[jstanley]

A lot of your answers come down to "we've already decided how our world will be and your ideas aren't welcome". The cryptocurrency community is saying exactly the same thing: we've decided how our world will be and your ideas aren't welcome.

[wdewind]

No, you're misunderstanding. My argument is based on Conway's Law: The technology will reflect the politics. If you want to change this building technology that enables it is not a prerequisite. Go change the legislation, then the systems that follow that legislation would naturally emerge.

To go back to the accredited investor example: we don't need cryptocurrency to enable companies to raise money from a wide variety of sources. It's not even close to the best solution if that's your goal.

What's frustrating to me is watching people built technology without knowing anything about economics and thinking that they've built new economic ideas, when in fact they are extremely late to the conversation and don't have a real sense of what the state of the art is, nor the important moving parts are.

[jstanley]

The technology does reflect the politics [of this group of people], but the government does not.

You're just not acknowledging the existence of people with political views different to your own.

[wdewind]

> The technology does reflect the politics [of this group of people], but the government does not.

Right, that's what I'm saying. The technology will yield to the government, not vice versa, so if you want this technology to take off you will need to change the political foundations upon which it lays. This isn't an argument about what should be, this is a description of what is.

> You're just not acknowledging the existence of people with political views different to your own.

Sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the differences coming out of the cryptocurrency community are extremely sophomoric and reflect people who have thought deeply about technology and almost not at all about the political or economic systems in which this technology exists. It's not a matter of having a different opinion, it's a matter of not being able to contribute to the conversation because the crypto community doesn't even know what it doesn't know.

[jstanley]

> not being able to contribute to the conversation

You still think you are the one who gets to decide what the conversation is.

My point is that lots of different groups of people are having lots of different conversations. Just because the group of people you hang out with don't like cryptocurrency doesn't mean other groups of people can't or won't use cryptocurrency.

And there is nothing you can do to stop them. The genie is out of the bottle.

> if you want this technology to take off

It has already taken off. Millions of people around the world already use it. It is working just fine.

[wdewind]

Dude, I'm not here to shut down the revolution, I'm trying to explain what a real revolution entails. It's absolutely not running software on a bunch of hardware and networks you don't own. The people having the "real conversation" at the "real table of power" don't give a single shit about crypto and they never will because it is in no way a real threat to the existing economic power structure.

The "group of people I hang out with" you're referring to is actually the Federal Government of the United States, and it's not one that I'm particularly fond of, but they are who is in charge. As I mentioned in another post, the US government could easily shut down the effective use of every crypto currency inside of the United States. They have the legal and physical ability to do that today.

There is very little evidence that the crypto community understands the systems they are so eager to destroy and rebuild (often with worse solutions, that have already been tried and failed, to the same problems). This doesn't mean the current banking system does not have faults, but those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.