Eric Weinstein is also pretty convinced that Crypto will be criminalized.
I don't always agree with him on things (and his interview with James O'Keef showed he still has a lot of leftist biases emotionally bolted into his brain), but I think he's right about this. It's one of the reasons I don't have more of it.
I don't feel like it's been directed from the Cathedral, it's a bit too innovative. I think Satoshi would have needed to fucking disappear. He did something really dangerous: challenged the control of money. Look what happened to the guy who built Silk Road.
This is a common thing I actually see with Libertarians. If they are wealthy, innovative, or otherwise creative, they constantly stumble upon a very sensitive cord of government power and the blowback is absolutely tremendous. Like: You illegally downloaded a University's articles to a thumb-drive and uploaded them to sci-hub... so they put you in prison for 40 years (and that really did happen). Libertarians are constantly walking head first into a solution that requires immediate and violent blowback.
Unlike the guy who made Silk Road, he needed to get ghost immediately if he wanted to survive. That means abandoning the profits too. Without institutional power to protect you, they'll cut your throat, then they'll cut your kids' throats.
Instead, what we saw is a lot of efforts in banking to discredit it, possibly to intentionally crash it, and now they've tried adopting it as their last stage of undermining something that could well and truly damage their control over the financial markets. That seems far more common place to what the establishment does when confronted by the threat of innovation.
Interesting how open access to scientific research requires the possibility of a 35 year sentence, but for some reason we just can't go after the innumerable Chinese spies who prop up the CCP from stolen research from American universities, or classified information from US Senators, or even just letting them conduct bio-weapon research for us in their own country.
Unless you are intimately familiar with global underground economies, the potential benefits of crypto won't be available for the standard consumer. Crypto transactions are tracked and extracting value from crypto requires interaction with payment processors and/or banks.
Depending on how widely used is the crypto, you don't have to. You can get paid in crypto and pay in crypto. A cash trade requires no interaction with a payment processor, and the "consumer" doesn't have to be the one that does that part.
There's probably some truth to that but most cryptos are distributed and permissionless. The hallmark of something that's compromised is centralized and controllable.
Bitcoin has weak points (e.g. miners, exchanges, and lack of privacy). I think Monero is a better solution long term but the more wealth the elites have in crypto the less likely it is that something dramatic like banning it can occur.
only once it had staying power did they push it, then ws jumped in, and theyre trying to get grannies to invest in it because they plan to crash it and destroy their savings. prove me wong
That Okeefe interview was enlightening, but to his credit, he's pretty open about his Trump derangement syndrome, which puts him ahead of Shapiro and Harris et al.
Eric Weinstein is also pretty convinced that Crypto will be criminalized.
I don't always agree with him on things (and his interview with James O'Keef showed he still has a lot of leftist biases emotionally bolted into his brain), but I think he's right about this. It's one of the reasons I don't have more of it.
I don't feel like it's been directed from the Cathedral, it's a bit too innovative. I think Satoshi would have needed to fucking disappear. He did something really dangerous: challenged the control of money. Look what happened to the guy who built Silk Road.
This is a common thing I actually see with Libertarians. If they are wealthy, innovative, or otherwise creative, they constantly stumble upon a very sensitive cord of government power and the blowback is absolutely tremendous. Like: You illegally downloaded a University's articles to a thumb-drive and uploaded them to sci-hub... so they put you in prison for 40 years (and that really did happen). Libertarians are constantly walking head first into a solution that requires immediate and violent blowback.
Unlike the guy who made Silk Road, he needed to get ghost immediately if he wanted to survive. That means abandoning the profits too. Without institutional power to protect you, they'll cut your throat, then they'll cut your kids' throats.
Instead, what we saw is a lot of efforts in banking to discredit it, possibly to intentionally crash it, and now they've tried adopting it as their last stage of undermining something that could well and truly damage their control over the financial markets. That seems far more common place to what the establishment does when confronted by the threat of innovation.
dont forget what they did to swartz, clownlike bitch
Interesting how open access to scientific research requires the possibility of a 35 year sentence, but for some reason we just can't go after the innumerable Chinese spies who prop up the CCP from stolen research from American universities, or classified information from US Senators, or even just letting them conduct bio-weapon research for us in their own country.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Unless you are intimately familiar with global underground economies, the potential benefits of crypto won't be available for the standard consumer. Crypto transactions are tracked and extracting value from crypto requires interaction with payment processors and/or banks.
a few companys including tesla were accepting it for a while... and didnt starbucks or somewhere announce they were going to take it lately?
Depending on how widely used is the crypto, you don't have to. You can get paid in crypto and pay in crypto. A cash trade requires no interaction with a payment processor, and the "consumer" doesn't have to be the one that does that part.
There's probably some truth to that but most cryptos are distributed and permissionless. The hallmark of something that's compromised is centralized and controllable.
Bitcoin has weak points (e.g. miners, exchanges, and lack of privacy). I think Monero is a better solution long term but the more wealth the elites have in crypto the less likely it is that something dramatic like banning it can occur.
only once it had staying power did they push it, then ws jumped in, and theyre trying to get grannies to invest in it because they plan to crash it and destroy their savings. prove me wong
That Okeefe interview was enlightening, but to his credit, he's pretty open about his Trump derangement syndrome, which puts him ahead of Shapiro and Harris et al.
Fair enough.