hackingforfun

> no disrespect but i know plenty of liberals who will not get the vaccine.

Anecdotally, the liberals I know seem much more open to the science behind the COVID vaccine and I don't know any of them who didn't get the shot.

> the reason why blockchain (primary crypto) technology took last year was because of the censorship issues.

Not sure I understand your point here. I think crypto is being adopted for other reasons considering that the most popular cryptos are pseudo-anonymous anyway. Is it because you think crypto can't be shut down? That is a larger discussion and I would say Bitcoin and Ethereum are less likely to be shut down, at least by the US (since in general it seems like they aren't considered to be securities), but I don't think we can expect that of the entire crypto ecosystem.

In general though, I'm not sure what your main point is. Are you saying that both sides of US politicians are at fault here? If so, I don't disagree.

However, I also think the post you were responding to was pointing out that conservative politicians carry some of the blame here and have been pushing these agendas for their own power play, which I'd also agree with.

I still think the pandemic should be managed. I agree the world could've done better at the start, but I don't think that nothing should be done now. Just my opinion.

Just so I understand, the one thing about flip flopping on masks cost them to lose faith in all medical experts? Doesn't that seem a little unreasonable? I agree we shouldn't have flip flopped on masks, but I don't think making a whole narrative out of that makes sense.

> Yet sick Chinese people were free to spread over the world for months with no response except down-playing it.

> When politicians knowingly lie to everyone's faces and take harmful actions against the people, pushing toward a more authoritarian society at every opportunity, how can you have any trust and not wonder about conspiracies?

Wouldn't pushing toward a more authoritarian society been not allowing sick Chinese people to travel?

Do you think it would have been OK to implement restrictions at the start of the pandemic, just not now?

Coinbase may have the highest volume in the US, however, there are several other viable US exchanges: Kraken, Gemini, Binance US and FTX US.

USDT has more supported trading pairs and liquidity, particularly for crypto exchanges in Asia. It just seems more popular there for whatever reason.

If I had to choose USDC or USDT though, I'd rather hold funds in USDC. In general I'm not much of a fan of stablecoins though, but I do acknowledge the quick, 24/7 transfers they offer is interesting, as well as the high APRs for lending them. However, I'd still rather just hold fiat vs stablecoins. I find other cryptos to be much more compelling.

Personally, I don't think I'll ever need to hide crypto from the government and I pay my taxes. However, I figure that it could be regular thieves with guns, too. I get that this thread was going in the direction of government, but I think people with guns can be pretty general. What I think is cool is that technology like this has never existed. Banks were the only way to have this level of security. You don't get that with physical gold or physical cash. How do people not see how innovative this is? It's a way to store money outside of the traditional financial system, just like gold, except it's much harder to seize, much easier to transfer, is much more divisible, etc. You can literally store a million dollars in your head by memorizing a 12 word mnemonic seed, or hand a million dollars to someone via a paper or hardware wallet. How do people not think that is cool?

Lightning network transactions occur in seconds, if not milliseconds [1].

https://lightning.network/

Trezor [1] and Ledger [2] are both hardware wallets that can have a passphrase which would generate any number of wallets, each derived from the user's private key, but each generating a different public key. If someone has say 20 different passphrases, how would the people with guns know which wallet they are getting? There can be wallets without the entirety of funds stored in them, i.e. give away some to save the rest, and the people with guns think they got it all.

Even not considering passphrases, anytime you set up a crypto wallet there is a 12 or 24 word mnemonic seed which could be memorized and not written down anywhere, and which could be used to restore a wallet at a later time. So, how exactly does seizing work in this case?

[1] https://wiki.trezor.io/Passphrase

[2] https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005214529-Ad...

It sounds like BK channels interact with NMDA receptors, which are glutamate receptors. Glutamate is an excitatory neurotransmitter. My understanding is that inhibiting glutamate is partly what makes alcohol relaxing (the other is it's interaction with GABA). Bodies have an amazing way of keeping themselves in equilibrium and when someone is introducing alcohol into their system on a regular basis, I figured that the body regulates this by increasing levels of glutamate (although maybe also via downregulating GABA receptors), so that the person stays awake even with higher doses of alcohol. I do think that this can lead to someone having a higher "tolerance". I also think that's what contributes to what some people call hangxiety, i.e. there's still extra glutamate floating around that wouldn't otherwise be there.

However, an enlarged liver helping someone process alcohol better sounds bizarre to me. I thought a liver being able to process alcohol faster was due to increased enzymes since the body again is trying to balance itself and is dealing with what is being introduced by upping certain enzymes, whereas in a non-drinker, those enzymes wouldn't be at elevated levels.

