eric_cc

> has led to a consensus

Do you have a source or some proof for this statement?

Consider financially responsible people in their 50’s and 60’s that have had decades to save. There are plenty of “regular”, middle class people with this type of savings in their account.

I just don’t understand this attitude. It’s 250k. We’re not talking about all that much money. Why do you think people with 250k should have extra knowledge or access to special advisers?

> People depositing above that limit are generally not working from the same limitations and lack of information that regular people are.

250k is not that much money. What a weird statement.

Call me crazy, but i downvoted it because I don’t enjoy it. It’s not the type of content I’m here for and I don’t feel like it adds anything by being posted.

Do you think this way: A thread of people dunking on Musk is so cool! Calling people crazies (implying that you are not crazy, only they are!) is so fantastic!

> I can appreciate that there are a large number of people who will come to a billionaires defence

In this context, does it matter what his net worth is? Are you implying it’s not possible that people defend him for his positions alone?

Both him and Halli come off bad in this exchange, in my opinion. Not sure why money is a deciding factor to you.

> disputing the idea that there is such a thing as "HN groupthink".

There 100% is HN groupthink. Any doubts about it should have been erased by observing HN’s position on bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

> How do you moderate at this scale without bots and contractors?

How about: you don’t. It’s not up to twitter moderation to determine what is fact in real-time.

I would not compare euthanasia and abortion.

Euthanasia is a choice you make governing your own life.

Abortion is a choice you make governing another being’s life.

As for suicide and guns - I’ve never heard this one before. There are plenty of options for suicide that don’t involve guns.

I understand regarding the jet account. Here are the sources I was using for my comment:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603587970832793600

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603181423787380737

Here he is claiming that his pinpoint location was shared and that the rule in place is against sharing real-time location data.

> Are you sure Elon will continue to agree with you on who/what to censor in the future?

I am 100% sure that I WON’T agree and that Twitter is inherently flawed pre-Elon and post-Elon.

The only point I was making is that within the context of this flawed system, given a rule is broken, it should not matter who the rule breaker is. “Silence opponents” narrative is only true if the people being silenced are being treated unequally. If they are, then the narrative is true.

Elon ran for political office?

Rules for them but not for me.

So if I was hired to post your real-time location and disparage your reputation daily, it would be okay? As long as I have the proper job title?

That idea failed. Such teams will always be corrupt. Trust and Safety teams might as well be named what they are: Ideological Control teams.

> It's interesting that many are debating the value of this 'rule', when this action is blatant abuse of his powers to silence his critics.

I think it’s you that’s missing the point here. It’s only abuse of power if the rule against doxxing is invalid. So it does come down to the rule and whether or not doxxing is acceptable. If we decide that doxxing is acceptable and posting anybody’s real-time location data is acceptable (without their consent), then he is abusing powers. If that is your conclusion, then you don’t have the right to complain should it happen to you. If you believe the opposite, that doxxing is unacceptable, then the rule should apply equally to everybody. Critics and journalists do not get a free pass to break the rules.

> nytimes

Point proven.

> people like Musk and SBF

What a ridiculous take. It’s also very telling of where you get your information. Orange Man Bad has transitioned to Elon Bad.

It’s a common occurrence. No luck needed.

This is a very dishonest or ignorant response. Good luck sending somebody shells or gold to make a payment. And good luck with shell inflation. And good luck with every store needing to be able to test that gold is real, store it in vaults, etc

What technology is better at being money than bitcoin? Paper dollar?

What is corrupt about bitcoin, exactly?

You’re confusing things. Centralized exchanges like FTX are acting as asset custodians in the same way as a bank, or a stock broker. FTX is not a cryptocurrency.

Crypto users that espouse freedom from government are usually talking about being able to use crypto, on chain, without government interference. They don’t want to be taxed for using bitcoin as a currency, be able to use decentralized services without complex regulations and tax laws, etc. etc

I’ve never heard the case made that asset custodians should be able to steal assets from their customers regardless of the underlying asset.

> I find you not only misinformed but possibly intentionally trying to mislead people.

This. Brand new account spreading blatant lies.

> Nothing fundamental has changed about blockchains that could ever prevent this from happening

DeFi

As others have pointed out, this is completely wrong in literally every way possible.

> Nobody actually has any custody of anything in crypto.

This is insanely wrong and it’s unreal things like this are being said in 2022.

DeFi Example: Take your self-custody bitcoin to Thorswap and exchange it for Ethereum. Pure defi. No trust needed. Total self-custody cross chain trading.

> There are very few truly innocent victims here.

Are you suggesting FTX customers deserved this?

> On a third hand, the loved one of a politician was severely injured because of someone who believes the incorrect speech of influential figures and I desperately do not want further injury or violence to occur spurned by incorrect speech on the facts of reality.

Oooh you really lost me here. It feels like you’ve fallen hook line and sinker for the news emotional storyline.

Deranged individuals exist regardless of current rhetoric. Never give up free speech in an attempt to cure society of deranged individuals. It won’t work.

Also, “the facts of reality”. You believe this exists in the political realm?

This is just not true. The host serves data to a client which can do what it wants with it.

The client can interpret the data from the website however it wants regardless of the intention of the website.

A website, for example, can use tags that a client doesn’t comply with.

The client is and always has been opinionated. It does not and never has had to obey the websites intentions.

It sounds like your chief concerns are around transacting on and storing all your money on a layer 1. It would be very similar to walking around with your life savings in cash in a briefcase. But just like cash has banks, custodians, and settlement layers so can (for example) bitcoin.

If all services sitting on top of bitcoin were equal to the USD (settlement, fraud protection, PayPal/Venmo, etcetc) then you’d really need to compare the “tokenomics” of the currencies. With bitcoin, you have complete predictability in terms of when new bitcoins are created (inflation). With USD it’s purely up to the government.

Cost of pizza is an example of buying power of bitcoin which is not the same as its monetary policy. I can not argue that the buying power has been volatile thus far.

I do suspect it will trend toward stability on a decades timeline.