> Cypherpunk-styled creations — think of Bitcoin, PGP, Tor, and WikiLeaks—were to be transformative because they challenge authority and address basic freedoms: freedom of speech, movement, and economic engagement.
I know it's not a widely accepted view on HN but you shouldn't downvote just because you hate cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin and Ethereum (Ethereum which has switched to proof-of-stake, now consuming a negligible amount of energy) are actually two semi-successes of the cypherpunks. They were created as challenges to authority and released as free for anyone to use.
What happened next is open for discussion but I don't think the intentions were bad.
The intentions were not malicious, but they were poorly thought out. The way these coins either trend towards matching stock market trends or going to zero was inevitable based on their design.
I reject the idea of crypto currencies in its current form because it only offers an illusion of freedom from a corrupt fractional reserve financial system. The systems that are built on top of of this infrastructure, at its roots, attempts to turn everything into a commodity. It's an inherently flawed principle and I think many people that frequent HN are smart enough to see that.
I know it's not a widely accepted view on HN but you shouldn't downvote just because you hate cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin and Ethereum (Ethereum which has switched to proof-of-stake, now consuming a negligible amount of energy) are actually two semi-successes of the cypherpunks. They were created as challenges to authority and released as free for anyone to use.
What happened next is open for discussion but I don't think the intentions were bad.