Crypto-incrementalism vs Crypto-anarchy
What is crypto-incrementalism and crypto-anarchy? This article is a fantastic read on that.
I would like to clarify that I realize that I quite identify myself following crypto-anarchy, and that quite affects the way that I think, the topics that I write and how I approach them. I actually think that a lot of people would be quite pleased and agreeable to crypto-incrementalism, especially the "we like blockchain, but not Bitcoin" crowd. Heh.
When I first learnt about crypto back in 2013, it was almost exclusively about crypto-anarchy - decentralized, uncensorable crypto that cannot comply to authoritarian requests. Bitcoin.
As much as I was intrigued by crypto then, it looked like a dead end to me. Little did I know that the protocol evolves and upgrades and changes along with its community, developers and users. Just a while later, Ethereum would be "born".
In mid 2017, I was allured back into crypto, NOT by the improvements made to the Bitcoin protocol, but instead by the world of opportunity and use cases that I was imagining Ethereum could be solving. I did not see Ethereum as a means to liberate monetary policy from governments, but instead I saw it as very cutting edge technology that has the potential to disrupt, improve and cannibalize on existing industries and business models. I didn't know it then, but Ethereum made me a crypto-incrementalist.
I started branching out into lots of altcoins (shitcoins) during the crypto bull market. I invested in some really long-shot ideas because everything was seemingly rainbows and unicorns back then - even terrible ideas made money.
However, it wasn't long before I realized that there are A LOT of shitcoins. Like. A lot. A lotttt. A shit ton of them.
It has been quite a mental journey for me, but I've pretty much greatly narrowed my wide field of vision to zoom in only a handful (I can literally count them with my hands) of projects that I not only think would be good investments, but is furthering a mission that I can get behind. That's my take on tokens, over here.
So, while I was introduced to CA, what drew me in is actually CI, but now I find myself learning more towards the CA side of things.
My anarchist way of thinking on some projects are almost caveman-like, at times.
NEO? Centralized Chinese shitcoin with 7 nodes.
EOS? Centralized Western shitcoin with 21 nodes.
BCH? Centralized Chinese BTC clone shitcoin
IOTA? Centralized IoT shitcoin with 1 coordinator
ADA? 100 nodes? Centralized shitcoin.
LTC? 250 nodes? Shitcoin tier number of nodes.
95% of ETH tokens? Centralized shit tokens that serve no function, other than friction as payment.
Coincidentally (or maybe not), one of things that I observe that has me leaning towards anarchist blockchains is that they will thrive if they are able to exploit something that an authoritarian entity would like to oppose.
BTC - exploits money transferring laws
ETH - exploits fundraising and security issuing laws
Unless you can do something illegal with it, imo, you're almost always better with a centralized structure. Cheaper and faster.
I use this an extreme thought experiment: If someone develops a completely private and trustless way to store, transfer and sell data / information, it would be one of the most safe and private way to store private or corporate private information and access it anywhere in the world without anyone knowing who is accessing and what data they are retrieving. But the flip side here is that it would also unlock a way for illegal pornography or pirated content to be stored and distributed without people being able to stop it.
And that is what scares a lot of people. I actually know of people who are in crypto, but want the best of both worlds. Hunny, you need to make a trade-off, ain't nothing is perfect. We want great money, but we don't want terrorists to use it. We want great encryption, but we don't want criminals to have the same access. We want a pseudo-anonymous, 24/7, low-friction value transfer network, but we don't want money laundering happening on it. We want a world computer that can be programmed to do pretty much anything, but we don't want some people to be able to do somethings. Do you see the problem here? Where do you draw the line, and who draws the line? THE GOVERNMENT? LOL. And that's why I find myself in the anarchist camp over and over again. Ain't nothing wrong with being an incrementalist, but I suppose it's the difference in trade-off selection that divides the two.
So, while I do understand that blockchain is definitely a great data structure, it is tough in most situations to justify having a PUBLIC blockchain that issues CRYPTOCURRENCY to incentivize the correct behaviour of participants.
And that personal belief has lead to me to be biased against that projects that are not crypto-anarchistic. I think they will either fail as an investment, or fail to survive as a public blockchain because of lack of proper incentives.
Perhaps my stance might swing around again in the future, but I find myself identifying quite well with being a crypto-anarchist.
If anarchy isn't what we are here for, then what is it? Reduce fraud and errors so that bankers make more money, so that governments have more control and surveillance? I see so many people walking around with so many contradictions in the things that they hold onto.
Anyway, if that's the future we are heading towards, then that's not something that I would like to bankroll and invest with my own money to expedite progress in.
I'll just be in my lonely corner holding all my anarchist crypto. On the bright side - you'll never be able to seize them from me, no matter how worthless they become. Heh.
