Comment by nonrandomstring | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonrandomstring | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nonrandomstring

Everything you say is very reasonable until:

> No one is being forced to adopt a system just because it is now possible to do it on a blockchain, and we do not need to destroy the current systems if they work well - or at least if they work better than any alternative. There will be even plenty of cases where the status quo is totally fine.

which is probably true in reality, but still something I'd like to challenge.

Every technology that ends up being totalitarian/expansive starts out with "Nobody is being forced to....". I am sure when automobiles first appeared it seemed obvious that "nobody is being forced to drive them", and yet the other day a poster here was absolutely indignant with me for suggesting it might be possible not to have one.

I read hundreds if student essays that literally begin with the line:

"Today, life without the internet would be impossible."

You're right, many (maybe most) technologies do reach a healthy balance with alternatives and legacy systems. But certain "infrastructural" technologies tend to expand aggressively. I think money systems are among them, at least if the number of times I have heard someone say "cashless society seems inevitable" is any guide.

(Though often, when one hears these little maxims repeated verbatim, over and over and over, I come to suspect they are not the authentic views of the speakers, but propaganda injected into public discourse.)

> "cashless society seems inevitable" is any guide.

If anything, if you (like me) would like to avoid a cashless society the you have yet another reason to be in favor of decentralized technologies.

"Cashless Society" is just Newspeak for "Total Economic Surveillance". It implies a world where corporations and governments alike have full visibility over what everyone else is doing. Blockchain-based systems already provide an alternative (Monero) where privacy is respected. In a world where Governments and Corporations can conspire to eliminate cash and extend their reach even more over our liberties, I think we should at least try to support an alternative.

I agree with you. The anonymity and casual fluidity preserving aspects of digital currencies are the reasons I support them enough not to be "anti-crypto". My objections are primarily on ecological grounds with respect to proof of work. I have other views on a "crypto-web-3.0", but that's a different story.

That's just students repeating cliches. Most kids are trying to write what they think the grading authority will reward.

One can live a pure cash no internet life even in SF.

One can win the lottery, but we shouldn't base anything on the assumption that we will or that it's likely.

At some point being technically possible no longer matters since you have to go so out of your way to do it that virtually no one will do it.

Such expressions as the students use are warranted when that point is reached.

I’m not sure how one would secure stable housing or employment without a bank account, email address, etc., but if you mean “physically survive on scavenged and gifted food and water, and sleep outdoors or in temporary shelter,” then…sure, I guess?

Currently live in stable housing via Venmo but cash in an envelope would do the trick. Don't need email.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com