Listening to a recent episode of the Solarpunk Presents podcast reminded me the importance of consistently calling out cryptocurrency as a wasteful scam. The podcast hosts fail to do that, and because bad actors will continue to try to push crypto, we must condemn it with equal persistence.
Solarpunks must be skeptical of anyone saying it’s important to buy something, like a Tesla, or buy in, with cryptocurrency. Capitalists want nothing more than to co-opt radical movements, neutralizing them, to sell products.
People shilling crypto will tell you it decentralizes power. So that’s a lie, but solarpunks who believe it may be fooled into investing in this Ponzi scheme that burns more energy than some countries. Crypto will centralize power in billionaires, increasing their wealth and decreasing their accountability. That’s why Space Karen Elon Musk pushes crypto. The freer the market, the faster it devolves to monopoly. Rather than decentralizing anything, crypto would steer us toward a Bladerunner dystopia with its all-powerful Tyrell corporation.
Promoting crypto on a solarpunk podcast would be unforgivable. That’s not quite what happens on S5E1 “Let’s Talk Tech.” The hosts seem to understand crypto has no part in a solarpunk future or its prefigurative present. But they don’t come out and say that, adopting a tone of impartiality. At best, I would call this disingenuous. And it reeks of the both-sides-ism that corporate media used to paralyze climate action discourse for decades.
Crypto is not “appropriate tech,” and discussing it without any clarity is inappropriate.
Update for episode 5.3: In a case of hyper hypocrisy, they caution against accepting superficial solutions—things that appear utopian but really reinforce inequality and accelerate the climate crisis—while doing exactly that by talking up cryptocurrency.
Crypto is Fecespunk
I call it ponzipunk
This is a little confusing to me. Clearly the arguments are centered around cryptocurrencies and on that note it’s exactly right - those are a steaming pile of shit that have no place in solarpunk. But the language of this post sounds inclusive of all forms of encryption, and that’s problematic given the essential role of various forms of encryption for protecting privacy, and the security of those with little or no political power.
“Crypto” has become a common shorthand for “cryptocurrency”. Unless I’m missing something, I saw nothing in their post that references cryptographic technology as a whole.
Editing the original post as follows, in response to their latest episode.
Update for episode 5.3: In a case of hyper hypocrisy, Solarpunk Presents caution against accepting superficial solutions—things that appear utopian but really reinforce inequality and accelerate the climate crisis—while doing exactly that by talking up cryptocurrency.
Not all cryptocurrencies are the same. Sounds like you don’t quite understand their differences and just want something to rage about.
To expand on this, there are crypto such as Nano, which take very little energy and time to crunch transactions. I wouldn’t expect most people talking about crypto to be talking about that kind of coin, though. Bitcoin and Etherium are the heavy hitters, and they are incredibly wasteful.
I’m not going to get behind the finger pointing on the comment I am replying to, though :)
Bitcoin has a market cap comparable to apple. It’s not going away anytime soon. You should do your own research and not let the mainstream media establish your perception. It’s not like the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on crime, or the opioid/Xanax crisis were complete blunders by the media, right? But now, they’re opinions on a crypto asset that fundamentally threatens their status quo is not full of shit?
You’re right, some are ponzi schemes designed to burn the entire amazon and rest are ponzi schemes designed to only burn half the amazon.
Can you please explain how all cryptocoins are ponzi schemes?
They never do.
If we look at other types of investments/stores of value there is always something:
Stock -> Company
Personal loan -> Work
Gold standard currency -> Gold
Fiat currency -> Taxes *
Crypto -> ?The only way for the prices of a thing to go up is investment or the thing providing value to someone. Therefore the price of Bitcoin is either the result of speculation or the value it provides as a currency. Bitcoin is to slow and expensive for normal use and I don’t think it provides billions of dollars in value to controlled substances market.
A system of investment where the only money comes from new investment is considered a Ponzi scheme.*It can’t just be trade because all the others could work. Is it ease of trade? No, otherwise everyone would use USD. It’s the ability to pay taxes and settle legal debt in the country you are in.
Ask anyone who talks shit about crypto for anything besides a meme, and you’ll still get a meme. That’s how their perception of it was established. They probably don’t know the difference between the internet and their web browser, let alone decentralized vs centralized, or all the many reasons why the economy has gone to shit the last few decades.
But they do know memes! The same two memes that have been told since Bitcoin was priced under $10k
-
Who are you to define solarpunk? It’s fine to disallow talk of crypto in the sub but I don’t know that any individual or group has the right to define solarpunk at this point.
-
Many coins are indeed scams, and many NFTs are scams. This does not mean the underlying technology is a scam. Many scams use the dollar. Somehow we have to get from here to there, from an exploitative unsustainable capitalist world to a solarpunk world. This will almost certainly mean many years in a state of transition where money of some sort will still be needed. Crypto currencies could be a tool on the path, I don’t know but I’m not ready to throw out a whole technology because of some scams. In fact, it’s usefulness for scams might actually be a sign of it’s utility, just like cash.
