this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
18 points (100.0% liked)

Buttcoin

2337 readers
70 users here now

Buttcoin is the future of online butts. Buttcoin is a peer-to-peer butt. Peer-to-peer means that no central authority issues new butts or tracks butts.

A community for hurling ordure at cryptocurrency/blockchain dweebs of all sorts. We are only here for debate as long as it amuses us. Meme stocks are also on topic.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Because they're very stupid people.

That's a reductive statement, but it's basically the whole thing when you get right down to it. The entire rationalist movement - referring specifically to the Elizer Yudkowsky bastardization of the term here - is basically bad logic that appeals to people who think they're smart, but aren't actually smart enough to recognize it as bad logic. Elizer sells the fiction that smart people don't actually have to trust in experts or commonly established scientific methods because they can just deduce all the answers to the universe by applying logic. This presumes some kind of inherent superpower of intelligence and effectively teaches it's adherents to treat every presumption they make as scientific fact. This makes you very prone to reinforcing bad ideas, and makes you extremely vulnerable to scams that prey on your belief in your own intelligence. Crypto is the perfect version of such a scam.

There's also a massive overlap between rationalists and libertarians because a fundamental belief in the supremacy of your own mind, with its attendant presumption that the vast majority of people are incredibly stupid because they don't agree with you, tends to align very strongly with individualist philosophies. And of course, it takes a very special kind of stupid to believe that libertarianism - a school of thought that proposes that we privatize roads by building quadruple decker porous glass bridges, among other things - is actually a good idea.

[–] sleepundertheleaves@infosec.pub 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

There's also a massive overlap between rationalists and libertarians because a fundamental belief in the supremacy of your own mind, with its attendant presumption that the vast majority of people are incredibly stupid because they don't agree with you, tends to align very strongly with individualist philosophies.

This is absolutely true and, I think, is also the core answer to OP's question about why rationalists love cryptocurrency.

Because the core conceit of Bitcoin, and everything that followed, was the idea that you could "be your own bank" - that you would have complete control over, and complete responsibility for, your own financial transactions. If you get hacked or scammed, or send your money to the wrong account, or lose your private key, or forget your password, there's no bank or government you can appeal to to fix the problem. Once cryptocurrency is gone, it's gone for good.

And to be clear, this is cryptocurrency working as intended - independently of the scams and the bullshit and the obvious fact that cryptocurrency is based on nothing but people's belief in its value, the fact that erroneous cryptocurrency transactions cannot be reversed is a feature. It's a selling point.

For normal people, this is obviously a horrible idea, because normal people recognize they can make mistakes and want to be able to fix those mistakes, especially when they involve things like their life savings.

Libertarians and rationalists and their ilk, on the other hand, don't really believe they can make mistakes. They think other people are stupid and irresponsible. Other people could screw up and lose their money. But the libertarian, with his superior mind, does not fear making a mistake or becoming the victim of theft. He's too smart for that. His confidence in himself is boundless.

So the libertarian doesn't need the safety net of laws and governments and banks and credit agencies that protect the average person from theft and error. When the libertarian is told he can be his own bank, and save his wealth in a format designed for irreversible transactions, where one mistake would lead to his wealth disappearing forever... well, the libertarian thinks this is a great idea, because he doesn't believe he would ever make a mistake.

You have to think yourself very smart indeed to be that stupid.

[–] CinnasVerses@awful.systems 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

There are whole families of confidence games which rely on convincing the mark that he is about to cheat a third party.

I think the same pattern is why the subculture keeps spawning scams and gurus. Yud teaches in HPMOR that intelligence is the ability to predict the future and manipulate people and the best person is the most intelligent, so if you want to be his disciple, you try to find someone you can manipulate. The idea that you could work together with your community to shut down that pattern of behaviour and expel repeat offenders is alien to them, and most of them have trouble with the idea of being honest about what you want.

[–] Architeuthis@awful.systems 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

This makes so much sense, and also explains why siskind's readers are fine with him being ~~openly disingenuous~~ sorry I meant amenable to straussian readings.

[–] CinnasVerses@awful.systems 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I think it got started with Yud and Salamon thinking "I'm not sure about race and IQ, but this community lets us recruit people to fight Skynet," Siskind thinking "I'm not sure if Skynet is a danger but this community will let me spread the Truth about Black people," and Bostrom and MacAskill thinking "bednet EA is a bit lame but it will let us recruit people to conquer Death together." Then the people really interested in Ivermectin or COVID origins arrived and wanted to spread those ideas while slinging Rationalist jargon. And like El Sandifer predicted, most of them were not able to share their favourite brainworm without being infected by the others which were being passed around.

[–] Architeuthis@awful.systems 1 points 1 hour ago

most of them were not able to share their favourite brainworm without being infected by the others which were being passed around

The good old cultic milieu.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

really because they come from the same Californian Ideology roots

[–] diz@awful.systems 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

And 100% of them are just trying to suck up to the rich the hardest to get some cash thrown their way for posting. Their whole community has been built 100% around that from day 1.

[–] Evinceo@awful.systems 7 points 1 day ago

I was gonna say 'libertarian brainrot' but yours is more specific.

[–] BioMan@awful.systems 4 points 2 days ago

Because their proximity in space and time to where it originated let them preferentially be at the top of the pyramid scheme.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

I like the idea behind cryptocurrencies, decentralized and outside of the control of any single person or entity

Obviously there's gazillion problems with them that makes the whole thing fall apart in practice

[–] aio@awful.systems 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

i can kinda understand "liking the idea" in the same way that I "like" the very simple currency systems in single-player video games, where you do work (fight monsters, collect items, win Pokemon battles) and are automatically rewarded with currency you can use to buy items, which are always reasonably-priced because the game developers balanced it that way. It's just that these systems have nothing to do with reality. But that simplistic view of money is pretty much all that's left of cryptocurrencies if you look past the get-rich-quick scheme.

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 11 points 2 days ago

"I like everything about cryptocurrency except all the things that are wrong with it".

Not really sure why currency has to be "outside the control of any single person or entity". Other than an intellectual curiosity. Currency is inherently social. Goldbugs keep harping on about the inherent value of gold, but its value is just as socially constructed as cowry shells or giant granite rings. China was a huge trading party in the time before the Opium wars and it preferred silver to gold.

[–] BioMan@awful.systems 7 points 2 days ago

The existence of a currency that everyone can transact in is fundamentally a public good. It must be maintained with the public good in mind, rather than the good of whoever happens to have lots of it or whoever has the ability to personally influence it.

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Are you sure something that something that approximates this is a good thing?

Not to mention that I don't think it's possible to truely make something like that in the physical sense. You can make Forward Time Traveling Anal ZProof Coinbutt that gives you free Blockchain blowjobs, shit is about as good as using the money in SimCity 3000 save files as a medium of exchange if it doesn't connect to reality (i.e. has a system of sourcing and managing information in a reliable manner).

Or am I missing something? Genuinely curious.

You often hear crypto proponents on Threadi (not the oort cloud of types who de facto only care about high risk speculation and are pushing bags, the genuine ones) say that they want to use crypto as a way to fight data brokers/collection, but that doesn't make sense (to me). The payment is just one step of the process and you can't leave civilization at scale.

But for me personally, I don't see the point of such a system if one can't manage current challenges with human organisation in democratic leaning countries or perhaps even more broadly (at whatever level/scale that is relevant for you). It seems like you would just be back at square one but with more wallets, random useless shit you have to memorize and having to track client/protocols updates and some other crap.

Sure we might get a technology at some point in the future that truly impacts human nature, but in that case all bets are off and we are entering pretty avangarde sci-fi.