Has the anti-crypto side run out of core arguments? Or is it just people getting emotional about crypto? The latest top post is trying to argue against "don't trust, verify" (I kid you not), and telling us that the solution is to just be more trusting of

I remember when the anti-crypto subs used to be a good source to occasionally see some of the good counter arguments, and a reminder that this was still a technology in development and point out the flaws and issues.

But it seems to have become increasingly more emotional, rather than bringing any balanced arguments or any real objectivity.

The latest top voted post on one of these subs, is arguing against "don't trust, verify", based on the premise that it's bad because it's libertarian, anti-government, and an anti-social idea, and therefore it's similar to anti-mask, anti-vaxx, anti-gun arguments...

I'm not gonna link the post (I don't want to cause any brigading, and don't want to cause some of you to go stir shit up over there). I'm just gonna quote it.

​

The biggest problem with crypto, the one that dwarves all of the other ones, is that crypto is an antisocial project. It is the brainchild of libertarians, who see any intervention of the state as being unalloyed bad. What we should be striving for, in their minds, is a society in which each person is an island, independent from the others, free to do as they please.

​

And this argument below, in our age of misinformation, AI fakes, Russian bots, more people making wild claims on social media etc...takes the cake:

​

You see it in their adages. “Don’t trust, verify”, for instance. Ok, you can verify the state of the chain, that’s great. But try to extend that to another domain to see if it works as a general principle. Take ingredient lists in foodstuffs: should you “not trust but verify" those if you’re allergic to nuts? What would that even look like? Should everyone have a lab at home? It makes no sense. We cannot have a society if we cannot trust each other.

​

Of course if there's a way to remove some centralized corruption, not have one person or company monopolize the control, and there's a way we can increase our ability to verify, we should definitely verify when it matters. Especially with our money. But that doesn't mean we need to have a lab to test everything. That's taking it to the extreme.

At the same time, it wouldn't hurt for people to once in a blue moon get a little practice with the scientific method, just to remember how it works.

​

And then, for some reason, anti-crypto people have a thing for comparing crypto people who want decentralization and remove the need to trust, to anti-mask and anti-vaxx nuts, preppers, and think we're all pro guns:

They will be gleeful when talking about 3d printed guns or other ways to bypass regulations.

​

Another comorbidity is the prepper attitude, with people working to live “off the grid”, stocking up on canned food, supplies, and, of course, ammo. Oh, and guess what those people thought of the response to Covid?

​

Proving that a mask is an adequate way to limit the spread of covid isn’t going to convince them: masks were mandated by the state, so they are bad. Likewise, scams, or the myriad promises of crypto that never came true will not change their minds: they are in it to destroy the state. So what if some people get burned? That’s a small price to pay.

​

I get that crypto is not perfect, it still needs more work, there's a lot of speculation and scams in the space that often distract from its core purposes.

But it's hard to argue against the core concept of decentralization and blockchain, of "don't trust, verify", the need for these things, and the fact that it's good to at least have the option of being able to chose between trust and trustless.

To say that we should trust governments and banks more, to be less "anti-social", and do away with verification, is just backwards and irresponsible.

​