Hacker News Reader

Comment by idiotsecant | Hacker News Reader

That doesn't particularly address the point. Say the government decides that they don't like the political party you're supporting, or maybe you've been doing something they consider morally unclean like gambling or consuming pg-13 media. Let's say the government decides that your payments can no longer use the payment infrastructure. Now imagine it's effectively the only practical payment method.

It's a permissioned system.

Crypto is intended to be fundamentally different. Good crypto is permissionless. If you own it, you can spend it, regardless of what anyone thinks.

View on HN

Then they can also decide you can't have a license to drive a car, that you can't fly, that you can't own a home, that you can't pass a background check, that you can't have a social security number, that you owe an exorbitant amount of tax, that you should be in jail, that your immigration status is revoked because you wrote a news article they don't let, etc etc etc

Your government already has a monopoly on violence and owns your whole life.

The answer to 'bad things exist' is not 'therefore nothing can ever be better'. You fix things 1 step at a time. Removing the hand of the state from the levers and dials of the value transfer system is a good thing.

Those things exist because we want them to. You call it bad that there's a government that decides I own my house and nobody else can take it. I call that a good thing. The government can already freeze your bank account with no problem, they don't need Brazil's system to do it.

>If you own it, you can spend it, regardless of what anyone thinks.

Which is also its primary drawback.

Transactions are non-reversable, which inherently makes it unsafe for wide-scale use. Consumer protection is so important, clawing back payments is an incredibly important part of that.

Wrong copy-paste and all my money could just be gone forever? Yeah no, that's never going to fly in countries where consumer protection is seen as an important public good and always expected.

What you tout as a plus, is a major negative for the vast majority of people in developed democratic countries. In quite a few of them, access to a bank account is even a fundamental right.

And all that just because of some abstract fear? nty.

Transactions are non-reversible in the same way cash is. Are you equally worried about me paying rent in cash? Buying a hamburger with cash? It's not a big deal, and mostly a UX issue as argent and others have shown.

I like the idea of my money being my money and not just mine as long as my government isn't annoyed with me. I don't much care if other people are afraid of it. That's a great thing about crypto. You are free not to participate, unlike the corpo-fiat systems.

And with a digital system like Pix at least you can definitively prove you did pay, unlike with cash, unless you take extra steps when paying.

How do you propose to get money into and out of crypto in this world where your government doesn't want you to pay for anything? Or we just assume everyone starts as a crypto millionaire in this example?

The same way we get value into fiat currency. By exchanging it for goods and services?

So you will find employment with someone who also has trouble with the government? Why would they pay you in crypto? In this hypothetical world where the government doesn't want you to pay for things, and crypto exists, why aren't they also going after your crypto and employment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com