First they came for steam, then they came for itch.io .
First they came for steam, then they came for itch.io .
You're viewing a single thread.
196 comments
-
I find it funny that a lot of the fediverse is anti-cryptocurrency, yet this is a perfect example of a problem cryptocurrency can solve. No one can stop you from transacting on a number of blockchains.
-
Too bad cryptobros are more interested in using it as a speculative investment/scam machine than an actual currency.
-
Yeah the wild swings in exchange value instantly preclude its use as a currency.
-
Yes you are right, there are always grifters everywhere, unfortunately.
-
-
In theory, crypto could be good for this, but crypto is used (and designed) more as an investment than a transaction tool.
Also, the issue here is not centralized currency under a government, it's centralized payment processing under monopolistic private companies. Crypto is not required to solve that, all that is needed is an alternative payment processor (in an ideal world, probably a public one run by that government, since in a modern world that seems like an essential service to me).
-
It's a good point, but a payment processor run by the government would also be under pressure (from voters) to wield its power to suppress marginal content.
Imagine a US-government-run payment processor right now - it would be blocking anyone that sells anything "woke" or "DEI".
-
I am a strong believer in democracy. I don't think that the answer to a bad government is to reduce the power of the government, because that power will inevitably go to undemocratic institutions. Only the government is accountable to the people. So even when the government is currently controlled by people I dislike, I still want more things to be brought under the power of the government rather than privatized.
The answer to bad government actions, in my view, is to fight for a more democratic government, and zealously advocate for good ideas among the voting population.
-
Yeah, that's a good point. I guess in light of that what I would say is that, if you are going to have a state-run payment processor, you need to build in a) pluralism (enable and encourage multiple processors) and b) legal protections (legally guarantee that the payment processor has a limited remit in terms of allowing all payments unless instructed to block them by a court order) which would help mitigate or slow down anti-democratic backsliding.
-
Honestly, I am OK with payment processors being privatized, they always have been. What needs to happen is regulatory legislation that restricts the grounds on which a financial institution can reject a transaction to strictly what violates interstate commerce law.
-
Just because they always have been doesn't mean it's good. It's definitely not good for private companies to have monopoly power like that. That power will only be used for their gain (and our collective loss).
-
Fair enough. I guess I am just so used to the way things are I struggle to see how a government payment processor works without running the risk of police overreach. I do understand that long standing agencies like the IRS and DoE do a good job of fending off advances of police trying to illegally obtain private info, but a new agency or new power for an agency wherein they have access to the exact purchase data of every transaction done using anything other than cash gives me strong pause. It would be trivial to put it under the executive branch and put in there that if someone uses it they waive their 4th Amendment rights in such a way that it is not unconstitutional. The police state already wants to push us towards a cashless society because getting the information is already borderline too easy and there are privacy laws in place to supposedly protect us from such intrusion. Taking out the middle man means I have to trust some department head who is probably a political appointee, and we all see how well that can go.
Rock meet hard place.
-
-
-
-
-
True, but crypto is used very successfully all the time to purchase things online. Now just because most of those transactions are for drugs doesn't mean it doesn't work, steam should start accepting monero, the only truly secure and private crypto currency.
-
They do accept Bitcoin, so that's something.
-
-
In theory, crypto could be good for this, but crypto is used (and designed) more as an investment than a transaction tool.
I would argue that while crypto is as investment now, it was initially designed and intended to be used for transactions.
Out of curiosity though, why do you think this situation would be any different if it were government controlled? Especially considering that you sometimes have administrations like Trump's, which would do anything no matter how corrupt.
-
If it were government controlled, it would be accountable to the people, to the extent that the government is democratic (ideally, much more than it is now), and would also be run as a service rather than for profit.
-
-
-
If it was used as an actual currency instead of an investment vehicle for speculators, that would help.
It also has zero protection from scams and fraud.
-
I mean you can use it as currency, and I do sometimes. I have bought plenty of steam games with Bitcoin. I've also bought a bunch of stuff on Newegg, and other places online.
It has exactly as much protection from scams and fraud as cash does, that's essentially what it is.
-
Cash has zero protection too
-
And I don't give cash to anonymous people online. I only use cash in-person for immediate services or products.
-
-
-
Crypto is so heavily regulated now, I don't even know how to procure any cause all the sites I have used years ago are just dead now.
-
In KYC systems it is really easy to acquire—companies are willing to sell it to you with no problems.
If you want to get it anonymously, the easiest would probably be to buy via cash. In Switzerland, you can buy via some atms
-
If you are in the UK, here is one.
-
-
Monero
-
Couldn't you just masturbate the normal way?
-
-
It’s more fun when it’s freaky
-
-
196 comments