I would like to clarify that I realize that I quite identify myself following crypto-anarchy, and that quite affects the way that I think, the topics that I write and how I approach them. I actually think that a lot of people would be quite pleased and agreeable to crypto-incrementalism, especially the "we like blockchain, but not Bitcoin" crowd. Heh.
When I first learnt about crypto back in 2013, it was almost exclusively about crypto-anarchy - decentralized, uncensorable crypto that cannot comply to authoritarian requests. Bitcoin.
As much as I was intrigued by crypto then, it looked like a dead end to me. Little did I know that the protocol evolves and upgrades and changes along with its community, developers and users. Just a while later, Ethereum would be "born".
In mid 2017, I was allured back into crypto, NOT by the improvements made to the Bitcoin protocol, but instead by the world of opportunity and use cases that I was imagining Ethereum could be solving. I did not see Ethereum as a means to liberate monetary policy from governments, but instead I saw it as very cutting edge technology that has the potential to disrupt, improve and cannibalize on existing industries and business models. I didn't know it then, but Ethereum made me a crypto-incrementalist.
I started branching out into lots of altcoins (shitcoins) during the crypto bull market. I invested in some really long-shot ideas because everything was seemingly rainbows and unicorns back then - even terrible ideas made money.
However, it wasn't long before I realized that there are A LOT of shitcoins. Like. A lot. A lotttt. A shit ton of them.
It has been quite a mental journey for me, but I've pretty much greatly narrowed my wide field of vision to zoom in only a handful (I can literally count them with my hands) of projects that I not only think would be good investments, but is furthering a mission that I can get behind. That's my take on tokens, over here.
So, while I was introduced to CA, what drew me in is actually CI, but now I find myself learning more towards the CA side of things.
My anarchist way of thinking on some projects are almost caveman-like, at times.
NEO? Centralized Chinese shitcoin with 7 nodes.
EOS? Centralized Western shitcoin with 21 nodes.
BCH? Centralized Chinese BTC clone shitcoin
IOTA? Centralized IoT shitcoin with 1 coordinator
ADA? 100 nodes? Centralized shitcoin.
LTC? 250 nodes? Shitcoin tier number of nodes.
95% of ETH tokens? Centralized shit tokens that serve no function, other than friction as payment.
Coincidentally (or maybe not), one of things that I observe that has me leaning towards anarchist blockchains is that they will thrive if they are able to exploit something that an authoritarian entity would like to oppose.
BTC - exploits money transferring laws
ETH - exploits fundraising and security issuing laws
Unless you can do something illegal with it, imo, you're almost always better with a centralized structure. Cheaper and faster.
I use this an extreme thought experiment: If someone develops a completely private and trustless way to store, transfer and sell data / information, it would be one of the most safe and private way to store private or corporate private information and access it anywhere in the world without anyone knowing who is accessing and what data they are retrieving. But the flip side here is that it would also unlock a way for illegal pornography or pirated content to be stored and distributed without people being able to stop it.
And that is what scares a lot of people. I actually know of people who are in crypto, but want the best of both worlds. Hunny, you need to make a trade-off, ain't nothing is perfect. We want great money, but we don't want terrorists to use it. We want great encryption, but we don't want criminals to have the same access. We want a pseudo-anonymous, 24/7, low-friction value transfer network, but we don't want money laundering happening on it. We want a world computer that can be programmed to do pretty much anything, but we don't want some people to be able to do somethings. Do you see the problem here? Where do you draw the line, and who draws the line? THE GOVERNMENT? LOL. And that's why I find myself in the anarchist camp over and over again. Ain't nothing wrong with being an incrementalist, but I suppose it's the difference in trade-off selection that divides the two.
So, while I do understand that blockchain is definitely a great data structure, it is tough in most situations to justify having a PUBLIC blockchain that issues CRYPTOCURRENCY to incentivize the correct behaviour of participants.
And that personal belief has lead to me to be biased against that projects that are not crypto-anarchistic. I think they will either fail as an investment, or fail to survive as a public blockchain because of lack of proper incentives.
Perhaps my stance might swing around again in the future, but I find myself identifying quite well with being a crypto-anarchist.
If anarchy isn't what we are here for, then what is it? Reduce fraud and errors so that bankers make more money, so that governments have more control and surveillance? I see so many people walking around with so many contradictions in the things that they hold onto.
Anyway, if that's the future we are heading towards, then that's not something that I would like to bankroll and invest with my own money to expedite progress in.
I'll just be in my lonely corner holding all my anarchist crypto. On the bright side - you'll never be able to seize them from me, no matter how worthless they become. Heh.
Comments
Post a Comment