trutannus

> seems way easier than just deciding to solve it with crypto

Yeah, I don't disagree that crypto won't fix this. I just disagreed that it was "easy". I took them as being literal.

I thought it was a fair summary, but I can also see how someone would arrive at your conclusion. I read it as minimizing, but you make a fair point.

You dilute the meaning of the word at that point. Weapons are specific tools that are used with intent to cause harm. If something happens to cause harm without intent, and you define it as a weapon, the word becomes useless.

> You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy.

This is the one I'm specifically discussing, its from a different user. This is the line that started the thread. Plenty of users are discussing this specific line I believe.

> When you deliberate misquote someone

Yeah, I'm done with this. I told you my objective was to summarize, you have decided I'm maliciously twisting someone's words. I'm not. I've told you as much. My misuse of quotation marks isn't proof in the pudding. I've explained multiple times, to you no less, my point but you've ignored it and have actually strawmanned it yourself. This is what you're doing right now actually by accusing me of random things.

I suggest you look into the "principal of charity". Its fine to disagree, but being hostile and accusatory isn't.

Read these while you're at it: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> That's a pretty American, libertarian take.

I'm not American. This take tends to come out of countries where the government has strayed away from its objective of serving the people. There are plenty of governments I'd trust, and not hold a libertarian view towards. Funny enough, most of these are European governments, so your point is well taken. That said, using the state to solve this problem isn't universally going to work. I bet Nordic nations could pull it off, if they've not already.

In short: if the government doesn't work for the people, and is structurally broken, I hold a libertarian perspective. If I see a government that works for the people, I lean neoliberal.

The initial discussion started with someone saying something to the effect of "just change the law, easy". To me, that reads as "just use the government, it'll be fine". Perhaps it's just me, but that sounds a lot like blind trust in an institute.

I definitely think laws can do what you say. But I think that's not always what happens. What I object to is really more specifically how the gist is "change the laws, its an easy fix". Anyone who spectates government (odd phrase, I know) will understand that this is very much not an easy fix.

> You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy.

Here is the "just pass a law" line. I've summarized a line that makes this exact point. I see no straw-men here. Can you point out where I make a straw-man? Genuinely interested in why you see this as creating a straw-man in my summary. I fail to see how else you can interpret other than 'just pass a law'.

Sotheby's is already selling them. That to me indicates they're here to stay, for better or for worse.

Right, but you're taking my comment out of context here. The point I'm making is that dismissing Crypto for this reason makes little sense.

I'd agree that a rotten shark in a tank has more substance to it than an NFT. Shame it's in embalming fluid. You could eat it if you fall on hard times otherwise.

I'm not sure how the advice of "just pass a law" is anything other than blind trust. If you didn't think I was advocating crypto, then what purpose does:

> And crypto isn't dominated by the wealthy and being used to serve their ends? Open your eyes my friend

serve? Why would you mention something completely unrelated to their point, then tell them to open their eyes? To me it sounds like you're retroactively recasting your argument.

Did I say that? I explicitly say in multiple places that I'm not advocating for crypto, just asking people to not put the blind trust into their government "just passing a law".

It always baffles me why someone can't say "I'm opposed to X" without another person coming along and saying "that means you're in favor of Y". Don't respond to what you think I said, respond to what I actually said.

That's how I think we should!

Not suggesting we replace the banking, just pointing out how this path you suggest is still not going to be an easy fix. There's no easy fix. Again, not advocating for crypto as a solution. Just asking people to consider more deeply the issues of saying "use the government to solve it!".

> It's not only being used by the corruption, it is itself rotten. And neither does some of it look nice on walls.

So is the contemporary art world. The contemporary art world is vastly polluting as well. How much GHG do you think is generated to run a museum, or warehouse, transport aircraft, ect, filled with bad contemporary art?

> On the other hand, what would the world look like without democratic governments

Nobody here is advocating against democracy. People are just pointing out that blind trust in state institutions is equally as illogical as blind trust in the EVM. States have a track record of serving the powerful first, and sometimes exclusively. Trusting apparatus with a track record like this masks a sort of flawed optimism, just like putting your hopes of change in the blockchain.

> x is better than the alternative y. I don't know what y is.

They didn't propose replacing democracy.

I'm not advocating for crypto. I'm advocating against blind trust in the government to "pass a law" and fix it.

Except that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is:

1. Bad laws got us into this place

2. There's a lot of inertia in government

3. There's a lot of stake holders in government who don't have citizen's interests at heart

4. It's illogical to think you can, in light of this, just pass a law and fix it.

Yeah, we designed the law, and we know how it works. Sadly, we know also that the way it works is generally not how it should, and it has been co-opted often for the powerful.

> Our current method of "fixing" failures of the state involves layering more and more legislation and regulation on top of the broken legislation and regulation.

The UK is the perfect example. Hundreds of years of out-dated laws layered on top of each other to the point where nobody can tell what is law and what is a joke.

I'm not advocating crypto here, I'm just pointing out that saying crypto is bad because you can "just pass a law" is just as illogical as saying "internet blockchain money will give us freedom".

> There are no hall monitors here, and there's also no magic wand.

Right, and saying "just pass a law" is asking the hall monitors to wave a wand.

> Because artists haven't generally backed themselves [into a] very unhealthy social scene of greed and deception

Except they absolutely have. The contemporary art market is exactly what you describe. There's sharks sitting in tanks of embalming fluid being sold for tens of millions of dollars just to be put in storage, and people laundering their money in art investment schemes. The contemporary art market is absolutely an unhealthy social scene of greed and deception.

You have to accept though that just saying "ah, the government will fix it" when historically governments have been a major contributor to wealth inequality, is somewhat glib. There's a reason NGOs and private charity exist.

I think this approach is just as wrong as saying "crypto is the answer".

Right, anyone can generate NFTs though. How does this differ from saying something like "the artist who called an empty room art is the jumping the shark moment, now I'm advocating against art at every turn"?

Use the state to fix failures of the state? There's a weird cyclic optimism here that I don't think can really be supported by the facts. After all, those who write a law can just as easily add addendum to that law, or remove it all together. Even with equal banking laws, there's always going to be an individual who the state deems as less equal than others. That's just how it's always been.

Its bizarre that this is such an unpopular idea, when if posted in a thread about anything other than crypto, it'd likely not be scoffed at this hard.

I've got to say, I love how responsive you are. Its clear you want to make your product better, it's really great.

Makes sense, sometimes I find weird UX friction comes when you needed a feature, and didn't plan it in initially.

For the memeish stuff, it was under the example personas. While its fine to include some of these (ie: FIRE, looking for part-time), it'd be nice to have some examples for the middle of the road. A lot of what you mention isn't even on the mind of a lot of early career folks.

Something like "young professional, focused on building financial stability" or "trying to create more disposable income". Something that would have the same mass appeal as "has a defined-benefit pension, planning for standard retirement age" does to the older demographic.