I agree. I intentionally don't hold stablecoins. As I mentioned I'd rather hold actual cash. One nice thing about stablecoins is they can be transferred around the world 24/7, and there are various high APRs for lending out stablecoins (not without risk, of course, there's nothing like FDIC insurance on those). Anyway, I'm surprised how much trust the crypto community puts in Tether.

Bitcoin is already valuable to someone, maybe not you, but someone (in fact, quite a lot of people). Many of the people that consider that Bitcoin has value don't care about gold at all, some do, some don't. By the way, these same people that don't care about gold also could give a shit less that gold can be made into jewelry (or anything else). Like you said, something has value because it's valuable to someone. I think what people need to accept is that Bitcoin, right now, is valuable to a lot of people. If the internet crashed, there's going to be much bigger problems, including accessing and transferring fiat currency. What people like about Bitcoin is that you can't print more of it without forking it, or creating your own new crypto with different rules (in contrast to potentially infinite printing and borrowing of USD). To create a viable alternative to Bitcoin (via fork or otherwise), you have to market and create the same level of trust, and convince everyone who trusts Bitcoin now to switch over.

I don't think you can sell traditional investments like stocks in seconds unless it is within designated trading hours. Crypto you can trade 24/7, although fiat wires out to traditional bank accounts still operate within certain hours (at least in the US, maybe this is different elsewhere). I still hold a small amount of my portfolio in USD, even considering inflation, but this is because it's less volatile than crypto, and I think holding actual cash is better than holding a stablecoin.

China vs crypto has been going on since 2013 [1]. Open source, decentralized crypto is a direct competitor to China's CBDC, which they have already developed and are trying to distribute [2]. Of course China would want to squash all competition. Jerome Powell from the Federal Reserve said in a video from 9/30/21 that he has no intention to ban crypto like China did, although it sounds like stablecoins may be regulated [3]. Jerome Powell has also said that the US is considering a CBDC [4]. The SEC has also already said in 2018 that Bitcoin and Ethereum are not securities [5]. The current head of the SEC, Gary Gensler, taught a course on blockchain for several years at MIT, and here is a set of his videos [6]. How do you think this technology is going to be completely banned, or that everyone will forget about it and it will totally go away? The seeds are already planted, and as I said, there's no nipping this in the bud now.

[1] https://www.btctimes.com/news/chinas-history-of-bitcoin-bans

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/02/china-digital-currency-beiji...

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-09-30/powell-says...

[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/22/the-fed-is-evaluating-whethe...

[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not...

[6] https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-s1...

There is no nipping this in the bud. That's the point. It's already too late.

I think Angular is still pretty popular as well? I receive almost as many job listings for Angular as I do for React.

I love this idea! But there's no way politicians are going to vote for it. This points to part of the problem, that politicians are first and foremost for themselves, not for their people.

Each individual can have a unique identifier that is not linked to their identity. It could be a public key that they generate from their private key. We'd have to figure out the details of how that would work exactly, i.e. making sure people cannot vote twice, but that's possible to figure out.

I don't think there's any way to do this without giving trust to some central entity without a public blockchain. The public blockchain does become the source of trust, but you need a resource (like energy), that is finite, to secure that network.

However, going back to your original comment, you said we are assuming a zero carbon footprint, so that would assume some future where this trust could be put on a network in a way that would be environmentally sustainable. All I'm saying is that there are more possibilities to this technology than I think you are acknowledging.

Let's say, hypothetically, that voting for the president was done on a public blockchain, that anyone can audit, and there were cryptographic guarantees that the people voting are who they say they are. Does that not make that voting system more accountable? In this case I think transparency does lead to accountability.

> Only reason people jump on cryptocurrencies is their pyramid scheme type nature, get in first or lose out.

Or they see benefits in the technology?

> People want to spend currencies, why would you ever spend bitcoin when it's designed to always increase in value?

It's possible some of the other cryptos are more suited for currencies. Bitcoin may be more of a store of value like gold, or maybe it's volatility will decrease over time and it would be more suited for a currency. Right now we don't know, but I'm not going to write off the whole sector due to that.

> Governments are their citizens, they're just people we picked. If you hate the people that are running, there's a built in solution, get someone better to run. That's the fundamental part of democracy, anyone can run for office.

I think the normal citizen is so far removed at this point. At least in the US, it's essentially a two party system, and they are both rather full of shit. I still vote though, because why not? But I don't think the system is working well.

