’What I’m describing is exit. In a coercive situation, there are two options: voice and exit. “
I read this thinking the metaphor is backward. Most people are willingly in the current, financial system benefiting from our currency. Their troubles rarely come from the currency itself. The group pushing cryptocurrency also use the financial system for electricity, computers, paying employees, venture financing with expected rewards, and so on. Rather than stuck with exit, they use pitches to lure users of financial system into their products with promised rewards. Many (most?) get either nothing or lose what they have due to all the problems in cryptocurrencies. If anything, the predators are those pushing cryptocurrencies with no assurances they’ll do what they say. That type of predator is called a con artist but some are true believers, too.
“Wilson’s victory was not just a free speech win, but a demonstration of the divide between voice-centric activism and building alternatives: “
This is true. It’s also pretty selective: most of those efforts fail. This is on high end of what they can achieve. A good reason to try it, esp when cost is low. Ill note the ruling might also be reversed in the future. The NRA also does a lot of lobbying to keep guns available. Wilson’s quote acts like they do nothing at all.
“in the cryptocurrency world the government can’t lean on third parties to prevent you from transacting however you wish.”
This is a lie. They can block them at the network level, block investments into them, arrest people using them, seize them, force developers to do something if in jurisdiction, and so on. They’re highly vulnerable to government. Just less than a centralized system. If anything, using a spread of traditional currencies in stable governments is safer since (a) they’re already stable currencies, (b) their banks run more securely on average, and (c) country A usually can’t do arbitrary things to bank accounts in country B. Multinationals already use this strategy combined with well-paid lawyers and bribes to politicians. Long ago, I advocated that lower- to middle-income people just form a cooperative multinational that uses the same tricks as the rich like lobbying, corporate liability reduction, and tax dodging. Might see some reforms if 10-50 million people start doing that stuff. Maybe less.
“The better your opsec, the closer you are to untouchable — by virtue of being unfindable. Ross Ulbricht got popped eventually, but it’s amazing how much time and effort the feds had to put in.”
True. I advocate strong, security engineering plus plenty obfuscation and diversity of approaches for this reason.
“Bitcoin was in the clear, Hinman explained”
The Feds have already shut down alternative currencies before. They’re not shutting down Bitcoin. Author argues it like Bitcoin succeeded as a rebel force against the banks. I speculate it’s the opposite: Bitcoin isn’t the currency replacement it claimed to be (i.e. not a threat) and the owners of this countries (eg Bank of America) are investing heavily into blockchains. They’re also patenting as much as possible to block or leech off of various uses via legal system. They see them as a combo of technologies that might be useful to them and profit centers since people are wildly throwing money at anything with word “blockchain.” If anything, the blockchain proponents half-delivered in a way that gives traditional institutions a way to subvert the tech to their advantage. I can’t predict how that will play out in the future, though. Many, many variables.
’What I’m describing is exit. In a coercive situation, there are two options: voice and exit. “
I read this thinking the metaphor is backward. Most people are willingly in the current, financial system benefiting from our currency. Their troubles rarely come from the currency itself. The group pushing cryptocurrency also use the financial system for electricity, computers, paying employees, venture financing with expected rewards, and so on. Rather than stuck with exit, they use pitches to lure users of financial system into their products with promised rewards. Many (most?) get either nothing or lose what they have due to all the problems in cryptocurrencies. If anything, the predators are those pushing cryptocurrencies with no assurances they’ll do what they say. That type of predator is called a con artist but some are true believers, too.
“Wilson’s victory was not just a free speech win, but a demonstration of the divide between voice-centric activism and building alternatives: “
This is true. It’s also pretty selective: most of those efforts fail. This is on high end of what they can achieve. A good reason to try it, esp when cost is low. Ill note the ruling might also be reversed in the future. The NRA also does a lot of lobbying to keep guns available. Wilson’s quote acts like they do nothing at all.
“in the cryptocurrency world the government can’t lean on third parties to prevent you from transacting however you wish.”
This is a lie. They can block them at the network level, block investments into them, arrest people using them, seize them, force developers to do something if in jurisdiction, and so on. They’re highly vulnerable to government. Just less than a centralized system. If anything, using a spread of traditional currencies in stable governments is safer since (a) they’re already stable currencies, (b) their banks run more securely on average, and (c) country A usually can’t do arbitrary things to bank accounts in country B. Multinationals already use this strategy combined with well-paid lawyers and bribes to politicians. Long ago, I advocated that lower- to middle-income people just form a cooperative multinational that uses the same tricks as the rich like lobbying, corporate liability reduction, and tax dodging. Might see some reforms if 10-50 million people start doing that stuff. Maybe less.
“The better your opsec, the closer you are to untouchable — by virtue of being unfindable. Ross Ulbricht got popped eventually, but it’s amazing how much time and effort the feds had to put in.”
True. I advocate strong, security engineering plus plenty obfuscation and diversity of approaches for this reason.
“Bitcoin was in the clear, Hinman explained”
The Feds have already shut down alternative currencies before. They’re not shutting down Bitcoin. Author argues it like Bitcoin succeeded as a rebel force against the banks. I speculate it’s the opposite: Bitcoin isn’t the currency replacement it claimed to be (i.e. not a threat) and the owners of this countries (eg Bank of America) are investing heavily into blockchains. They’re also patenting as much as possible to block or leech off of various uses via legal system. They see them as a combo of technologies that might be useful to them and profit centers since people are wildly throwing money at anything with word “blockchain.” If anything, the blockchain proponents half-delivered in a way that gives traditional institutions a way to subvert the tech to their advantage. I can’t predict how that will play out in the future, though. Many, many variables.