically speaking.


I'm a software engineer, not a politician.  Very different base rates.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]