-
Fiat currencies also take massive amounts of power, and they are exclusively controlled by the bad guys. Banks have racks of servers and/or use cloud services, financial exchanges also run racks of servers and build microwave towers for fast communication.
-
I know this one will sound incredulous to most, but have you considered that those with billions invested in the current system spend money to influence communities like ours and social media to make something that could be their kryptonite have a bad reputation? Isn’t odd how the anti-crypto crowd is so uneducated on the topic and yet so rabidly against it? Why would people interested in changing the balance of power not have interest in a tool that has potential there?
Maybe crypto is not strictly solarpunk but that doesn’t mean that it cannot be a useful tool in the transition away from capitalist control to solarpunk.
Those against crypto, how do you propose we get to a solarpunk world from here? What is the path? What are the tools?
Those against crypto, how do you propose we get to a solarpunk world from here?
Hold up, there’s a huge leap of logic in this question. Are you saying there is a path if only we embraced cryptocurrency? If not, then why even phrase the question that way?
My answer, then, would be “Mu”.
Are you saying there is a path if only we embraced cryptocurrency?
No, I’m saying if we actually plan on making progress, maybe use available tools and don’t let purist thought, groupthink, and propaganda take our tools from us.
OK, so we probably want to avoid crypto if we don’t want groupthink.
Why would avoiding a technology help you avoid groupthink?
You’re conflating communities full of idiots that crypto tends to attract for a technology. These are not the same.
Solar panels are technology that attracts lots of idiots and scammers (scammy companies abound if you’re not familiar), should we avoid solar panels? No, because solar technology doesn’t have anything to do directly with scammers right?
Because cryptocurrency is as much a culture as a technology. Solar panels are not.
So if a culture grew up around solar panels that you don’t like, we should avoid them and suffer the negative environmental consequences of throwing out one of our best tools to fight climate change?
Smart
Since crypto isn’t our best tool for anything, the analogy falls apart.
Keep in mind that the leftist answer to currency is quite possibly none at all.
- Anyone can define solarpunk as they wish.
- All coins are used for speculative investment, there’s very, very little practical use going on.
- What a silly thing to say. Banking servers wouldn’t use a fraction of the power mining operations do.
- Sorry mate this one is a bit kooky. Anyone who didn’t drink the koolaid can see it for the ponzi scheme it is.
Anyone can define solarpunk as they wish.
Pretty much, but it still has a general meaning. Just like the word “punk” itself. If Blink 182 said “This is punk”, Minor Threat and The Romones might have something to say.
All coins are used for speculative investment, there’s very, very little practical use going on.
This is mostly true now but doesn’t have to be. I’d say a large part of why it’s stuck is because of people’s negative attitudes towards it. Faith in a currency is critical.
What a silly thing to say. Banking servers wouldn’t use a fraction of the power mining operations do.
And you know this how? How are you measuring the electricity the modern dollar requires? What about crypto-currencies that don’t use proof-of-work and instead use a consensus algorithm like Raft?
Sorry mate this one is a bit kooky. Anyone who didn’t drink the koolaid can see it for the ponzi scheme it is.
No worries, it’s expected that heavily propagandized people view the claim they are propagandized as kooky.
Obviously, terms like solar punk are subjective, it’s a bit dramatic to claim “x is not solarpunk” but it’s equally so to declare “you have no right to define solarpunk”. Just imagine they said “x doesn’t align with my values”.
I’ll concede that crypto doesn’t have to be all speculative. IDK how to get to somewhere useful from here though and I’m not sure it’s possible really.
Consensus and PoS or PoA or whatever are not the norm. Bitcoin needs to be mined which consumes energy, fiat does not. There’s no question that crypto is wasteful. Again, maybe it’s possible to fix this with some future iteration but that doesn’t seem likely.
We are all of is “propagandised”, but that doesn’t make my assertions any less valid.
Just imagine they said “x doesn’t align with my values”.
But they didn’t, they said “X isn’t solarpunk”.
Consensus and PoS or PoA or whatever are not the norm
Ethereum is arguably coin #2 – https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pow/
heavily propagandized people view the claim they are propagandized as kooky.
you seem like a prime example of this phenomena.
likewise! :)
So you propose we move from one fiat I can hold in my hand to a different fiat that I can no longer hold in my hand. You propose we move from having bad guys we know controlling the system to change to bad guys we don’t know controlling the system (see mystery whales).
There is no viable use case for crypto that has not already been solved by other, less power hungry, means.
And if you think the big banks, venture capitalists, and private equity don’t have disproportionate influence on crypto, something is very wrong.
