Comment by smsm42 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smsm42 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 1. The world could use an online independent currency

Maybe, but "Facebook" and "independent" hardly go together.

> Unlike government issued currencies, any monopoly or control facebook derives isn't done through force

True, but the measure of control average person has over facebook is also close to zero. With government, you at least have courts, elections, Constitution finally... it is usually hard to go against the government, but it is possible and at least the presumption is that the government is there to the benefit and by the consent of the people (it's not very useful for a random citizen but at least that's the principle which can have some useful consequences sometimes). Facebook is there for whoever owns Facebook, and has zero obligations to anybody else. It could completely block you any time it wants to for any reason it wants to, could deny you use of any of its resources with no explanation needed and no recourse possible, it could change its policies any time with zero concern for your interests, etc.

> I just wish there could be a deeper exploration of both the pros and cons.

What are the pros of specifically this Facebook proposition that can not be achieved without Facebook being in the picture?

> It could completely block you any time it wants to for any reason it wants to

As opposed to what banks did in Cyprus in 2013 when they seized the money on the savings account of their own customers and basically stopped people from withdrawing their money from their own bank accounts?

And said customers had no recourse at all against the banks helping themselves to their money?

In theory, the recourse is that the people can exert power over the banks by electing different politicians. Obviously, sometimes that doesn't work as well as we'd like, but there's not even such a possibility of recourse when Facebook fucks you over.

>In theory, the recourse is that the people can exert power over the banks by electing different politicians.

Ah, but there's the rub. When every major political party is beholden to banking interests, "electing different politicians" is an almost-insurmountable task. And even so, is no guarantee that a new set of politicians won't eventually become corrupt and beholden to those interests either.

If "electing different politicians" is an insurmountable task, then developing an alternative, trustless financial system beyond the control of politicians becomes much more feasible by comparison. Hence the motivation behind great-great grandparent's comment about the need for an online independent currency. The context of 2008 and things like the TARP bailouts are very important to understanding the entire thought movement behind cryptocurrency as a whole. Hence, the hidden message encoded on the very first Bitcoin block [0]:

>The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

[0]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block#Coinbase

Not really... The move was forced on Cyprus by the EU, which controls the currency. Essentially the same as Facebook controlling the currency.

Agree. A world currency in the hands of a few corporations is arguably worse than any government issued fiat. It will be more efficient and pervasive in both good and bad ways. [Edit: spelling]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com