hectorr1

This is the hard part:

> the only thinking you'll have to do is how to manage your private keys securely.

But it’s also the fun part, because it’s the first time you really need persistent end-user key management. Obviously a hard problem, but there’s a ton of money on the line if you solve the UX. And imagine what else you can do once we’re not relying on passwords and federated auth.

While this may have been an unfortunate reality in previous eras, today we can get much better information from researchers and practitioners.

Most successful people have X.

Government: “Let’s give everyone X!”

Over time the value of X is diluted, loses its status signaling, and overall quality degrades.

Successful people move to Y.

Which is clearly why the U.S. is such a terrible environment for starting new businesses.

Tether is the FUD that never stops giving, anyone remember Bitfinexed from 2017?

Do people try to manipulate price? Of course they do. Sometimes it works, retail investors get excited and pile in. Sometimes it doesn't, and whales get rekt. Markets are messy.

How do we fix this? Stop barring Bitcoin companies from working with mainstream banks, and USDT volume will dry up.

> And, why do they need to be productive?

Because the entire global economy is premised on having enough growth to pay off the debt incurred by previous generations. If people choose to be less productive the whole edifice comes crashing down.

Doesn't once mention First Amendment protections. Code is speech, and the internet is the press. This is an attempt to ban an idea.

It's not hard - just build more housing. Prop 13 and local politics make this so much harder than necessary.

Usable cryptography.

iPhone-level UX for private key management.

People care about privacy, and more are willing to pay for it. There is a massive opportunity for direct monetization through cryptocurrency users, and the things you could build when this problem is solved...

The US military sells itself on being incredibly capable thanks to developing and fielding cutting edge weapons technology.

It is actually capable because it is extremely effective at logistics and maintenance.

Very few people turn that down, and even fewer are capable of running $100B companies. But those who are in the second camp are also probably in the first camp, because being an effective CEO requires the irrational confidence of first believing you are an effective CEO with limited evidence.

It's a little tautological, but the fact that they took it means they probably wouldn't have succeeded.

I don't think that the distinction between art and technology stands up to scrutiny. Both are iterative creative processes, and we want to empower future generations of both artists and technologists to build their ideas in a way that advances the current stack. Allowing art to be balkanized with excessive copyright hurts cultural development. And we depend on culture to shape everything, including our current environment that fosters technical innovation.

No, but Google needs to worry about a much more important constituency. There are not that many people who know how to build something like this.

Most are probably wealthy, to the point they don't really need to work. All of them can figure out how to covertly contact journalists. And at least a few of them are starting to have qualms about the negative consequences of industry ignoring the social implications in pursuit of profit.