“Solarpunk is an art movement that depicts nature and technology in harmony, and is also a subgenre of speculative fiction, fashion, and activism. The term was coined in 2008, and aims to tackle climate change, galvanize the community, and deploy existing technologies for the greater good of people and the planet. Solarpunk aesthetics include: Renewable energy Technology that disappears into the environment Lush green communities with roof top gardens Floating villages Clean energy transport Hope-filled sci-fi tales”
I’m not saying crypto talk should be explicitly banned here, but should at least be limited to the context in which it is applicable to the topic.
So you propose we move from one fiat I can hold in my hand to a different fiat that I can no longer hold in my hand.
You don’t know what fiat means. Learn about money, and the technology behind before having such a strong opinion.
I’m not saying crypto talk should be explicitly banned here, but should at least be limited to the context in which it is applicable to the topic.
That sounds appropriate. Cryptocurrencies, when considered without the layers of misunderstanding and propaganda could be a useful tool in a transition to a more sustainable future similar to other imperfect but still at least temporarily useful technologies we might not ultimately want in a solarpunk future such as electric cars or tall buildings with trees all over them.
Sure. It’s not “Technically” a fiat currency. A government doesn’t back it’s value. But that just means it’s literally fucking worse. It’s so detached from the idea of representing anything that it is only worth something because someone believes it is. At least a gold standard is backed by something that has value. But I’m not fighting for a change to that either.
I just don’t see the point of replacing one meaningless strip of paper with a meaningless strip of 1s and 0s in the context of solarpunk futures. At the current point in our timeline, cryptocurrency has NO valid use case for which there is not already a better system out there, even if that better system isn’t the one we are currently using.
Also, fuck off. I’m entitled to my opinion, and I don’t particularly believe anyone when they say that crypto is a force for good or useful. It’s only been a way to rip people off.
it is only worth something because someone believes it is
Uh… ya… money
At least a gold standard is backed by something that has value
We don’t have a gold standard (in the U.S. or most western countries).
Also, fuck off. I’m entitled to my opinion
me too ya?
We don’t have a gold standard (in the U.S. or most western countries).
Did I fucking say you did? A gold standard. General case you myopic fuck.
it is only worth something because someone believes it is
Uh… ya… money
What the fuck are you talking about? A backed currency has value from the item it is backed by, a fiat currency has value from the government it is backed by. Crypto has value from…??? Burning GPU time? Proof of stake is better, but there’s no guarantee that it won’t just all lose value tomorrow. But, I hear you protest, so could all money? Yes, but you know, people generally have a vested interest in keeping their government running for a multitude of reasons and to that point, other countries have a vested interest in keeping other countries afloat. Crypto? Not so much.
Look. There’s nothing wrong per se with the technology itself. I just do not see it realistically being a necessary component for a solar punk future. Which was the point of the entire post.
I just do not see it realistically being a necessary component for a solar punk future. Which was the point of the entire post.
And I was asking who are you to make this decision for solarpunk, which was a major point of my response.
But I see you’re upset so no more responses.
There could be implementations of crypto that don’t consume a small country’s worth of electricity and water just to work. Even the credit card industry uses a ton of energy and also continually funnels money to a small group of people who use it to prevent the sort of change we want to see.
Decentralizing the means of exchange and store of value is, I think, a very solarpunk thing. Crypto as it’s been implemented isn’t solarpunk at all. But the idea of alternative currencies and means of exchange that are more in line with the greater good of the people is solarpunk.
I, for one, like the idea of Ricky’s hash coins.
I, for one, like the idea of Ricky’s hash coins.
Nice!
-
I’m an anarcho-communist, so the future I would like has no money in it, virtual or otherwise, but we aren’t there yet, and as long as we live under capitalism, I see no issue with making use of tools there to create parallel systems to those of the existing institution, to not only undermine them, but create a secondary system independent of the state to rely on (aka dual power).
It should be expected that capitalists would co-opt these tools, but that doesn’t make our use of them less valid (or theirs desirable).
Them turning it in to an investment doesn’t mean you do - if you’re not buying (or mining) it to accumulate it, all it is is a token that allows you (if done correctly) to move money privately and securely, without capitalists knowing who is involved nor taking a cut or involving the authorities. I’m sure you can think for yourself of reasons why this would be beneficial for anarchists and other radical and revolutionary groups and individuals around the world, and the networks they create.
I don’t know the podcast you’ve mentioned, but I agree that marketing crypto for profit definitely isn’t punk in any way shape or form, but it’s the marketing for profit part you should be taking issue with, not the tool they happen to be using to make the profit with (AI being a perfect example of another tool that can be used to either free or enslave us, dependent on who is in control, not on the tool itself).
Edit just to be clear: crypto is a big vague term that covers all manor of sins, I’m not an advocate for all or even most of it, but again - used correctly, it can be a really useful tool to have at our disposal.
