[cloutchaser]

This is almost a political argument. Because it's the same argument about free speech.

In the end, you either believe in the individual's choice, and individuals will do really stupid and bad stuff, and they will also fall for scams, but do you give the individual freedom of choice to fall for scams and speak freely?

This is a high risk option, perhaps. But it is also likely to be most effective at delivering progress to humanity, considering the difference between innovation over the last 200 years, has it happened in places with more freedom or less?

On the other hand, you have the crowd obsessed with control, obsessed with how the idiot needs to be protected from their own stupidity, and the crowd needs to be protected from the speech of the idiot. But somehow when you control things, in the end they start being used by those in power to cement their power, and suddenly you have less freedom, less creativity, and more suffering. But it's nice for some, because everything is under control.

Make your choice which side you are on.

[nicbou]

> But it is also likely to be most effective at delivering progress to humanity

How so? So far, crypto seems to amplify its worst trait: greed. It takes its destructive properties to new levels.

> you have the crowd obsessed with control

These controls are there for a reason. Controls create trust, and trust removes friction. Creating a stable currency and protecting people's money from scammers has nothing to do with censoring speech. It's a false equivalence.

> you have less freedom, less creativity, and more suffering

You also get this in an environment where the slightest mishap can irreversibly empty your savings account.

> used by those in power to cement their power

That's a problem with capital, not the currency with which it's expressed.

[cloutchaser]

Every innovation has had this pattern of behaviour. Steam railways, dotcom bubble etc.

Part of new technology is many scammers entering it and exploiting the situation. Of course in many cases this isn't actually planned scamming, just taking risks in a new market and losing money.

What most here in this thread are basically arguing is blockchain is evil and shouldn't exist. Well, then neither should the internet or steam railways. It's shows a complete lack of understanding of human behaviour and history.

Really sad to see from the HN crowd. They are falling for the narrative built by people threatened by crypto, which is basically the people in power currently. Of course these are also the people against free speech. It's not an accident this is happening.

[nicbou]

There's nothing about railways or the dot com bubble that facilitate scams. New frontiers attract greedy people. Greedy people attract scammers.

However these eventually become regulated. Lawlessness was a bug that was progressively fixed. In the case of crypto, it's a feature.

> Of course these are also the people against free speech

Leave those strawmen alone. Be the HN user you want HN to have.

[tsimionescu]

> But it is also likely to be most effective at delivering progress to humanity, considering the difference between innovation over the last 200 years, has it happened in places with more freedom or less?

It has happened in places with just enough freedom. The Wild West wasn't exactly known for its great pace of technological innovation. On the other hand, China today is a major innovator (e.g. in solar tech), and it is a much less free country than, say, Indonesia, which is not nearly as innovative.

In particular, legislation and enforcement against fraud are extremely necessary for a functioning system. Fraud directly keeps resources away from innovators (since people who thought they were investing into/buying an innovative solution are giving money to a fraudster instead); and it also indirectly dis-incentivizes belief in innovation, as someone who has been burned by a fraudster will be less inclined to believe the next innovator.

[andrepd]

You're making the fallacy of conflating two unrelated concepts and drawing conclusions from that.

[cloutchaser]

I've laid out how they are linked. Please debate my points rather than saying it's a fallacy, which adds nothing to the conversation and is basically an ad hominem attack like this (see, I can use these debating words too!)