[beaconstudios]

Well, it's pretty simple really - I'm not a big fan of financialisation. I think it's done some pretty serious harm to the world - even many libertarians, simple minded though they may be, have the good sense to point out that wall street is bad. Now I don't really blame you personally for day trading or buying gold as a store of value or whatever, but it isn't helping your argument that bitcoin is doing anything good if it is literally just "wall street but with massive energy costs, less regulation, and full of even more scammers and financially illiterate".

[notch656a]

Well what is your solution for the common man TODAY then, to do in the meantime before all your dreams of a more equitable or reasonable society come true? You don't seem to like wall street so stocks are out. You've bashed precious metals as not being a net positive. Crypto is out because it makes it makes smoky the bear cry. Dollars have reached a ~7% inflation on CPI and even worst inflation against assets. Most bond yields aren't even reaching inflation rate. Just what the hell am I supposed to do? When will you stop thinking of me as a sinner for doing something, anything, to keep some safety for the wellbeing of my family? Would you think better of me if I shorted USD by taking out a loan and over-extending the hell out of myself to buy property instead? (Nope, can't do that last one because that's financialization.)

Are you gonna be there to personally bail out my whole family if we lose our jobs? Can you withstand that burden? Maybe that makes me evil. At least I don't stay awake at night wondering if I can buy more diapers and milk if I get axed at work tomorrow.

>Well, it's pretty simple really - I'm not a big fan of financialisation.

How do you see as buying precious metals with proceeds of labor being financialization? Do you think the $0.02 financial service cost from the transaction as really being larger than the financial cost of if I had went to the bank and got a big pile of cash, or if I had used a credit card? No, the "financialization" has lessened. The wikipedia article I read states it's a period where debt-to-equity ratios increase and financial services account for increasing share of national income. Explain how buying precious metals without debt is financialization. I can't even get a loan against personal custody of precious metals, if anything it _decreases_ my access to "financialization."

>bitcoin is doing anything good if it is literally just "wall street but with massive energy costs, less regulation, and full of even more scammers and financially illiterate".

I don't think that's the advantage of bitcoin, even if you describe it that way. The advantage of bitcoin is decentralization and lack of centralized trust -- packaged into electronic form.

[beaconstudios]

Once again, I don't blame you at all for engaging in investment or speculation or whatever. I'm not concerned with individual action, I'm concerned with the systems that drive those actions. If bitcoin didn't exist you'd presumably be doing something else to feed your family, so the question in my mind is this:

- what real world utility is realised by the introduction of a new system?

- what real world cost is realised?

- how does it shape people's behaviour?

Note that none of these is a criticism of the individuals engaging with the system. It's about the impact of the system itself. Now from where I stand this is how bitcoin plays out:

- negative utility: high electricity and CO2 cost

- negative utility: labour does not provide material benefit (financialised)

- negative behaviour: increased cultural propagation of scamming, speculation and other results of financialisation

- mixed behaviour: cultural hub of libertarianism

- mixed utility: provides a space for unregulated financial transactions. Negative: scams, blackmail, other financial crimes. Positive: paying financially isolated and unbanked people. Mixed: purchase of contraband.

Which is to say, the ratio of positive to negative, especially weighting the impact of increased CO2 emissions (which is a potentially existential threat in the medium term and a mere catastrophic threat in the short term), is pretty shockingly bad.

[notch656a]

While your qualitative descriptions of utility and assessments I mostly find roughly accurate (pure opinion on both our part, and I will nitpick and say it's great when benefit-to-labor ratio is high), the quantitative balance is subjecive opinion. You've simply analyzed and decided the ratio is poor. I've looked at it and find the opinion the ratio is excellent. But it's true crypto doesn't care either way and is exceedingly difficult to squash. Ultimately I think it is on the power producers and consumers to achieve how to eliminate externality associated with electricity use; playing whack-a-mole with whatever people use their electricity on (AI, crypto, video games, whatever) is just patching the issue.

And thus brings us to the reason why crypto is an ever popular debate on HN. At the end of the day even if you find crypto morally bad, there's no universal shock to the conscious for using crypto like there would be for murder/rape/theft. Some see crypto as sinner and other see it as saint. You seem to acknowledge a little of everything but weigh different factors differently than others. At the end of the day given the impossibility of banning crypto and the number of people on both sides, I just don't see it going away without a superior replacement filling the spot. For me this is a great thing, but for many it's going to be a point of contention and outrage for a long time. I will go one respecting the choice for some not to use it and hopefully others will peacefully implore us to stop if they find it wrong, but I think it's going to take violence and an oppressive enforcement mechanism to force me and many others to stop. Good luck.

