midev

Can you explain why you shouldn't rely on media memories as truth?

> Suddenly he's not on the ballot in most of the remaining states

Can you list these states? This should be easy to verify.

> concluded the DNC has the absolute right to run primaries any way it chooses to

Can you cite a law that tells private parties who they must support?

> I really don't understand how you jumped to this condescending conclusion.

If you believe that financial regulations are the "nanny", you probably only have a child-like understanding of things. In that case, condescension is warranted. It means you don't have the experience needed to comment seriously on the topic.

> It is here to replace a faulty and completely outdated financial infrastructure

Yet it performs worse in every measurable metric. How many transactions per second can Bitcoin sustain? Four, lmao.

> The same laws against criminals apply whether they use crypto or not.

One does not need to be a criminal for proper regulations to apply. Again, this is the immaturity of people commenting.

> I can protect my own money, thank you. I do not need a nanny

I love when people out themselves as having never worked on anything significant. Yeah, sure, for your pocket change, I'm sure you can reasonably protect it. For any significant transaction, I want the ability to reclaim my money if the other side turns out to be fraudulent.

> They failed, by definition

That's not what "by definition" means...

This article is nonsense, and typical of intellectually dishonest right-wingers. They always claim that it was actually regulation the whole time that caused the problems! Wow! Yet we can look at the regulations the author cites, and what were ultimately the reasons for the end of wildcat banks, and see those were obviously not the cause.

Regardless, the lessons learned are still applicable today. Whether wildcat banks were common or not doesn't change that most cryptocurrencies mirror the failed wildcat banks of the past.

It's kind of a dumb question, to be fair. It should be fairly obvious that I'm trying to sway the people reading the comment.

> that were wrong about crypto years ago

No, they were exactly right. In ten years, cryptocurrencies have produced nothing of value except speculation. This is like saying the Dutch that didn't sell their homes to buy into the tulip bulb craze were wrong. Sure, people have made huge gains, like all ponzi schemes generate. Most are bagholders, though.

> even as crypto is clearly changing the world like the internet did in the 90s and mobile in the 00s.

Crypto hasn't changed a single thing about the world. There is not a single popular thing backed by crypto. Every example you gave in this thread was either weak, like that DeFi Pulse link, or just straight not even using crypto, like Eco.

When you as an expert can't even identify a popular product using crypto at it's core, it doesn't speak very highly.

> I have been full-time in crypto for years. I could write you a 10,000-word essay on crypto's promising use cases. But, I believe that you, and many others on HN, don't want to hear it.

I am an actual cryptographer and would love to read world salad like that.

> That's too bad, because you guys grew up on sci-fi and rigor, and now you're ignoring that crypto is both rigorously successful and cypherpunk sci-fi come to life.

Stop. Libertarian dorks that don't understand the history of finance is hardly the sci-fi we want.

So you're saying he betrayed the United States for a far worse, criminally oppressive regime? Everything in your comment makes him out to be a far bigger piece of shit. He betrayed the world for Russia, and now has far more deaths on his hands.

Damn you made me think even less of Snowden. You should tell more people about Bill Browder's story.

Oh yeah I forgot how revered he is. Which is why he's hiding in oppressive regimes, lol.

Even in the tech community, the most sympathetic group possible, half the people revile him as a self-serving traitor.

Nobody takes him or his supporters serious. Hard to hear, I know.

I love it. He leaves for one of the most repressive countries in the world, but gets a pass because he's critical of the United States.

This is why nobody takes him or his supporters seriously.

Fortune cookies are rarely good advice. Him aligning himself with actual evil diminishes anything he has to say.

It makes him a self-serving hypocrite.

The parent didn't say anything close to this.

You need to calm down and read what's actually written, otherwise you're going to make liberals look like uneducated, unhinged, lunatics.

I can be critical of CNN without praising Fox News....