_jjkk

Be careful not to over-generalize from personal experience... Maybe you've just met a few examples of lethargic, dependent narcissists who smoke a lot of weed?

There is selection bias at play, as someone with an admitted negative perception of stoners you probably haven't put yourself in many situations where you might meet counterexamples.

In my experience, I've met many stoners whose driving force is empathy and compassion and not narcissism and apathy.

Anyway, keep in mind any substance abuse is often an amplifier of issues that already existed.

> they may be contributing very little to society (or maybe a lot), but regardless there's a sense of superiority

A sober individual's brain is operating on standard (often societally installed) reward mechanism, including "succeeding" on certain self-evaluated measures like "contributions to society"

It's commonly said that weed makes you "OK with being bored". i.e. standard reward mechanisms mentioned above don't really matter much when you're high.

It has nothing to do with narcissism or sense of superiority as you call it, just that their reward mechanism doesn't include things like "how much am I contributing to society". Apathy is a better word for it.

There are still many barriers to that "first class" status, taxes are mentioned most often.

Taxes are paid in fiat. Holding non-stablecoins would add even more of a tax headache because you'd have to track capital gain/loss as you enter/exit fiat for taxes / fees / vendors that don't accept crypto

Also the fact that general adoption has been slow so far may be a sign that there is not enough obvious value added for the average person to consider using crypto over fiat.

An investment is not a donation to your idea or cause.

If you "need money to make it big" you can bootstrap, take donations, or look for investors.

It's easier to raise investment than donations, because an investor expects a return in an economic/probabalistic sense(not hopes for a return)

You can't have your cake and eat it too though; once you accept investment you can't cry foul when they don't sit back and act like a donor.

Sure, it makes sense from an "imagine a world where..." perspective. Sounds convenient.

I'm looking at it from a "why would any government on Earth choose to use a 'decentralized' blockchain as a source of truth to keep track of property deeds in their jurisdictions" perspective.

It is yet to be proven if it is "as secure" because no PoS network has operated at scale.

It also certainly defeats much of the original purpose of decentralization when a few stakeholders have total control of the network because they hold the most coins...

Regardless if the network has "correct incentives" or not, things can happen to those stakeholders outside their control, or other incentives could easily develop to act in bad faith against the network.

A deed? You mean, a legal document which is enforced through a centralized power i.e. government....

What advantage is gained by tying it one-to-one with an NFT or storing it on a blockchain at all?

I'm not sure what you mean about "understanding" crypto, the concepts here are dead simple, there's not much to misunderstand.

In this scenario it doesn't matter that you can transfer some coins from a DEX to your "hard wallet". If you haven't registered your hard wallet's address with the government and linked it to your identity, you will be unable to use those coins for anything other than trading with other unverified wallets.

If you want to exchange the coins in your hard wallet for any valuable or material good whatsoever, without disclosing your actual identity to the government, you'd have to find someone willing to do so illegally i.e. a black market.

And the receiver of your "dirty" bitcoin, which is verifiably dirty because the transaction came from your (unverified) wallet, would then have to solve the same problem of laundering the BTC if he wanted to use it to pay for his costs / employees / etc.

And if we're talking about a large economic power, I'm not sure how banning crypto and making its transactions more difficult would help anyone; if anything it would negatively impact that crypto since it is less usable as a medium of exchange.

It may seem outlandish that a government would even go to these lengths, but I'd argue that wielding a centralized currency is too powerful for governments to give it up without a fight.

Some believe this is an intentional Ponzi scheme to print some money for the owners of Tether and Bitfinex, others believe they had good intentions at first, but through bad investment or otherwise got underwater, and started "investing" their USDT-backing dollars to claw back up.

Bitfinex originally denied relation to Tether but it's been proven that was a lie.

The worry is, at some point there could be a "run" on Tether, when the curtains are pulled back, where all the USDT-BTC traders who happen to have USDT holdings and they suddenly become worthless because nobody wants to trade USDT-BTC anymore at 1-1.

As long as "public confidence" in USDT continues, the charade will too

1. Bitfinex processes a USD deposit and dispenses USDT

2. USDT holder purchases BTC with it

3. Bitfinex purchases crypto (mostly BTC) with the USD, instead of holding it as promised

Thus the original USD of the person buying BTC at the exchange has effectively double the buying pressure on the BTC market because Bitfinex is actively investing all their USD holdings that "back" Tether into the market as well.

The point is, a government can make it illegal to sell goods for crypto. As well as making it illegal to transact crypto anonymously. So unless you find some black market for all your material goods, you will be FORCED to "exit" some of your crypto into fiat at some point. It is at this point that the design of BTC in particular makes it impossible to hide this "exit", because a government can easily surveil the blockchain and keep track of "verified" coins / addresses.

Any time a transaction is spotted between a registered and unregistered address, just send a friendly police van to the address on file and seize the registered wallet. Rinse and repeat until unregistered wallets can virtually only transact between each other.

Whether or not it's a DEX doesn't matter at all.

In this hypothetical world of regulation which has made some BTC "tainted" through surveillance, it will always be in the BTC receiver's best interest to verify the coins are "clean". Only a fool (or fellow criminal) would transact with tainted coins; most people would probably not use a DEX, or else use one which verified clean coins anyway without being regulated to do so.

I agree completely.

I hate how different reading C++0x and C++17 is. I hate reading a "C++ style guide" for a new project.

I already feel that pretty soon, "Python Style Guide" will be a necessary evil...

No flipping on the Moon since it provides no advantage there (No aerobraking)