“… it’s not secure, it’s not safe, it’s not reliable, it’s not trustworthy, it’s not even decentralized, it’s not anonymous, it’s helping destroy the planet. I haven’t found one positive use. For blockchain, it was nothing that couldn’t be done better without it.”
—Bruce Schneier, Bruce Schneier on the Crypto/Blockchain Disaster
Bruce Schneier, dubbed the “security guru” by The Economist, has been decrying the value of blockchain and all its offshoots for more than a decade.
lol
I don’t know. I mean, the fact that if you forget your password, you can lose your life savings and you can’t go to any court is not a benefit to it. That’s the reason why governments issue currencies (and) why wildcat banks have been illegal for 107 years
Guys never heard of backup seedphrases?
It is not just because governments are mean and want to control. It’s because it’s really good reasons. What? You don’t want individuals minting money. You can’t just toss away all those centuries of banking regulation that really know what you’re doing.
Yeah, kk.
CPM—What about smart contracts?
Schneier—The contract where you make a typo when you lose your life savings? Yeah, I hate that. That seems dumb.
CPM—I’ve wondered about it because a smart contract is, number one is legal terminology. So you can get a lawyer that can help you with the terminology.
Schneier—And if he makes a mistake, there’s no recourse.
Oh no typos will ruin your life. Pretty sure if your lawyer makes a mistake without any block chain or crypto it can still ruin your life.
This dude sounds like a mouthpiece for the banks and offers no good arguments against cryptocurrency beyond his apparent disdain for blockchain
A sane perspective… …I wasn’t really expecting that here.
Them turning it in to an investment doesn’t mean you do - if you’re not buying (or mining) it to accumulate it, all it is is a token that allows you (if done correctly) to move money privately and securely, without capitalists knowing who is involved nor taking a cut or involving the authorities.
By participating in the market you provide liquidity to it, and that’s the most important thing the ponzi scheme needs as it perpetuates the illusion of others that their coins are actually worth something. Sure, there are rare situations where someone would have a use for crypto, like fleeing an authoritarian state or so, but in the end any kind of interaction with these systems is like frequenting a business where you know it is used as a front for money-laundering by criminal enterprises.
but in the end any kind of interaction with these systems is like frequenting a business where you know it is used as a front for money-laundering by criminal enterprises.
So most large corporations and banks then…
Look, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, I made it very clear I don’t support holding on to any crypto, just using it to circumvent oppressive systems, focusing on rejecting a tool (and one that can be specifically extremely useful in enabling revolutionary movements) because you don’t like how others use it, instead of a system where any and all consumptions involves multiple levels of unethical practices, seems like completely missing the point to me. ¯\(ツ)/¯
This kind of reasoning is too reductionist. Sure every tool can be used one way or another, capitalism is bad etc. But if you have clear evidence that a tool is predominantly used for criminal activities (and I mean that in a actually ethically harmful sense, not legalistic), and the legetimite uses are basically a rounding error, then there is really no point in reasoning that way.
Edit: also, currencies are a social tool, and not like a hammer that you can use in your shed and not care about what other people use their hammers for. A currency directly derives its function from how others use it.
But maybe this disagreement also stems from the fact that I see really no way crypto currencies could in any shape or form enable “revolutionary movements”. The most benign I can think of is them being used as a tool to opt out of some societies, but that is pretty much the opposite of revolutionary.
I see really no way crypto currencies could in any shape or form enable “revolutionary movements”.
I guess theoretically, if a state was persecuting a political faction, part of neutering that movement would involve blocking access to bank accounts of anyone suspected of being involved, similar to how Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of anyone linked to the ‘Freedom Trucker Protest’ (not that I have any sympathy for that movement).
Then again, cash or gold/silver would also function in that scenario (or maybe the GNU Taler project that @[email protected] mentioned?)
According to this article, Rojava is supposedly experimenting with using crypto to avoid high fees associated with using cash in neighboring countries (unsubstantiated claim). But the article is written by a pro-crypto news site, and is clearly trying to greenwash its extreme environmental downsides:
“You need technology to spend less water, you need technology to have an equal relation with the earth, you need technology to use networks, like the blockchain. We see blockchain as a practical network in society that people use,” Serdem said.
So their claims are suspect at best.
If we’re taking about actual cryptocurrencies with fundamentally limited minting, then consider this:
The inflation we’re facing right now as a society is fundamentally due to the printing of money. Literally, this is a way for governments to take value from your existing pools of money, and redistribute that value as they see fit - not in some agreed-upon, standardized, UBI-esque kind of way, but in the ‘suck it bitch, I’m spending this for you’ kind of way.
Take the inflation rate for the last ten years. That’s the amount your savings has been reduced, and that your paycheck has been cut.
