It seems to me that you’re a typical transparency fetishist ...

npub1e7dsdk7muyx80cra5lyxjwjl6nxshal7v46fj0yt4pawf4jqpsrsk7u0wq
hex
3a7b9acc02eea9acb63e1468ea87477882c8b6f427efd09d122c34b0e236f984nevent
nevent1qqsr57u6espwa2dvkclpg682sarh3qkgkm6z0m7sn5fzcd9sugm0npqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsvlxcxm0d7zrrhup760jrf8f0afngt7llx2aye8j96s7hy6eqqcpctakd9xKind-1 (TextNote)
↳ 回复 事件不存在
b033d234fcb9c0d8427b3fd4af3e64f63121907d6c5e21ce065f7c723ab3291f...
It seems to me that you’re a typical transparency fetishist who misunderstands the concept of the “price signal” in a market economy and tries to use it as a justification for violating individual privacy.
A price signal (the information about how much a good is sold for) does not require the identities of the transaction parties or their wallet balances to be transparent. To know that a commodity costs $10 in the market, there is no need for the entire world to know the buyer’s family tree and bank account. Essentially, you are confusing the information economy with a surveillance society. Unfortunately, your argument represents the most pitiful example of confusing market economics with panopticon collectivism. You need to understand these things:
Signals are not metadata. In capitalism, the price signal is a result of the voluntary exchange of property; it is not the expropriation of the property owner’s privacy. What the market needs is “price” information, not identity, financial X-rays, or the entire transaction history. The market’s knowledge of a transaction’s price does not require the person conducting the transaction’s wallet history and future spending capacity to be displayed like an all-you-can-eat buffet.
Your claim that “third-party oversight is a prerequisite of capitalism” describes not a free market, but at best a corporatist form of interventionism. Capitalism is the transfer of property between two individuals, remember? The necessity of involving a third party (a supervisor, regulator, or nosey neighbor) in this process constitutes an assault on the very essence of property rights. If a “supervisor” is required for the transfer of property, that property no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the supervisor or to those who appointed the supervisor.
You are caught in a collectivist delusion, my dude. For claiming that other buyers have the right to scrutinize every single exchange transaction amounts to marketing individual property as if it were collective property. The mathematical relationship between my money and the product I purchase creates only a price data point in the market. Any technical data leakage beyond this (such as in Bitcoin’s transparent blockchain) does not enhance market efficiency; rather, it fuels the state’s appetite for confiscation and the parasitism of blockchain analysis firms.
Privacy is not about distancing or separating oneself from the market, but about rescuing the market from tyranny and restoring it to being “private” or “exclusive.” You need to learn "the freedom of (dis)association" norm for good. As I said at the beginning, Monero is a mathematical defense against this shallow surveillance fetishism. True capitalism is property where no one but the owner has permission or knowledge. The rest is just an "authorized slavery" economy.
I must regretfully inform you that what you are actually defending with your argument is not capitalism or free-market dynamics -which are fundamentally about human interaction- but rather a form of “techno-socialism” or “cyber-socialism.” Regardless of who or what attempts to implement or enforce it, central planning is inevitably doomed to collapse.
原始 JSON
{
"kind": 1,
"id": "3a7b9acc02eea9acb63e1468ea87477882c8b6f427efd09d122c34b0e236f984",
"pubkey": "cf9b06dbdbe10c77e07da7c8693a5fd4cd0bf7fe6574993c8ba87ae4d6400c07",
"created_at": 1777967379,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"cf9b06dbdbe10c77e07da7c8693a5fd4cd0bf7fe6574993c8ba87ae4d6400c07",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"f4a45a9fb954784883c250ddde152a250d09e34a454a69e092521247ae6d37a7",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"e",
"2c383cfd498e6f2899c1b46ee343ed44b3768fcfe94f4345c4c3a84f092d4490",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b033d234fcb9c0d8427b3fd4af3e64f63121907d6c5e21ce065f7c723ab3291f",
"",
"reply"
]
],
"content": "It seems to me that you’re a typical transparency fetishist who misunderstands the concept of the “price signal” in a market economy and tries to use it as a justification for violating individual privacy. \n\nA price signal (the information about how much a good is sold for) does not require the identities of the transaction parties or their wallet balances to be transparent. To know that a commodity costs $10 in the market, there is no need for the entire world to know the buyer’s family tree and bank account. Essentially, you are confusing the information economy with a surveillance society. Unfortunately, your argument represents the most pitiful example of confusing market economics with panopticon collectivism. You need to understand these things: \n\nSignals are not metadata. In capitalism, the price signal is a result of the voluntary exchange of property; it is not the expropriation of the property owner’s privacy. What the market needs is “price” information, not identity, financial X-rays, or the entire transaction history. The market’s knowledge of a transaction’s price does not require the person conducting the transaction’s wallet history and future spending capacity to be displayed like an all-you-can-eat buffet.\n\nYour claim that “third-party oversight is a prerequisite of capitalism” describes not a free market, but at best a corporatist form of interventionism. Capitalism is the transfer of property between two individuals, remember? The necessity of involving a third party (a supervisor, regulator, or nosey neighbor) in this process constitutes an assault on the very essence of property rights. If a “supervisor” is required for the transfer of property, that property no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the supervisor or to those who appointed the supervisor.\n\nYou are caught in a collectivist delusion, my dude. For claiming that other buyers have the right to scrutinize every single exchange transaction amounts to marketing individual property as if it were collective property. The mathematical relationship between my money and the product I purchase creates only a price data point in the market. Any technical data leakage beyond this (such as in Bitcoin’s transparent blockchain) does not enhance market efficiency; rather, it fuels the state’s appetite for confiscation and the parasitism of blockchain analysis firms.\n\nPrivacy is not about distancing or separating oneself from the market, but about rescuing the market from tyranny and restoring it to being “private” or “exclusive.” You need to learn \"the freedom of (dis)association\" norm for good. As I said at the beginning, Monero is a mathematical defense against this shallow surveillance fetishism. True capitalism is property where no one but the owner has permission or knowledge. The rest is just an \"authorized slavery\" economy.\n\nI must regretfully inform you that what you are actually defending with your argument is not capitalism or free-market dynamics -which are fundamentally about human interaction- but rather a form of “techno-socialism” or “cyber-socialism.” Regardless of who or what attempts to implement or enforce it, central planning is inevitably doomed to collapse.",
"sig": "beab20b84b146a03632b44b5c00da3b99658c8c6317f085b23b903d3582358a901fc9fd83c27d1e85e1b907179a43931819caded93ce55982494c5de066710cd"
}