> Why is a central control over money supply bad? Lets you attempt to control the boom/bust cycle.

I hold USD. I'd like for it to stay valuable. I have a government that seems to value equities more, and wants people to spend their USD. They print and borrow money like there's no tomorrow. I think this is a bad option, and I'd like there to be alternatives.

Anyone can create a crypto now and it could become a predominant one, if it provides enough benefits or has the right marketing. To me that's the difference. It's essentially technology, that iterates, and the market decides.

Public blockchains have way more transparency than existing systems. Please provide an example of an existing democracy you consider to be more transparent, i.e. every single action that is made is public.

> Fundamentally it's the antithesis to democracy.

No one is forced to use crypto. No one is forced to mine it. No one is forced to use it at all. Is this not democratic? The users choose whether they want to use it, miners choose whether to mine it, and the "lack of accountability" you suggest, I just don't agree with at all.

Crypto removes the need for government fiat. There is no need for a central authority any more over money supply. If you don't like it, fork it, or create a new crypto, and market it. See if it catches on. The democracy of the people will decide whether to use it or not.

Some cryptos also have voting / governance rights, so the users can democratically vote on protocols, directly. In comparison, if I want a law to change at the federal level in the US, first of all there has to be a bill created in support of it (which I have almost zero control over), and then I can call my senator and ask that they support that bill. At that point they can choose to listen or not. I assume they will just do whatever is in their interest to stay in power and support their friends in government that supported them before, not to mention the lobbyists. Even my vote for president in the US in the end is decided by the electoral college, not by the popular vote. How is all of that democratic?

I understand the energy concerns with crypto, but since you are figuring in a zero carbon footprint, I disagree and think you completely miss the benefits that crypto offers over existing systems.

In the end, time will tell and I think there's almost no way that blockchain and crypto won't play a major part in future economies and governance.

I agree about THC being a symptom reliever. I myself don't care much for CBD, although I have heard it works for some people. Anyway, I'm just not sure I'd put cannabis in the same class as alcohol, tobacco and coffee, in terms of psychosis risk, although I don't think that cannabis should be federally illegal though either.

I disagree, especially considering high THC strains. In general, coffee, tobacco and alcohol are milder. People can do stupid stuff after having too much alcohol, but I'm not sure I would consider that psychosis. Having too much THC can make someone feel a bit crazy (or maybe a lot crazy). It can even be somewhat psychedelic at higher doses, so there's just some variability there. The thing is that THC can also make people feel pretty relaxed, so they wouldn't necessarily want to go out and do something stupid, but I'm just saying that it isn't a guarantee. I think there is some risk, at least for acute episodes, and I personally don't think it's just FUD.

I consider Joe Rogan a right wing host, and I had heard he was telling people about ivermectin. I didn't know that originally people heard it from Eric Weinstein on his show, although I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes. Aren't all right wing / conservative hosts or media pretty much saying the same things in terms of COVID, anyway?

I do think people also form their opinions of the COVID vaccine on real information. I personally consulted someone I know who has a PhD in Molecular Biology to gather more information on the mRNA vaccines.

I agree that the collective opinion on HN seems to be that crypto is pretty much only used for illegitimate use. I think it's great to see a government official directly challenging that assumption.

I'm not saying they do work. I just appreciated the reference and thought it was interesting to read through. I am pro-vaccine and think that is the most effective course of action. Anyway, thanks for the link to your other post.

I appreciate your answer and agree that in general it's good to keep safe in any we can, including the things you mentioned. I also agree that the discussion is quite polarized, however, at this point I tend to think the vaccine benefits outweigh the cons.

I'm wondering, at what point, if ever, would you decide that the COVID vaccines are safe / worth it? Honest question.

Also, as someone else mentioned here [1], isn't natural immunity plus vaccine-induced immunity considered even better than natural immunity alone? I haven't fact checked this but they said that was also found from one of the Israel studies. Based on this, wouldn't it still make sense to get the vaccine?

You also mentioned the media. Isn't it possible that conservative media is also manipulating the truth for their narrative? 90% of Fox News staff is vaccinated and yet they still cast doubt on the vaccine [2]. Also, Tucker Carlson won't say if he's been vaccinated or not [3], yet he's one of the big proponents telling people not to get vaccinated. I hear this criticism that the media is spreading misinformation, but it seems like if that's the case, we should consider that it could be happening on both sides.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28617742

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/15/fox-news-vacci...

[3] https://www.thedailybeast.com/cnn-host-alisyn-camerota-calls...

Interesting, thanks.