With a real, hard crypto, nobody gets to just print money, and if there is printing, it’s at a known pace. Bitcoin obviously has terrible power consumption issues, but the actual monetary aspect was superb. The miners get a reward, for running the network. Over time, the granted reward decreases, and the amount of bitcoin created decreases.
Proof of stake currencies that have a similar model are a good, solid option, because they only take the amount of power needed by any at-scale internet service. Low power usage, and governments can’t just print money.
A democratic government being able to quickly raise a lot of money for emergency relief is a feature of fiat currencies and not a bug.
The artificial scarcity that crypto-currencies enforce is (besides the obscene energy use) the worst part of them and only benefit those that hoard them.
P.s.: if your paycheck has been “cut” because of inflation, then your boss is engaging in wage theft.
It’s nice that you think that the government should be able to print money. They can make a token where they have the rights to print as much as they want, and the value will speak for itself. It’s also important to have value that is independent of that malleability, because that can be (and has massively been) abused.
The power usage of crypto is a non-issue technically speaking. There is no need to use power-hungry algorithms for crypto. But humanly, there is a lot of inertia and real value tied into existing power-hungry implementations of crypto, and that will be difficult to eradicate, precisely because of the real interest in crypto. When there’s a proof-of-stake bitcoin equivalent, though, bitcoin may wane - and illegalization of power-hungry cryptos may help in that regard.
Re: your ps: wage theft? No, not unless someone is literally paying less-than-agreed dollar amounts using inflation as an excuse. So if you’re talking literally, you’re just wrong. If you’re talking allegorically, then sure. The cost of labor has gone down massively in relation to the payment provided to ‘top tier’ jobs that simply squeeze the world for gain - and that’s some shit that will hit the fan at some point. But that’s not really related to inflation, other than the fact that unless you’re making almost double in wages what you made five or ten years ago, you’re making significantly less than you were in actual value.
What is relevant to inflation and theft is all of the bailouts. Largest thefts in history.
You are not going to solve shitty government decision by switching to crypto-currencies. All you will achieve with that is to prevent potentially good decisions in the future. Or to put it differently: crypto-currencies are deeply undemocratic.
And yes it is wage-theft in any way you can look at it because after inflation they earn (nominally) more from the same labor you put into it, but are not (nominally) paying you more. So in very real terms they are paying you less for the same labor. There is no need to beat around the bush on that one, it’s as clear as it can get.
I think you’re right, I think you seeing crypto exclusively as a tool used for “criminal activity” (who is telling you this? who decides what’s legal and why?), but not fiat money and the capitalists who benefit from it (not criminals?) is where our disagreement stems, and I can’t help you with that…
Ok here’s the thing, crypto as a concept it’s not a completely bad idea the main problem is that the entire ecosystem was kidnapped by scammers and vcs, most of projects are scams at this point and it’s extremely difficult to even talk about the concept without talking about bitcoin, which is the worst offender. But there are small projects like nano that tried to bring back the original concepts after fixing the principal flaws like mining and by extension the transaction fees, of course as you might guessed this project isn’t popular among crypto bros because there’s no profit to be made from the currency itself. I think all of this is still in it’s infancy and has potential to develop in a positive way, what it needs is to remove the idea of easy money and systems that prevent users from earning from trading, in other words remove capitalists from the equation
I’m sorry but I have to disagree on this one.
Core to the design of the public-ledger blockchain system that powers all crypto is the idea that you have to have a proof-of-work mechanism. That’s actually the big innovation that Satoshi Nakamoto brought to the table. Blockchain systems have been around forever, but blockchain in the crypto context came about because of the idea of proof-of-work. Before that you didn’t have a way of securing the public-ledger against bad actors.
Proof-of-work is a system that gives control to whoever will put in the most “work”, and work in this case is measured in computing power. That means that, by design, the system has to produce endless and unfathomable amounts of e-waste. It’s a system that rewards infinite growth and exploitation; to be the dominant power in the crypto ecosystem you have to be constantly expanding the amount of compute power at your disposal. That means endless resource extraction, for one thing. This is as fundamentally un-solarpunk as you can get. It’s also why a reward scheme is built in; there have to be incentives for providing that compute power, and payments to balance out its cost.
(By the way, all of the alternative schemes, like proof-of-storage or proof-of-stake, either have the same problem of endless resource costs, or just hand even more power to those with the most resources)
But if you take away the reward structure, all you’ve done is change the incentives, not remove them, because there’s still the reward of being able to control the system as a whole. If you own the bulk of the processing power, you get to decide what the authoritative version of the chain is. You can decide to change the rules of how transactions are processed, or just roll-back transactions entirely. Without a monetary reward, you’ve now simply handed that control to the people who already have the wealth required to simply throw at it for the sake of the control itself. Your public-ledger blockchain is now owned by Jeff Bezos. You could have a state step in and use its combined resources to prevent this from happening, but then why run it as a public-ledger system at all? It’s already publicly owned if it’s being done by the state, so just have a central bank with an authoritative database system that wastes far less energy and far fewer material resources.
