I get that it’s very nice during a revolution or something like that, but there are also massive downsides and to me it looks like it mostly benefits criminals and people taking advantage of others.
Trump has made a fortune on his shit-coin, it’s a great way for people to get around regulations and hide things they usually wouldn’t get away with.
I’m open to have my opinion changed, it’s just what it looks like to me
I’m not going to directly argue with that, since I don’t have more than a personal guess about if the world needs more technologies of control, or less.
I will point out that that stance leads to a lot of conclusions Lemmy wouldn’t like. Or at least seems like it could. For example, isn’t mass surveillance actually good because it can stop crime? And maybe computer hardware should all be locked down and accessible only with a licence.
Yea I get that argument, and thought Lemmy might feel Crypto = Good (because fuck the system)
I think as with everything it’s not black and white and and needs to be studied properly.
Mass surveillance would stop crime sure, but the price you pay for that is privacy and a concentration of power which will likely be abused. Meaning it’s not worth the price/risk.
What benefits has crypto given us? and are they worth the metric shit-ton of electricity that it uses along with all the crime and dodgy dealings it facilitates?
Stopping crime is concentration of power - even defining what it is is a function of some kind of center. All technology can really do is shift the opportunity for evil from one end of the power spectrum to the other. And breaking off from Lemmy’s typical jerk a bit, I’ll venture that too far to either end is bad, and that the problem of not enough central control was widespread in the distant past.
Anyway, you’re asking what crypto has already done, but then you’re talking about what surveillance might, and I think that’s the main/only thing I can fault. Since the electricity is an easily surmountable technical issue, I’d ask we set it aside for a moment. (Basically if we’re pretending we can make crypto disappear let’s also pretend we can rewrite the code)
I don’t understand the point you were trying to make in the message I responded to.
I fail to see the benefit Crypto brings us.
It gives us some desensitisation, but we already have that, I can open bank accounts in different counties, even have secret bank accounts etc.
I get that it’s very nice during a revolution or something like that, but there are also massive downsides and to me it looks like it mostly benefits criminals and people taking advantage of others.
Trump has made a fortune on his shit-coin, it’s a great way for people to get around regulations and hide things they usually wouldn’t get away with.
I’m open to have my opinion changed, it’s just what it looks like to me
I’m not going to directly argue with that, since I don’t have more than a personal guess about if the world needs more technologies of control, or less.
I will point out that that stance leads to a lot of conclusions Lemmy wouldn’t like. Or at least seems like it could. For example, isn’t mass surveillance actually good because it can stop crime? And maybe computer hardware should all be locked down and accessible only with a licence.
Yea I get that argument, and thought Lemmy might feel Crypto = Good (because fuck the system)
I think as with everything it’s not black and white and and needs to be studied properly.
Mass surveillance would stop crime sure, but the price you pay for that is privacy and a concentration of power which will likely be abused. Meaning it’s not worth the price/risk.
What benefits has crypto given us? and are they worth the metric shit-ton of electricity that it uses along with all the crime and dodgy dealings it facilitates?
Stopping crime is concentration of power - even defining what it is is a function of some kind of center. All technology can really do is shift the opportunity for evil from one end of the power spectrum to the other. And breaking off from Lemmy’s typical jerk a bit, I’ll venture that too far to either end is bad, and that the problem of not enough central control was widespread in the distant past.
Anyway, you’re asking what crypto has already done, but then you’re talking about what surveillance might, and I think that’s the main/only thing I can fault. Since the electricity is an easily surmountable technical issue, I’d ask we set it aside for a moment. (Basically if we’re pretending we can make crypto disappear let’s also pretend we can rewrite the code)
So do we just not stop crime?
We need some concentration of power as long as there are checks and balances to keep them in place.
The police in the Netherlands have a concentration of power. But they can’t abuse that power because other powers keep them in place.
You want a separation of powers holding each other accountable.
No concentration of power is just anarchy
Did you read all the way through? I think I made that exact point, although in less detail.
I don’t understand the point you were trying to make in the message I responded to.
I fail to see the benefit Crypto brings us. It gives us some desensitisation, but we already have that, I can open bank accounts in different counties, even have secret bank accounts etc.
I get that the internet is for fighting, but can’t I just point out the pros and cons of both sides? That’s what I was going for.