[beaconstudios]

I'm more lamenting crypto's existence than waving the guards over to come shoot people. I don't see how bitcoin can at all be a positive thing on a systemic level when it's primary purpose is financial speculation and scamming (neither of which are materially productive) and its primary cost is massive amounts of CO2. Of course it can be individually beneficial - mass murders are financially beneficial to funeral directors, but I don't think they're good in the general sense. And that's basically how I see crypto advocates - advocating for something immoral because it benefits them financially. Which is about all I expect from libertarians, to be fair.

[notch656a]

>I don't see how bitcoin can at all be a positive thing on a systemic level when it's primary purpose is financial speculation and scamming

I understand this is all opinion on both sides. I would add this opnion risks overlooking, say, Argentinian free-lancers who are paid in crypto because the system surrounding them makes it untenable to use conventional banking. Or the jewler buying precious metals with litecoin to avoid credit card fees. Escaping a failed economic system like refugees in Venezuela receiving crypto remittance definitely seems like a systemic improvement for them.

I guess you could call using it for transaction to buy precious metal speculative, but even in that system the actual crypto transaction isn't speculative as it merely acts as a unit of trade to buy an underlying "speculative" investment (personally I don't consider PMs speculative investment but rather store of value that I don't desire the volatility to appreciate or depreciate.)

>its primary cost is massive amounts of CO2

So you hate electricity? Join the Amish.

>mass murders are financially beneficial to funeral directors

But this isn't true. The people killed have to die sometime, their death is assured to the funeral directors. Them living longer just means they're more likely to reproduce and generate a new human who in turn dies someday. Funeral directors are worse off by mass murder. I think this excellent allegory points out your economic short-sightedness. Funeral directors want people to live highly reproductive lives, not short lives.

> Of course it can be individually beneficial - mass murders

Now we have entered clown world where mass murder is the example given. How many mass murders actually happened specifically and only because of the existance of crypto? The only example even close I'm aware of is Ross Ulbricht's alleged murder plot that was never even prosecuted thus we have no idea if it was true.

>advocating for something immoral because it benefits them financially

So basically anyone advocating for using dollars? I see crypto like a hammer, it's a tool that can be used morally, immorraly, or merely in a morally neutral fashion.

>Which is about all I expect from libertarians, to be fair.

Is this supposed to be some sort of ad-hominem attack?

>Which is about all I expect from libertarians

I have a hard time making sweeping generalizations about morality based on one's political choice.

[beaconstudios]

> I would add this opnion risks overlooking, say, Argentinian free-lancers who are paid in crypto because the system surrounding them makes it untenable to use conventional banking. Or the jewler buying precious metals with litecoin to avoid credit card fees.

I did include the unbanked and productive manufacturing (which you neglected to mention until now - are you a jeweler?) in examples of positive use, in my utility list. But you have to assess a technology based on its overall effect.

> So you hate electricity? Join the Amish.

Totally specious.

> Funeral directors want people to live highly reproductive lives, not short lives.

This is overly reductive. Clearly a short term boost in business is a financial boon for funeral directors, as it would be for any business.

> How many mass murders actually happened specifically and only because of the existance of crypto?

Uh, what? Maybe I should just give up trying to explain my point to you if a simple analogy is beyond your comprehension.

> I see crypto like a hammer, it's a tool that can be used morally, immorraly, or merely in a morally neutral fashion.

You can look at actual use to determine the effect of something. Not many people are using F15s for anything else but killing people, so it's fair to call weapons of war broadly immoral.

> Is this supposed to be some sort of ad-hominem attack?

"greed is good" and "unregulated capitalism is the ideal" are libertarian tenets, so yes, I think it's fair to say that they're selfishly self interested. So you consider yourself a libertarian?

> I have a hard time making sweeping generalizations about morality based on one's political choice.

Given that politics is an expression of values, I really don't. If somebody were to say "I don't like Jews and that's why I'm a nazi" (this is an argument from absurdity, BTW) I could reasonably call them a bad person. They also wouldn't need to say the first part because its implicit in the identification. Libertarianism is fundamentally about "fuck you got mine", which I find to be immoral.