Valid points all.
if you’d like a fantastic example of how Crypto is going to fuck up power supplies, just look at Texas - they can’t keep their statewide grid running, shit on their renewable strengths constantly, and cut deals with cryptochuds so they’re PAID to stop mining. SO FUCKED-UP.
Cryptocurrency is the online equivalent of the neo-Nazi bar.
You know how the story goes, with the bartender who tells the customer “you have to throw out neo-Nazis as soon as you see the uniforms or the tattoos, no matter how polite and well-behaved they are. Because if you let Nazis stay and get comfortable they’ll invite their friends, and word gets around that Nazis can drink comfortably at your bar, and customers who don’t want to drink with Nazis leave, and suddenly you have a Nazi bar”. You all remember that story?
Well, cryptocurrency in online spaces - especially futurist spaces and technological spaces - it’s a lot like that. Cryptocurrency supporters are constantly looking for opportunities to promote cryptocurrency. And they obviously see a movement like solarpunk, which talks a lot about decentralization, and mistrusts the global financial system, and so on, as fertile ground for shilling cryptocurrency.
And if you let cryptocurrency supporters hang out and talk about how awesome cryptocurrency is, they will inevitably start shilling their particular flavor of cryptocurrency. And that’s inevitably a capitalist scam and will inevitably harm anyone stupid enough to fall for it.
And the problem is not just that cryptocurrency is a capitalist scam. It’s that, if you don’t shut down cryptocurrency talk aggressively, you get more cryptocurrency supporters. Because the crypto bros see that cryptocurrency discussion is allowed, and they join in, and they invite their friends, and they start shilling their scams. And then you get crypto spammers and scam bots and the personal messages inviting you to elite investment opportunities and all the other scummy garbage that infests cryptocurrency websites. You either block cryptocurrency talk or you get a website full of crypto garbage.
In other words, cryptocurrency supporters need to be shut down as quickly and ruthlessly as any other bots and spammers. Because if you don’t you inevitably get a website full of bots and spammers.
Yeah this doesn’t seem like a great take. I think there’s severe selection bias.
I like a narrow band of crypto projects. I think the vast majority of things you hear about are scams. There’s a ton of bad actors in the space. My advice to people is just to be careful, but I don’t promote crypto because I don’t promote things that you should have a good understanding of before investing in them. I’m not in the business of risking other people’s money. I’ll talk about the tech, but usually uninterested in a specific token.
I don’t think your brand of zero tolerance will work on such a broad scale. I do think you should aggressively shut down any specifics about [token or project], but it’s not inevitable that people go towards shilling.
I was one of the top users of a crypto subreddit, and it got over run in the way you are talking about. Shills and people talking about price, etc. I wanted to have real conversations about the tech and implications. I left because it wasn’t what I wanted anymore.
There are people who can talk about those topics with the nuance required, but I agree many cannot.
Aggressive moderation? Good idea.
Zero tolerance policy? Bad idea.
Given the above you’ll retreat to “so a little Nazi-ism is OK?” - and if you can’t figure out the difference between the two and your view is that polarized, I don’t think we’ll really find any common ground here.
So everyone that talks about crypto is akin to a Nazi? Lmao
Looks like you’ve been dubbed One Of Them.
This is an emotionally charged post, yet everyone you disagree with is secretly trying to influence everyone else? How the fuck are you going to compare people who like a type of software to literal Nazis? Anyone who relies on emotional arguments like that is clearly not a rationalist.
How do you achieve communism without authoritarianism? This sub says they like decentralization, but if you decentralize based on computers, how do you stop adversaries from performing a Sybil attack? How do we establish command and control for a decentralized network, without letting authoritarians seize that command and control? How do you establish a decentralized identity system, without also establishing a decentralized system for data management and governance?
Now, should a Blockchain be that? Maybe not, I’m not trying sell whatever to you. I get being annoyed by all the advertisers, but to go an extra step to say that the principles of cypherpunk is something to compare to Nazis, is just proof you care more about emotional arguments and setting narrative.
Because the crypto bros see that cryptocurrency discussion is allowed, and they join in, and they invite their friends, and they start shilling their scams. And then you get crypto spammers and scam bots and the personal messages inviting you to elite investment opportunities and all the other scummy garbage that infests cryptocurrency websites
At this point any cryptocurrency discussion space by necessity has strict policies against promotion, people who like to talk about cryptocurrency have realized it’s generally rude and unwelcome to shill their bags outside of designated areas, and crypto scam bots don’t limit themselves to only those spaces. Not every group of people you don’t like is the equivalent of Nazis.
pedonazi instance
I totally agree solarpunk and crypto should be separate.
however just talking about power usage - chains using “proof of stake” us something like 99.9% less power than “proof of work”. Ethereum (PoS) vs (Bitcoin) PoW power usage for example
Doesn’t really matter in this context, since anything above 0% is wasteful for something as completely unnecessary as crypto.
PoS doesn’t use any more electricity than it takes to write to a hard drive, which is minimal, and its also not a “race” in the same way PoW is for solving an increasingly difficult problem.
Proof of stake also rewards the biggest holders of the currency with the biggest payouts. It’s an inherently regressive system designed to give more to the haves at the expense of the have nots.
Cryptocurrency is just fossil fascism disguising itself as anarcho capitalism. Anyone who took one good-faith look into crypto and didn’t instantly become a communist as a direct result is full of shit.
What is fossil fascism and how does it apply here?
TIL
https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/fossil-fuelled-fascism-and-the-lessons-for-the-greens/
TL;DR modern fascists have ditched the progress/science cult of yesteryear and now engage in performative anti-environmentalism.
I don’t think it’s the best name though. It makes me think of either applying fascism historically or a reference to the specific fascist movements of the 30’s as differentiated from modern inbreds, but, on the other hand, I can’t do better.
Gas fash? Crudeolinis?
Crudeolinis 😂. That’s a fun one.
Yeah, I’ve worked on a wind farm that powered a Bitcoin mine built right next door, and another one that powered an oil refinery. Both felt pretty messed up.
Crypto can’t be printed out of thin air which is what the billionaires hate.
hard forks your crypto
trades it back and forth with my friend to balloon it
dumps it on you
he he nothing personnel kid
Can’t it? Is there any restriction on someone minting a brand new coin and trying to convince people it’s worth money?
You can draw a $5 sign on a piece of paper as well. doesn’t make it a real dollar.
Printing Bitcoin, Ethereum or Monero just isn’t possible.
No, but printing things that trade for them is.
This is, in fact, shockingly common in the crypto space.
Step 1: Create a new ERC-20 token. Call it Dickcoin or whatever.
Step 2: Sell a hundred of them to yourself (using different wallets) a few times to establish a trade price.
Step 3: Trade your Dickcoins for ETH or BTC at the newly established rate (if need be, you might have to trade for some more well established alt-coins first, then trade those up to the big boy coins). Alternatively, just use the billions of dollars worth of coins you note own as collateral to take out loans in other cryptos, then default on the loan and let the worthless collateral get seized. Thanks to DAOs running as automated banks powered by smart contracts this is hilariously easy to do because the tiny piece of code will automatically approve the loan at instant speed without ever checking with a human.
None of this is hypothetical. It’s been done an absolutely ridiculous number of times.
Doing wasteful math, shitting out an answer, and getting a fucking Bitcoin for it sure sounds like that.
If you can convince someone a piece of paper with a 5 dollar sign on it is worth value, then it is.
Oh wait, you invented checks.
All money is fiat. Nothing has inherent value.
All money is fiat. Nothing has inherent value.
Actually I’m going to disagree on that one. Fundamental value is actually an important concept when talking about money, and understanding why both backed and fiat currencies do actually have fundamental value is key to understanding why crypto doesn’t, and why that matters.
See, the key here is that any currency can possess fundamental value if there is something that only that currency can buy. Fairground tickets can actually have a form of meaningful value, because they’re the only thing the fairground will accept in return for that teddy bear you really want. Within the realms of the fairground, those tickets are a currency, just one with no exchange rate, and a very very limited definition of fundamental value. This is how Bitcoin briefly attained fundamental value; for a while it was the only good way to get drugs and hitmen.
More importantly, this is why every fiat currency (to my knowledge) still has some form of fundamental value; there is one particular service that you can only pay for with US dollars in the US, Canadian dollars in Canada, pound sterling in the UK, and so on… Taxes.
Every country wants you to pay their taxes in their issued currency. Which means there will always be some value to owning that currency, because even if you don’t need it, it’s basically guaranteed that someone else will. It doesn’t matter how many people suddenly decide that the US dollar is just a meaningless number on a meaningless piece of paper, because once every year a few hundred million people still have to come up with a whole bunch of those pieces of paper.
So you mean, it has value because we believe it does. Got it. Inherent to the properties of the universe, nothing has value. Value is assigned by humans. Isn’t that why countries have credit ratings? How much faith the world has in your currency, stability and otherwise? If a government collapses or suffers the country through hyperinflation, is the value of the currency not imaginary? It’s not like you could collect on your Confederate Promissory Notes for any gold or anything of any value after the civil war. The existence of its value was contingent on winning a war. And instantaneously, that value evaporated. Now imagine this in crypto. Oh wait, that happens all the time. Just one little X class solar flair away from nuking the lot of it.
Idk. I agree with a lot of your points. But I think we are just arguing from different existential points of view. I’m not saying that the belief isn’t valuable, that the backed or fiat currency is wrong or superior or whatever. I’m just of the mindset generally that nothing has meaning other than what we choose to give meaning. But that’s just the optimistic nihilist in me.
Also there may have been a misunderstanding at some point about a distinction between value and usefulness. When I say value, I mean intrinsic worth. As opposed to how I would use usefulness which is to serve a purpose or fill a need.
Actually they can. Tether is basically running an endless printing press right now. They’ve produced billions of dollars “worth” of Tether backed by absolutely nothing, and most of it is used being used to bid up the notional value of Bitcoin.
Stable coins are inherently pointless as theyre tied to an unstable currency. Why would I want my coin to depreciate with inflation?
And yet, the entire crypto economy relies on them.
That is a gross exaggeration. I don’t like tether either for the same reasons listed above but this is such a non nuanced response. We’ve seen price crashes from other stable coins eventual collapse, and other coins have still recovered to a market cap greater than the previous all time high. Your statement is literally, historically verified to be false
Because other stablecoins were able to fill that void. As you yourself noted, even one stablecoin collapsing was enough to trigger a total meltdown in the crypto space for years. And Terra-Luna didn’t have anything like the market dominance that Tether has. If stablecoins as a whole went away, any institutional interest in crypto would go with them (and that’s without getting into the fact that the price “recovery” is almost entirely down to Tether printing money and using it to buy up the price of Bitcoin, which drags every other crypto coin with it, because the market is very tightly corellated).
The recent crash was less volatile than previous crashes, and lasted half as long. There were also more factors than just the stable coin crash, there was also the FTX scandal, and silicon valley bank collapse which had ripple effects in the economy.
Still though, the resulting crash was half as long and not as severe as previous crashes.
I’m not saying you’re wrong about stable coins, but saying the entire crypto economy depends on that, while BlackRock has pushed the SEC to allow for Spot ETFs, is an exaggeration.
I’m not even going to say this is a morally good thing. I hate BlackRock because they are the mainstream/institution. But that level of support shouldnt be taken lightly
while BlackRock has pushed the SEC to allow for Spot ETFs
This is the part you’re missing; institutional investors like Blackrock are only willing to be involved in the crypto space because stablecoins exist. Moving real dollars into and out of crypto is a messy and unpleasant business that big firms want as little to do with as possible. Stablecoins give them a way of buffering those transactions without exposing themselves to additional risk. If you take away stablecoins, you no longer have stuff like Blackrock pushing for bitcoin ETFs.
???
Real world money gets into and out of crypto via stablecoins. They basically underpin the entire notion of crypto as an investment. Without them, none of the apparent dollar value in the space would exist.
Obviously, if you’re a true believer in the ideology then none of that matters; 1 bitcoin is 1 bitcoin. But since actual use of crypto as currency is effectively non-existent, for now the only thing that could be meaningfully called a crypto economy is investment.
Tether isn’t what most people consider crypto.
This is annoying in its inaccuracy. Crypto is a variegated set of technologies that are competing with each other.
Bitcoin, ethereum, etc all use proof of work, which is ridiculously energy-intensive, and not required for crypto to function.
…but there are lots of other cryptocurrencies out there that don’t use proof of work, and are no more energy-intensive than any other typical internet service.
It’s hard enough to get people on board with social movements that directly help them and have no downsides; you’re going to have a hard time promulgating a financial system that undermines the wealth of the people who dominate the standard financial system, especially when the more wealth you’ve accumulated (in the standard system) is directly proportional to your ability to spread propaganda to support your wealth.
There are better, more winnable, battles to fight than the global financial system.
While i agree that a victory there would be huge, part of the reason it would be so huge is because of how very, very unwinnable it is.
That said, if you’re super stuck on finance as the issue you want you be involved with, imo, the best thing you can do is communicate the questions – the problems with contemporary finance, of which there are so very many – and don’t waste your time offering solutions.
(Even if we had a solution that could work, it would surely be obsolete by the time it could be meaningfully implemented. Cryptos of all kinds, at this point, can only provide their benefits to people with disposable wealth, who can afford to take the risk, and those are exactly the people who don’t need you to fight for their interests. Or anyone – but you’re not anyone, you are you; your energy is finite, spend it where it can help the people who need it most.)
I appreciate your well-considered response.
I have a lot of things in involved with in life, and to varying degrees. Crypto is by no means my absolute focus.
However, crypto is immensely useful, and no amount of wishing it away or saying ‘the time hasn’t come’ for it will be effective. It has a niche, and will occupy that niche successfully, without any big battles to fight.
It also is flexible, and new uses will come around, paralleling the existing ones.
My own uses for it are primarily in DAOs, which are really neat and useful, for me. There are plenty of other uses, but voting and traceable structure and organizational finance as exist in some DAOs really is a major one.
